From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Oct 1 01:11:04 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 17:11:04 -0700 Subject: [blml] Pre-duplication procedures for Swiss Team Events References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB10D6@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <002201c387b0$8231c700$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Someone mentioned having byes with an odd number of tables in a Swiss, to avoid three-ways. How does that work scorewise? Who gets the bye each round? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Oct 1 02:53:38 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 11:53:38 +1000 Subject: [blml] Byes Message-ID: In the thread, "Pre-duplication procedures for Swiss Team Events, Marvin L. French asked: >Someone mentioned having byes with an odd number of >tables in a Swiss, to avoid three-ways. How does that >work scorewise? Who gets the bye each round? Richard James Hills replies: Sven mentioned that three-way Swiss matches are unpopular in Norway, so that byes are usually selected instead. Three-way Swiss matches are also unpopular in Australia, but in Oz sitting out for 8 boards is even more unpopular. However, sometimes an Aussie team will inadvertently sit out for 8 boards, due to a late arrival or forfeit of their designated opponents. The ABF reg is that the team winning by forfeit gets either: * 18 vps (the ABF uses the WBF 25 vp scale), or * the winning team's average vps in other matches, or * the reciprocal of the losing team's average vps in other matches, whichever is the greater of the three amounts. The team osing by forfeit, of course, is awarded zero vps. 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 Oct 1 03:47:20 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 12:47:20 +1000 Subject: [blml] ABF casebook, appeal 3 Message-ID: http://www.abf.com.au/directors/appeals.html Appeal No.3 Date: 17/01/02 Event: Seniors teams round 3 Dlr: S N/S vul South West North East 1NT(1) Pass Pass 2NT(2) Pass 3C Pass 3D(3) Pass 3NT Pass Pass Pass (1) 12-14 (2) Alerted as a good 2-suiter (3) Now promises diamonds & a major North (you) Q2 T9532 872 QJ2 West (dummy) A75 KJ74 1063 K63 The play: South West North East H6 HJ H2 D4 S8 SA S2 S3 S9 S5 SQ S4 Your partner uses neither count nor suit-preference signals. What are your logical alternatives at trick 4? 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 henk@ripe.net Wed Oct 1 07:02:36 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 08:02:36 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [blml] Pre-duplication procedures for Swiss Team Events In-Reply-To: <002201c387b0$8231c700$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB10D6@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <002201c387b0$8231c700$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Marvin French wrote: > > Someone mentioned having byes with an odd number of tables in a Swiss, > to avoid three-ways. How does that work scorewise? Who gets the bye each > round? Here one simply adds a team "bye" to the field. This team loses every match, scoring 0 VP's themselves and average+ VP's for their opponents. The "bye" team will play against the last team in the field. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From svenpran@online.no Wed Oct 1 07:27:46 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 08:27:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Pre-duplication procedures for Swiss Team Events In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c387e5$20e8bcd0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Henk Uijterwaal=20 > > Someone mentioned having byes with an odd number of tables in a = Swiss, > > to avoid three-ways. How does that work scorewise? Who gets the bye = each > > round? >=20 > Here one simply adds a team "bye" to the field. This team loses every > match, scoring 0 VP's themselves and average+ VP's for their = opponents. >=20 > The "bye" team will play against the last team in the field. >=20 The "bye" team will play against the last team in the field which they = have not already met. (The "bye" team is treated like any other team). Maybe surprising, but in Norway Swiss is more common with events for = pairs than with events for teams, and in pairs we have no alternative to sit = outs when there is an odd number of pairs participating in an event. For scoring purposes we always apply Law 88 for a pair who due to a sit = out (not because of their own "fault") cannot play one or more boards. This enables us to keep a running score where all pairs can easily be = compared all the time, and it also solves whatever problem we otherwise might run into when a sit out is eliminated half way through the event in the case = an extra pair books in on the event after it has started. We have some time ago been through a lengthy discussion on this; I have = no intention on reopening that discussion but simply states: That is how we = do it.=20 Sven =20 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Oct 1 14:38:35 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 14:38:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Natural and Conventional Message-ID: <004301c38821$51254080$229468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Herman DE WAEL] 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. [Nigel] As Todd Zimoch and Herman point out, the current TFLB seems to need such definitions only in a couple of contexts. And, IMO, Herman's recommendations are excellent. My interest in such definitions is mainly in the context of *disclosure* ("Alert" or better "Explain" rules), currently a gaping hole in TFLB, that is be remedied by SOs in many different ways. Admittedly, even for disclosure such definitions are unnecessary, if you define a standard system. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.522 / Virus Database: 320 - Release Date: 29/09/2003 From free-domains-now-@yahoo.co.uk Wed Oct 1 14:48:05 2003 From: free-domains-now-@yahoo.co.uk (-relevant domain names) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 10:48:05 -0300 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) thousands of domain extensions Message-ID: LKJHNARCUTFGANHR
Any Domain, Any E-mail Address Now Available

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

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

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

Search for your domain names at dot WORLDS

Domains subject to availability.

Click here to unsubscribe
From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Oct 1 16:12:48 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:12:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Standard References: Message-ID: <006801c3882e$7a432600$229468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Todd Zimnoch] 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. [Nigel] Herman De Wael has a simple remedy to completely avoid defining "conventional" for law L27B -- to allow the change of call but regulate the UI -- and that seems a reasonable solution. My concern is with Disclosure, which I think is mainly covered by L40(a-e). Currently the TFLB relinquishes most of its jurisdiction over this area to the whims and caprices of ZOs who may delegate that responsibility even further. This dereliction of duty is understandable, given that regulation involves work and requires international diplomacy. Nevertheless, IMO, the WBFLC should pull back most of the responsibility for regulating disclosure. To do this, the WBFLC must... (1) Sanction standard system(s) -- or what amounts to the same thing -- (2) Accurately define words like "conventional." Arguably, the current definition is woolly and a bit of a mouthful. Perhaps you do need to start by defining some primitives like "Natural". If all that is deemed to entail too much hassle, Herman's solution again seems best -- *completely* relinquish the regulation of disclosure to ZOs, allowing them to define (or not to define) terms like "Convention" in any way they please. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.522 / Virus Database: 320 - Release Date: 29/09/2003 From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Oct 1 16:56:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:56 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Standard In-Reply-To: <006801c3882e$7a432600$229468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > My concern is with Disclosure, which I think is > mainly covered by L40(a-e). Whether a call is "conventional" or not has nothing to do with disclosure. Calls have meanings (including inferential ones) which must be fully disclosed. Conventional calls need not be alertable, natural calls can be alertable (this would be a feature of standard system based alerting or everybody adopting current WBF alerting rules). Tim From richard_willey@symantec.com Wed Oct 1 19:19:10 2003 From: richard_willey@symantec.com (Richard Willey) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 11:19:10 -0700 Subject: [blml] Purpose of the LAws (was Standard) In-Reply-To: <006801c3882e$7a432600$229468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: So long as we have padded completely into the realm of the Hypothetical, I would like to ask a very basic question about the purpose of the Laws. One interpretation of the legal system is that it empowers the authority to take actions as it sees fit. The primary purpose of the Laws to to provide different authorities with the tools necessary to work its will on the populace. This interpretation can be contrasted with a very different assumption. Here, the assumption is made that the primary purpose of the Laws is to limit the power of the authorities to excercise its will. Personally, I am most comfortable with the second interpretation. My primary concern is that the Zonal authorities exercise their power in a manner that I consider inappropriate. As a result, I look for ways to limit the scope of their actions. Case in point: One member of this list made the following suggestion: Zonal authorities should lose the authority to regulate conventions while retaining authority to control the disclosure of methods. I'd be willing to bet significant amounts of money that the ACBL would immediately respond with something similar to the following: 1. Any method that is not documented on a convention card may not be used. 2. Only the following set of methods may be documented on a convention card. In any case, I'd be curious to understand the perspective of other players. My understanding is that the majority opinion of the Laws commission is the first interpretation. They are actively empowering the Zones to do as they see fit and are not interested in proscribing their authority. However, it would be interesting to get a broader perspective. Richard Willey Strategic Marketing Symantec Corporation Office: (408) 517-7740 Interoffice: 6 [408] 7740 Mobile: (408) 410-7112 : Hail Ants From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Oct 2 00:39:47 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 00:39:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deja vu (was Standard) References: <02d201c386ca$e2e2b550$1de536d2@Desktop> <5.2.0.9.0.20030930082923.023eac90@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <002b01c38875$675cec00$63c3193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 1:33 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Deja vu (was Standard) > > 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." > +=+ Responding as though you had spoken in your own behalf, I would merely observe that the interpretation of the law has not given a blessing to such a regulation. It gives its blessing to placing in the domain of the regulator the determination whether such a regulation is of a kind beneficial to the game. ~ G ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Oct 2 00:46:47 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 09:46:47 +1000 Subject: [blml] Purpose of the LAws (was Standard) Message-ID: Richard Willey: >One interpretation of the legal system is that it empowers >the authority to take actions as it sees fit. >The primary purpose of the Laws to to provide different >authorities with the tools necessary to work its will on >the populace. > >This interpretation can be contrasted with a very >different assumption. >Here, the assumption is made that the primary purpose of >the Laws is to limit the power of the authorities to >exercise its will. [snip] Richard James Hills: As is my wont, I propose a mugwump third interpretation. In my opinion, the purposes of the new edition of the Laws in 2005 should be twofold: (a) providing an overarching framework defining what the *essential* game of bridge is (while leaving inessential details, such as the format of convention cards, to local Sponsoring Organisations), and (b) providing a consistent, unambiguous, less subjective (with a TD being more often required to assess "could have known", and less often required to assess "intentionally infracted"), redundant and indexed TD's manual. 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 Oct 2 01:20:45 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 10:20:45 +1000 Subject: [blml] Deja vu (was Standard) Message-ID: Eric Landau: >>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." Grattan Endicott: >+=3D+ Responding as though you had spoken in >your own behalf, I would merely observe that the >interpretation of the law has not given a blessing >to such a regulation. It gives its blessing to placing >in the domain of the regulator the determination >whether such a regulation is of a kind beneficial >to the game. ~ G ~ +=3D+ Richard James Hills: Eric's complaint is not hypothetical. Many non-USA blmlers may not realise that the USA has *two* recognised Sponsoring Organisations. One is the infamous American Contract Bridge League, the other is the unjustly obscure American Bridge Association. The ABA was established as a non-racist SO in pre- Martin Luther King days, when black people were prohibited from playing in many ACBL-affiliated bridge clubs. Since the American (and Australian) culture still contains ingrained racist attitudes, the ABA's reason for existence continues today. Therefore, I suggest that this sentence be added to the Scope of the Laws in 2005: "Sponsoring Organisations may not discriminate against bridge players on the grounds of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status." (Adapted from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article Two.) 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 Oct 2 01:44:16 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 10:44:16 +1000 Subject: [blml] Purpose of the LAws (was Standard) Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >On the whole I agree with (b) but I quibble about >redundancy. I prefer orthogonality because there is >less chance of inconsistency. We would all welcome >redundancy if by that you mean the inclusion of >illustrative case law examples. Richard James Hills: Yes, a partial meaning of what I intended by "redundancy" is illustrative examples. My further meaning of "redundancy" is repetition and co-location of Laws. Example: In the 1997 Laws, a TD is called due to a misinformation infraction before the opening lead, Law 75D2. Only a TD who has memorised TFLB will know that Law 21B1 subsequently applies. A "redundant" 2005 version of the Laws would place a copy of Law 21B1 as the final paragraph of Law 75D2. Nigel Guthrie: >As far as (a) is concerned, I would like TFLB to define >everything it sensibly can, especially alerting rules >(and even the format of CCs). Richard James Hills: We are in agreement on everything *except* the definition of the adjective "sensibly". In my opinion, and the opinion of many others, it is not "sensible" for a framework and manual to *unnecessarily* define fiddly details. In my opinion, local traditions and local bidding styles are best left for regulation by local SOs acting locally to suit their local bridge environment. Your local locum, 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 Oct 2 06:49:30 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 15:49:30 +1000 Subject: [blml] Subsidiarity (was 2 revokes.) Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >>But even specifying *local* standard systems would >>simplify alert laws. Richard James Hills: A genie has emerged from the lamp, announcing that Nigel's wish has been granted. See the attached ABF regulation on pre-Alerts: >3. Alert Stages > >There are three stages of the alerting process. >All are important. >* The pre-alert before bidding starts >* Alerts during the auction >* The delayed alerts by the declaring side before > the opening lead. > >3.1 Pre-alerts > >3.1.1 At the start of the round or match, pairs >should acquaint each other with their basic system, >length of their one level openings and the strength >of their opening 1NT. Subsequent questions about >these, whilst legal, may be regarded as >unauthorised information. > >3.1.2 This is the stage where you should draw the >opponents' attention to any unusual agreements you >have which might surprise them, or to which they >may need to arrange a defence. Pay particular >attention to unusual self-alerting calls. Examples: >transfer pre-empts, unusual two level openings, >canape style bidding, very unusual doubles, very >weak non-jump overcalls, unusual methods over the >opponents' 1NT or strong club openings, unusual >cue bids of the opponents' suit, etc. These should >appear on your system card, but should also be >verbally pre-alerted. > >3.1.3 Highly unusual carding (e.g. leading low from >doubletons) should also be pre-alerted at this >stage. 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 Thu Oct 2 07:41:55 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 07:41:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deja vu (was Standard) References: Message-ID: <002d01c388b0$7631c260$fe9c193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 1:20 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Deja vu (was Standard) ------------------ \x/ ---------------- Eric's complaint is not hypothetical. ------------------ \x/ ---------------- Therefore, I suggest that this sentence be added to the Scope of the Laws in 2005: "Sponsoring Organisations may not discriminate against bridge players on the grounds of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status." (Adapted from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article Two.) +=+ I did not read his comment as a complaint but merely as a misreading of the situation. The appropriate place for the item you suggest is the Constitution of the WBF. I would imagine it is covered by the requirement on members to conform to the Olympic Charter. ~ G ~ +=+ From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Oct 2 13:29:57 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 08:29:57 -0400 Subject: [blml] Deja vu (was Standard) In-Reply-To: <002b01c38875$675cec00$63c3193e@4nrw70j> References: <02d201c386ca$e2e2b550$1de536d2@Desktop> <5.2.0.9.0.20030930082923.023eac90@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031002082119.02332ec0@pop.starpower.net> At 07:39 PM 10/1/03, grandeval wrote: >+=+ Responding as though you had spoken in >your own behalf, I would merely observe that the >interpretation of the law has not given a blessing >to such a regulation. It gives its blessing to placing >in the domain of the regulator the determination >whether such a regulation is of a kind beneficial >to the game. "Beneficial to the game" can mean either beneficial to the game as a whole, for everyone, or beneficial to the game in a limited area, region or jurisdiction, for some limited constituency. When there is an international governing body comprised of representatives of individual constituencies, it is natural to assume regulations in the first class to be the responsibility of the international body, and those in the second class to be delegated to the regulating bodies of the organizations representing the individual constituencies. Many of us believe strongly that when it comes to regulation of bidding methods, the first class is not empty. 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 Oct 2 14:07:59 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 14:07:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Subsidiarity (was 2 revokes.) References: Message-ID: <001a01c388e6$350547e0$2e9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Richard James Hills: A genie has emerged from the lamp, announcing that Nigel's wish has been granted. See the attached ABF regulation on pre-Alerts: [Nigel] Are you being ironic, Richard? On the whole, I applaud these ABF regulations but I don't see how they directly advance the cause of a defining a standard system. In the UK, as well as pre-warning opponents, we insist on "pre-alert" material appearing on the front of the CC, and most of the rest inside. That seems reasonable to me. Anyway, why can't TFLB specify this kind of thing instead of it being implemented (or not) according to local whim? >3. Alert Stages > >There are three stages of the alerting process. >All are important. >* The pre-alert before bidding starts >* Alerts during the auction >* The delayed alerts by the declaring side before > the opening lead. > >3.1 Pre-alerts > >3.1.1 At the start of the round or match, pairs >should acquaint each other with their basic system, >length of their one level openings and the strength >of their opening 1NT. Subsequent questions about >these, whilst legal, may be regarded as >unauthorised information. > >3.1.2 This is the stage where you should draw the >opponents' attention to any unusual agreements you >have which might surprise them, or to which they >may need to arrange a defence. Pay particular >attention to unusual self-alerting calls. Examples: >transfer pre-empts, unusual two level openings, >canape style bidding, very unusual doubles, very >weak non-jump overcalls, unusual methods over the >opponents' 1NT or strong club openings, unusual >cue bids of the opponents' suit, etc. These should >appear on your system card, but should also be >verbally pre-alerted. > >3.1.3 Highly unusual carding (e.g. leading low from >doubletons) should also be pre-alerted at this >stage. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.522 / Virus Database: 320 - Release Date: 29/09/2003 From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Oct 2 18:50:39 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 18:50:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Deja vu (was Standard) References: <02d201c386ca$e2e2b550$1de536d2@Desktop> <5.2.0.9.0.20030930082923.023eac90@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002082119.02332ec0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <003801c3890d$d11bb520$514ae150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 1:29 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Deja vu (was Standard) > At 07:39 PM 10/1/03, grandeval wrote: > > >+=+ Responding as though you had spoken in > >your own behalf, I would merely observe that the > >interpretation of the law has not given a blessing > >to such a regulation. It gives its blessing to placing > >in the domain of the regulator the determination > >whether such a regulation is of a kind beneficial > >to the game. > > "Beneficial to the game" can mean either beneficial to > the game as a whole, for everyone, or beneficial to the > game in a limited area, region or jurisdiction, for some > limited constituency. When there is an international > governing body comprised of representatives of > individual constituencies, it is natural to assume > regulations in the first class to be the responsibility of > the international body, and those in the second class to > be delegated to the regulating bodies of the organizations representing the individual constituencies. > > Many of us believe strongly that when it comes to > regulation of bidding methods, the first class is not empty. > +=+ Yes, Eric, I recognize that you and others believe this. I also recognize that some of you feel you have a problem with your NBO or Zonal Authority in respect of such matters, which encourages you to argue for central control by the world body. I think I can say with certainty that the day is a long way off. I seek only to establish the way it is; the discussion that placed the subject in the second category occurred a long time ago and it will surprise me greatly if it changes in the present round. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From curnowr@bigpond.com Thu Oct 2 22:58:19 2003 From: curnowr@bigpond.com (Roger Curnow) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 07:58:19 +1000 Subject: [blml] Descrimination (was Deja vu (was Standard)) References: <002d01c388b0$7631c260$fe9c193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <006101c38930$4a58e080$1c49fea9@rebildjuly03> I suppose it depends on the definition of "discrimination" but i reckon The Olympic Charter or at least the implementation of it, discriminates on the grounds of sex and size and coffee drinking if on no other grounds. roger curnow ----- Original Message ----- From: "grandeval" To: Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 4:41 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Deja vu (was Standard) > > Grattan Endicott [alternatively cyaxares@lineone.net] > =============================== > " those (women) you fear may be rebellious > admonish, > banish them to their couches, and beat them." > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 1:20 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Deja vu (was Standard) > > > > ------------------ \x/ ---------------- > Eric's complaint is not hypothetical. > ------------------ \x/ ---------------- > Therefore, I suggest that this sentence be added to the > Scope of the Laws in 2005: > > "Sponsoring Organisations may not discriminate against > bridge players on the grounds of race, colour, sex, > language, religion, political or other opinion, national > or social origin, property, birth or other status." > > (Adapted from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, > Article Two.) > > +=+ I did not read his comment as a complaint but merely > as a misreading of the situation. The appropriate place for > the item you suggest is the Constitution of the WBF. I would > imagine it is covered by the requirement on members to > conform to the Olympic Charter. ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > > From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Oct 2 23:14:18 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 18:14:18 -0400 Subject: [blml] Deja vu (was Standard) In-Reply-To: <003801c3890d$d11bb520$514ae150@endicott> References: <02d201c386ca$e2e2b550$1de536d2@Desktop> <5.2.0.9.0.20030930082923.023eac90@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20031002082119.02332ec0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031002180112.01fe10e0@pop.starpower.net> At 01:50 PM 10/2/03, Grattan wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Eric Landau" > > > At 07:39 PM 10/1/03, grandeval wrote: > > > > >+=+ Responding as though you had spoken in > > >your own behalf, I would merely observe that the > > >interpretation of the law has not given a blessing > > >to such a regulation. It gives its blessing to placing > > >in the domain of the regulator the determination > > >whether such a regulation is of a kind beneficial > > >to the game. > > > > "Beneficial to the game" can mean either beneficial to > > the game as a whole, for everyone, or beneficial to the > > game in a limited area, region or jurisdiction, for some > > limited constituency. When there is an international > > governing body comprised of representatives of > > individual constituencies, it is natural to assume > > regulations in the first class to be the responsibility of > > the international body, and those in the second class to > > be delegated to the regulating bodies of the organizations >representing the individual constituencies. > > > > Many of us believe strongly that when it comes to > > regulation of bidding methods, the first class is not empty. > > >+=+ Yes, Eric, I recognize that you and others believe this. >I also recognize that some of you feel you have a problem >with your NBO or Zonal Authority in respect of such matters, >which encourages you to argue for central control by the >world body. I think I can say with certainty that the day is >a long way off. I seek only to establish the way it is; the >discussion that placed the subject in the second category >occurred a long time ago and it will surprise me greatly >if it changes in the present round. Grattan's message is clear, and I do recognize the reality of the situation. I understand I must content myself with the modest hope that, indeed, things will not change in the present round. Recall that my original contribution to the thread (the above is the second round with Grattan) was in response to a post calling for L40D to be expanded to allow SOs to regulate *all* agreements of any kind, so as to eliminate the need to define "conventions" in order to know what authority it actually grants. SOs already do indeed, as the ACBL has clearly proven, have the de facto authority to do whatever they want, but granting them the de jure authority to go with it would close off any hope whatsoever for the future. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Oct 2 23:25:03 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 08:25:03 +1000 Subject: [blml] Subsidiarity (was 2 revokes.) Message-ID: ABF regulation: >>3.1.3 Highly unusual carding (e.g. leading low from >>doubletons) should also be pre-alerted at this >>stage. Nigel Guthrie: >Are you being ironic, Richard? > >On the whole, I applaud these ABF regulations >but I don't see how they directly advance the >cause of a defining a standard system. Richard James Hills: Surely ABF regulation 3.1.3 defines that in an Aussie standard system, the standard is to lead top from a doubleton, with leading bottom from a doubleton being non-standard in Oz, and therefore the ABF reg requires a pre-alert of a lead style of bottom from a doubleton. Nigel Guthrie: >Anyway, why can't TFLB specify this kind >of thing instead of it being implemented >(or not) according to local whim? Richard James Hills: Because in Sweden reverse signals are highly popular. Many Swedes who use reverse signals, also lead bottom from a doubleton, for the sake of consistency. There are some theoretical advantages to leading bottom from a doubleton. Example: Bottom from a doubleton may prevent pard from being squeezed. It would be ridiculous for TFLB to explicitly ban the lead of bottom from a doubleton worldwide. In my opinion, it would be almost as ridiculous for TFLB to implicitly discourage the lead of bottom from a doubleton worldwide by *mandating* the worldwide pre-alert of bottom from a doubleton. However, there is too much heat and light if the issue of subsidiarity is discussed in conjunction with the issues of partnership agreements and alert regs, since the discussion gets tangled with the important principle of full disclosure. Instead, let us discuss subsidiarity with reference to the single issue of Victory Point scales. "Anyway, why can't TFLB specify Victory Point scales, instead of Victory Point scales being implemented (or not) according to local whim?" An excellent question. Law 78B specifies the IMP scale, so why not have a Law 78B & 1/2 specifying VP scales? The reason why Law 78B is a good idea, and a Law 78B & 1/2 would be a bad idea, I leave as an exercise for Nigel and other readers. Nigel - Your homework is due by 29th February 2005, so that you can finish your criticism of the current Laws, without overlapping with your criticism of the next 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 ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Oct 2 23:51:07 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 18:51:07 -0400 Subject: [blml] Subsidiarity (was 2 revokes.) In-Reply-To: <001a01c388e6$350547e0$2e9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: On Thursday, Oct 2, 2003, at 09:07 US/Eastern, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > In the UK, as well as pre-warning opponents, > we insist on "pre-alert" material appearing > on the front of the CC, and most of the rest > inside. That seems reasonable to me. Of course it does. That's the way you've done it for years. :-) It seems reasonable to me, too. But then, the first time I ever played duplicate was in college in 1971 - and the second was in England in 1990 (and I continued to play there until I left in 1993). I have no memory of convention cards in that first game. Objectively (I hope), I think the EBU card is, at least in that aspect, better than the ACBL card - but I doubt there will be substantial change to the latter anytime soon. After all, I suspect the ACBL design seems reasonable to many in the ACBL - including those who make the rules. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Oct 3 00:19:03 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 09:19:03 +1000 Subject: [blml] ABF casebook, appeal 3 Message-ID: http://www.abf.com.au/directors/appeals.html Appeal No.3 Date: 17/01/02 Event: Seniors teams round 3 Dlr: S N/S vul South West North East 1NT(1) Pass Pass 2NT(2) Pass 3C Pass 3D(3) Pass 3NT Pass Pass Pass (1) 12-14 (2) Alerted as a good 2-suiter (3) Now promises diamonds & a major North (you) Q2 T9532 872 QJ2 West (dummy) A75 KJ74 T63 K63 The play: South West North East H6 HJ H2 D4 S8 SA S2 S3 S9 S5 SQ S4 Your partner uses neither count nor suit-preference signals. What are your logical alternatives at trick 4? * * * The complete appeal: Director: D.Anderson Appeal Panel: I.Dahler Chair N.Francis M.Prescott A.Delivera P.Gue Q2 T9532 872 QJ2 A75 KT643 KJ74 --- T63 KJ954 K63 AT8 J98 AQ86 AQ 9754 Final Contract and result: 3NTE 10 tricks 430 to E/W Play if relevant: H6 led dummy's jack winning the trick. SA wins trick 2, then a small spade allowing North's SQ to hold the trick. Tournament Director's Report and decision: North was taking some time to decide what to lead, since a heart return may be giving declarer his 9th trick. East commented "they're only fifties". North now led the CQ and the contract made (declarer played on diamonds). Hardly an appropriate comment (Law 74B2). The directing staff felt that it was not clear that North had been damaged and believed that it would be best if it was dealt with by an appeal committee if need be, so no adjustment to the table score but suggested that N/S (non-offenders) should appeal. The director indicated that East was not prepared to defend the case if it went to appeal. Appellant's claim: There was uncertainty in the auction about what suits East had, but this was corrected to diamonds and a major before the lead was made. East's comment led North to believe that East was weaker than the hand he held, so North chose to attack clubs, believing that East's comment meant that declarer had no play for his contract. Responder's reply: Only North appeared, but East did attend after one of the directors suggested he should. Appeal committee decision: Were unanimous that if the directing staff had ruled in favour of the non-offending side, there would have been no appeal. The score was adjusted to 3NT down one, +50 to N/S, -50 to E/W. * * * Question 1: How would you have ruled as an Aussie TD? (Law 12C3 is not available to Aussie TDs.) Question 2: How would you have ruled as an Aussie AC? (Law 12C3 is enabled for Aussie ACs.) 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 Fri Oct 3 01:53:19 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 01:53:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Subsidiarity (was 2 revokes.) References: Message-ID: <001f01c38948$bd80eea0$179868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Richard James Hills] It would be ridiculous for TFLB to explicitly ban the lead of bottom from a doubleton worldwide. [Nigel] *sigh* -- for the umteenth time -- I haven't suggested anything like that. In fact, I lead bottom from (non-honour) doubletons myself. [Richard] "why can't TFLB specify Victory Point scales, instead of Victory Point scales being implemented (or not) according to local whim?" is excellent question. Law 78B specifies the IMP scale, so why not have a Law 78B & 1/2 specifying VP scales? The reason why Law 78B is a good idea, and a Law 78B & 1/2 would be a bad idea, I leave as an exercise for Nigel and other readers. [Nigel] Of course we support your L78.5B; but you can't really expect WBFLC to go to all that bother just for the convenience or ordinary players? :) [Richard] Nigel - Your homework is due by 29th February 2005, so that you can finish your criticism of the current Laws, without overlapping with your criticism of the next edition of the Laws. [Nigel] I do have a few other ideas for "improvements" but I've got bogged down defending my first half dozen suggestions. It has been quite useful because I've continuously modified proposals in the light of a plethora of valid criticisms. BTW, I am under no illusion that any of the suggestions are original. They are all too simple for that. Sometimes, however, a society urgently needs a naive individial to come forward and suffer ridicule for stating the blindingly obvious. Anybody know the source and original phrasing of that aphorism? I can't find it on Google :( As I've said before: it's hard to formulate simple, clear comprehensive, consistent, law as objectively as possible. So if WBFLC ever does decide to reverse direction, I am sure it will have to publish far more frequent revisions, in an attempt to get the law right. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.522 / Virus Database: 320 - Release Date: 30/09/2003 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Oct 3 03:36:05 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:36:05 +1000 Subject: [blml] Subsidiarity (was 2 revokes.) Message-ID: Richard James Hills: >>An excellent question. Law 78B specifies the IMP >>scale, so why not have a Law 78B & 1/2 specifying VP >>scales? The reason why Law 78B is a good idea, and a >>Law 78B & 1/2 would be a bad idea, I leave as an >>exercise for Nigel and other readers. Nigel Guthrie: >Of course we support your L78.5B; but you can't >really expect WBFLC to go to all that bother just >for the convenience of ordinary players? :) Richard James Hills: Five points taken from Gryffindor for failing to read the question - it is *not* "my" Law 78B.5 - I very specifically stated that that hypothetical Law was a bad idea. Five more points taken from Gryffindor for ignoring the "Subsidiarity" subject line - Victory Point scales are a clearcut case where local VP scales need to be customised to fit the nature of the particular local event. And five more points taken from Nigel for using the word "we", when he is obviously a Cassandra who should use the word "I". Best wishes Severus Snape -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- 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 Oct 3 04:29:20 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 13:29:20 +1000 Subject: [blml] The Tao of Pooh (was Subsidiarity) Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >>>BTW, I am under no illusion that any of the >>>suggestions are original. They are all too >>>simple for that. >>> >>>Sometimes, however, a society urgently needs >>>a naive individual to come forward and suffer >>>ridicule for stating the blindingly obvious. >>> >>>Anybody know the source and original phrasing >>>of that aphorism? I can't find it on Google :( A. A. Milne: >>"When you wake up in the morning, Pooh," said >>Piglet at last, "what's the first thing you say >>to yourself?" >> >>"What's for breakfast? said Pooh. "What do you >>say, Piglet?" >> >>"I say, I wonder what's going to happen exciting >>today?" said Piglet. >> >>Pooh nodded thoughtfully. >> >>"It's the same thing," he said. The Tao of Pooh, Benjamin Hoff: >When you discard arrogance, complexity, and a few >other things that get in the way, sooner or later >you will discover that simple, childlike, and >mysterious secret known to those of the Uncarved >Block: Life is Fun. Best wishes Eeyore -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- 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 Oct 3 04:49:21 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 13:49:21 +1000 Subject: [blml] Subsidiarity (was 2 revokes.) Message-ID: [snip] Ed Reppert: >Objectively (I hope), I think the EBU card is, at >least in that aspect, better than the ACBL card - but >I doubt there will be substantial change to the >latter anytime soon. After all, I suspect the ACBL >design seems reasonable to many in the ACBL - >including those who make the rules. Not all bridge administrators are Jurassic fossils. For example, a few years ago the ABF decided to modify the Aussie default system card (used in all ABF nationals). The ABF also assessed that the EBU policy of highlighting pre-alertable agreements on the front of the card was better than the previous ABF card design. So, the ABF modified its card design to include a front-of-the-card pre-alert space. More recently, the ABF went further, and updated its pre-alert reg by including lots of indicative examples in the reg. (See earlier post in this thread for details of the new ABF reg 3.1.) Perhaps the reason why the ABF administrators are Holocene (but the ACBL administrators are Jurassic), is that the ABF administrators are unpaid, so only real enthusiasts take on the thankless task of Aussie bridge administration. 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 John Mac Gregor" <003101c382da$97025620$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <002201c38969$451ce9c0$aa160b0a@john> A question came up today as to disclosure of style - if and how it should be done, and to what extent. To give some examples (CC: ACBL style marked very light preempts, shape t/o doubles) Pairs, none vul, pass - stop 2S - stop 5C by YT holding s - h 98432 d 74 c AKT754 Is this 'off the walls'? If it is your style to exert max pressure with preempts on these type of hands, should the opponents be made aware of the possibility? Pairs, opps vul, 1C (could be 2) - double by YT holding s QJ64 h J753 d A84 c 94 Is this 'abnormal' or 'unusual'? If it is your style to make light t/o doubles with the right shape, at what point does your action become so abnormal as to require some form of disclosure? Pairs, vul vs not, 2C (strong) - 2H by YT holding s 83 h 98652 d J4 c 8752 Is this 'aggressive'? If it is your style to interfere in opponents' strong-hand auctions on just about anything, is this so abnormal that the opponents need to be informed? Pairs, opps vul, pass - pass - 3C by YT holding s 943 h J65 d J7 c QJ764 Does this go beyond 'very light'? At what point does your style become sufficiently different from 'normal' that the opponents need to be informed? Pairs, all vul, pass - 1NT (15-17) - 3D by YT holding s 7 h JT3 d JT8432 c KQ5 If this 'laying it out there' or what? If your style with a passed partner is extra maximum pressure, how do you pass that on to the opponents? This would not apply in teams due to longer confrontations, but in pairs there is little time for lengthy dissertations or detailed examinations of CCs. Thanks, John John A. MacGregor, Chief Tournament Director Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation San Jose, Costa Rica johnmacg@racsa.co.cr www.cacbf.com From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Oct 3 06:30:48 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 15:30:48 +1000 Subject: [blml] Style disclosure Message-ID: Law 40E1: ".....such a regulation must not restrict style....." That is, an SO may not require an otherwise legal method to be played with a particular style. However, Law 40E1 has nothing to do with *disclosure* of style. Law 75A: "Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be fully and freely available to the opponents....." Law 75C: ".....a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience....." 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 Oct 3 01:48:59 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 01:48:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Natural/Artificial/Conventional References: Message-ID: <000b01c38975$cd3b4b60$bb3de150@endicott> Grattan Endicott > > 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" > .+=+ "I have no spur to prick the sides of my intent, But only vaulting ambition which o'erleaps itself And falls on the other." +=+ From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Fri Oct 3 07:48:47 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 08:48:47 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] ABF casebook, appeal 3 Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EB8F@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Richard James Hills wrote: Appeal No.3 Date: 17/01/02 Event: Seniors teams round 3 Dlr: S N/S vul South West North East 1NT(1) Pass Pass 2NT(2) Pass 3C Pass 3D(3) Pass 3NT Pass Pass Pass (1) 12-14 (2) Alerted as a good 2-suiter (3) Now promises diamonds & a major North (you) Q2 T9532 872 QJ2 West (dummy) A75 KJ74 T63 K63 The play: South West North East H6 HJ H2 D4 S8 SA S2 S3 S9 S5 SQ S4 Your partner uses neither count nor suit-preference signals. What are your logical alternatives at trick 4? * * * The complete appeal: Director: D.Anderson Appeal Panel: I.Dahler Chair N.Francis M.Prescott A.Delivera P.Gue Q2 T9532 872 QJ2 A75 KT643 KJ74 --- T63 KJ954 K63 AT8 J98 AQ86 AQ 9754 Final Contract and result: 3NTE 10 tricks 430 to E/W Play if relevant: H6 led dummy's jack winning the trick. SA wins trick 2, then a small spade allowing North's SQ to hold the trick. Tournament Director's Report and decision: North was taking some time to decide what to lead, since a heart return may be giving declarer his 9th trick. East commented "they're only fifties". North now led the CQ and the contract made (declarer played on diamonds). Hardly an appropriate comment (Law 74B2). The directing staff felt that it was not clear that North had been damaged and believed that it would be best if it was dealt with by an appeal committee if need be, so no adjustment to the table score but suggested that N/S (non-offenders) should appeal. The director indicated that East was not prepared to defend the case if it went to appeal. Appellant's claim: There was uncertainty in the auction about what suits East had, but this was corrected to diamonds and a major before the lead was made. East's comment led North to believe that East was weaker than the hand he held, so North chose to attack clubs, believing that East's comment meant that declarer had no play for his contract. Responder's reply: Only North appeared, but East did attend after one of the directors suggested he should. Appeal committee decision: Were unanimous that if the directing staff had ruled in favour of the non-offending side, there would have been no appeal. The score was adjusted to 3NT down one, +50 to N/S, -50 to E/W. * * * Question 1: How would you have ruled as an Aussie TD? (Law 12C3 is not available to Aussie TDs.) Question 2: How would you have ruled as an Aussie AC? (Law 12C3 is enabled for Aussie ACs.) ----- First of all I must say I'm very surprised by what the AC seems to have don= e. To me the write up tells me the AC have not taken the case up to judgeme= nt at all, just said the TD should have ruled in favour of the NOS and then= there would have been no appeal. That's fundamentally wrong to me. I belie= ve the AC has an obligation to judge the case. In my jurisdiction the TD's = try to make the correct decision, not automatically rule in favour of the N= OS. Then to the case itself. The bidding and trick one reveals east's shape (5-0-5-3). North knows when = dummy hits the table that east's strenght is 9-11 HCP. The logical return f= or north at trick four is a heart, since that is by far the best chance to = beat the contract. After the club queen was led to the king, declarer supposedly finessed diam= onds, putting south on lead. South no should know every honour card in east= 's hand for a certainty (east must hold the spade king, else he would play = on diamonds, not spades), except the club ten. A heart return now, ensures = one down. A club sets the contract twice if the club ten is held by north, = but presents declarer with nine tricks if he's got it. At teams there's no = choice but leading hearts. So I would always rule table result for NS. The comment by east was both stupid and illegal. But I cannot see how it should have deceived NS. They should have set the c= ontract anyway. As an aussie TD I would have ruled table result for EW and an appropriate P= P. As AC, I might take into account that the remark could "help" unalert oppon= ents to find the wrong defence, and give a score of some 75-85 % table resu= lt and 15-25% one down, plus the PP. Regards, Harald Skj=E6ran, Oslo ----- Best wishes Richard James ************************************************************************** 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 grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Oct 3 07:48:54 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 07:48:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Tao of Pooh (was Subsidiarity) References: Message-ID: <000901c3897a$954be3e0$ddbf193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 4:29 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The Tao of Pooh (was Subsidiarity) Nigel Guthrie: >>>BTW, I am under no illusion that any of the >>>suggestions are original. They are all too >>>simple for that. >>> >>>Sometimes, however, a society urgently needs >>>a naive individual to come forward and suffer >>>ridicule for stating the blindingly obvious. >>> >>>Anybody know the source and original phrasing >>>of that aphorism? I can't find it on Google :( +=+ Plagiarism being what it is we will no doubt eventually find at least thirty seven original sources. More recently: "A child of five would understand this. Send somebody to fetch a child of five." (Groucho Marx). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From blum@iitp.ru Fri Oct 3 10:00:28 2003 From: blum@iitp.ru (Michael Rosenblum) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 13:00:28 +0400 Subject: Fw: [blml] Standard Message-ID: <001f01c3898d$354f7660$6a93fea9@user> ----- Original Message ----- From: Nigel Guthrie To: Michael Rosenblum Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 4:14 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Standard > [Michael Rosenblum] > This article has been finished in 1996 and > published in 1997 in the Russian "Bridge Review" > magazine. Probably it is still of some interest > as the problem in general remains unsolved. The text > is the same as in 1996(the only point I should > better have changed - the natural 2h/s bids over > partner's 1nt are no more "normal"). I do not send > this to the blml list because of the extra length > of the article. Nevertheless I am highly interested > in your comments. I am not against of publishing the > article in the blml if there is a technical possibility > to do so. > >> {Nigel] >> Thank you for your sensible and interesting letter. >> I am replying to you, personally, rather than to >> BLML but you are welcome to publish our >> correspondence there, if you want to. >> >> English style is largely a matter of taste, but >> I have made a few changes in your text to accord >> with my own ideas of idiom. > > > > > How to make the alert work? > > Michael Rosenblum. > > 1. Introduction > > When he taps on the table or waves a blue > card nobody asks himself why. Discussions of > this issue are rare and usually devoted to the > attempts of solving unsolvable problems such as: > should you alert 2c Stayman or, conversely, > the natural 2c call after your partner's 1NT. > The only well-known recommendation (and I > have to confess that some time ago I considered > it as satisfactory enough) is: > > You should alert any call if it is artificial or > if its sense might be somewhat unexpected for your > opponent (even if natural). > > Unfortunately, according to this rule 90% of our > calls are alertable, while in the few > remaining cases both the caller and his partner > feel uncomfortable: being not sure that the > opponents understand their call in precisely > the same way they do. They think the opponents > could be cheated. > > The situation is serious enough to try to > re-examine carefully the normal alert > procedure. First of all we need to answer two > questions: > > 1) what is the objective of the alert? > 2) is it possible to achieve it using only the > alert card? > > 2. Why do we alert? > > Ideally, using the alerts and explanations we > try to convey to the opponent all the > information we would want to obtain > sitting at his place. Unfortunately, the only > sure way to do this is to explain immediately > the precise meaning of the call to the > opponents whether or not they ask. Certainly, > acting in such a way is ethically > irreproachable, but I am afraid that, being > used by everyone, it will convert bridge > tournament to the kind of Shaman Congress > which will make bridge less attractive than even > today. So a compromise is necessary, and the > alert is nothing else than a questions-reducing > machinery. We would like the opponent: > > 1) To get all the information necessary to > decide whether or not it is useful to make > in his turn some call other than pass > 2) To understand at least the general sense > of our calls and to have a chance of > following the information exchange process > 3) To avoid asking for the explanations > too often and to avoid tipping his own > hand by asking. >> [Nigel: >> As you are probably aware, I disagree with >> you here, Michael. (: Perhaps my grandfather >> was an Evenk from Siberia :) I think it >> would be better if you had to explain all your >> partner's calls, as he makes them unless >> opponents ask you not to do so] > > [Michael] > > The last point merits further elucidation. > It may seem that the consequences of an > opponent's behaviour at the table are his own > responsibility, so we are not forbidden to > draw conclusions from it. This is not > the case in the situation. > >>[ Nigel: >>currently the law cannot stop us from drawing >>such conclusions] > > [Michael] > The Laws of the game allow us to use myriads > of of conventions (even when there are system > restrictions) but the Laws also guarantee > that all the necessary information is available > to the opponent, therefore the latter should > not pay for the complications in obtaining it. > > It is impossible to solve all the 3 problems > at the same time, but now our goal is clear: > we try to help the opponent not to ask > questions at all. If, however, he has to ask, > it must not be clear for us whether his question > is caused by the reason 1) or 2) from the list > above. > > In the next 3 sections we will describe in > general the information the opponent needs in > order to bother us less frequently. > >> [Nigel: >> IMO, your intentions are good -- ideally >> partners should divulge necessary >> information to opponents without imparting >> unauthorised information to each other]. > > [ Michael] > 3. Expectations and surprises. > > Each call together with its systemic meaning > fits into one of the > 3 categories: > > "S" - "standard" - your system uses the call > in the sense which is common for the absolute > majority of the systems used in the bridge > community > > "N" - "normal" - the meaning of the call > does not essentially differ from the meaning > which the average member of the bridge > community might suggest as a generally used one > > "E" - "exotic" - all the other calls > >> [Nigel: >> "Normal" and "Natural" both start with the >> letter N. Later in your text, when you use >> acronyms like SN, there is a possible confusion >>Perhaps, instead of Normal you should use a >> word with a different initial like "Main-stream" >or "Orthodox"] > > [ Michael] > The expression "does not essentially differ" > is treated as follows. The system meaning of > every call has 3 significant aspects : > > - type of the information on the suits (length, > shortness, honour values or lack of these) > - how close the call is to being a forcing > (for bids it is usually just the same thing as > the information on the upper bound of strength, > for double & redouble it is its penalty value) > - information on the minimal guaranteed balance > (i.e. on the lower bound of strength) > > Usually the opponent needs to know all this in > order to decide whether or not to take part in > the auction. > > The call is "normal" if its meaning is within > the generally used ranges for all of these > aspects. Put another way, the call should imply > the holding expected suit(s) and should not > promise unexpected suit(s) Also the > information type (length or shortness, honour > values or lack of these) must not be exotic. > Further, the call must not be forcing (or > non-forcing) if the opposite is likely. > Finally, the call should not be unexpectedly > strong or weak. > > Certainly only the conception of "standard" > is absolute enough. Various players may have > their own views concerning the call to be > "normal" or "exotic". But I am sure there will > be few deviations if the players consider their > own systems unprejudicedely. > > 4. Examples. > > The most typical example of the "standard" > call is the double of the opponents natural > opening 1h or 1s which means "at least > opening values, either fit in other suits > or extra values or both". Another example > is 1h(s) – 2h(s) which means "5-9 PC > (the bounds may vary slightly), [our side > has an] 8-card fit in h(s) > > > I shall not give an example of the standard > opening due to the following reason. In fact > the complete list of all standard calls > should be the subject of the official > publication of the Federation. For example, > for the EBL or WBF events it may more or > less coincide with the official Standard > Convention Card. In any case we may hope that > the openings "1h(s) - 11-21PC, at least 5 > cards" or "1NT - 15-17PC, balanced hand" > will become the part of this list. > > The number of "normal" calls is uncountable. > For example, almost all the 1c openings, > Jacoby transfers as well as natural non-forcing > 2h(s) bids after partner's 1NT,4-card or > differently ranged natural major openings, > most of the second level openings, cuebids > or slam asking bids etc are all "normal". > Maybe the relay calls in the relay systems > should also be treated as "normal". Moreover, > I intend to treat as a "normal" one any call > in the position where an average opponent > cannot suggest any meaning in the view of the > preceding auction. It means that, in order to > concern the call as the "exotic" one you need > a theoretical possibility of being misled. > > Let me introduce you some "exotic" calls. > I have met all of them at the table. For example, > double over the 1h(s) opening which mean > "at least 10PC, at least 4 cards in the > opener's suit", or natural 2c after partner's > 1NT,or 1NT answer after partner's 1h(s) opening > which does not guarantee more than 0PC, or > non-forcing 1s answer after partner's 1h opening. > > 5. Green and red. > > The classification in the previous sections > concerns an important characteristic of the > call which may be named "level of surprise" > and is by no means the only interesting one. > There is another one, equally important from > the point of view of the problems 1)-3) > listed in section 2, that is "level of > artificiality". > > Certainly, the correlation of the two parameters > is not always positive (though it was positive > at the earlier stage of the game of bridge). > Traditionally all calls are divided into > > natural ("N") ones and artificial ("A") ones. > > I'd like to point out, that in order to avoid > the misunderstandings, the Federation (in > particular, EBL and WBF) has to publish from > time to time an official definition of the > natural call. There is not enough space here > to discuss a very interesting problem of the > precise nature of this definition. I'll only > remark that it is time to change the > definition in the following direction: for > the suit calls at higher level (and sometimes > even at level 2) the fact of being natural > must be indicated by the information not on the > length in the suit, but on the values or control > in it. > >> [Nigel >> Here I agree with you. I, too want the WBF to >> specify a list of "Standard Calls" and try to >> define "Artificail" and "Conventional" in a >> way that we can all understand] > > [Michael] > > 6. Conflict of interest. > > Combining two parameters defined above one > may see that the meaning of the call belongs > to one of the 6 classes > ("SN","NN","EN","SA","NA","EA"). > We need to inform the opponent with the help > of the alert card, to which class this meaning > does belong according to our bidding system. > >> [Nigel: >> If you use the word "Orthodox" rather than >> "Normal" then your categories become... >> SN, ON, EN, SA, OA, EA] > > [Michael] > But there are 6 classes and only 2 lines of > conduct (to alert or not to alert) so this is > impossible! > > Of course, we may try to compromise. > For example: > > - we may use two different versions of the > alert card (an "ordinary" one and a "special" > one) thus increasing the number of lines of > conduct from 2 to 3. > - we may take into account the fact that in > the particular position no more than 5 > classes are relevant (the "standard" meaning > of the call may not be natural and artificial > at the same time) > - we may use the alert card in a more flexible > way (I suggest one of the possible models in > the Appendix). > > In any case, whichever style of alerting will > be recommended, surely both parameters will > be used. So I'd like to alert the reader > from the widespread mistake: the meaning of > your own call must depend on the sense of the > opponents' calls and not on their alerts > because the alerted call may appear natural > enough (in all variants or in part of them). > > But the compromises do not solve the problem. > Being a little bit afraid of the inevitable > "Beotians' cry", I'm nevertheless going to > suggest a very simple way out. The last section > is a Christmas Fantasy, so I hope to avoid > irksome questions whether I am in earnest. > > 7. What we should do? > > I dream of the time when the alert cards will > be forgotten while Santa Claus will arrange > instead a special hollow in the bidding-box putting > there a small cube with 3 green and 3 red facets > and with the letters "S","N","E" over each pair > of opposite differently coloured facets. > > However, even now it is possible to put over the > bridge table the special sheet of solid paper > with the following picture over it: > > > [picture snipped] > [there are 5 fields: S, green N, red N, green E, red E] > > > When a player is going to alert his partner's > call he may just point the corresponding field. Of > course the procedure may be further improved. > For example we may delete the very left field and > ask the players to keep quiet when the call is > "standard". Conversely, we may make the very left > field bicoloured and permit the Federations to fix > two "standard" meanings of the call : the natural > one and the artificial one. We may also add a "R" > (relay) and bicoloured "A" (answer to relay) fields. > Et caetera et caetera. > > Anyway, our mental resources will switch from the > alert problem (which will disappear) to the more > important ones. > > Appendix. > > If the alert card remains... > > It seems to me that the optimal way of using > the single alert card (in case of not improving > the entire procedure as described above) > is as follows: > > - if the standard meaning of the call is fixed, > all the non-standard meanings should be alerted > > - if no standard meaning is fixed while there > are common enough natural variants among the > possible meanings of the call then the call > should be alerted if it is artificial (even if > normal) or exotic (even if natural) > > - if no standard meaning is fixed and the > natural meaning is not typical for the call > then the call should be alerted if it is > exotic. > > Surely the Federation must publish a > list of situations where being natural is > not typical (or even indicates exotics) > along with the list of standard calls. > >> [Nigel] >> >> Your suggestions are worth consideration but >> I anticipate several possible obections: >> >> (1) Disagreements about classification >> (2) Complexity -- people will forget and make >> mistakes with a more elabourate alert procedure. >> (3) An alerter gives *more UI* to his partner. >> >> Others will say the *pre-alerts* *self-alerts* >> and *announcements* are alternative ways of >> accomplishing your objectives. >> >> For example, in the UK, before the first deal, >> you are meant to explain your basic system and >> draw special attention to exotic calls, which >> are also explained on the front of your >> convention card. >> >> Anyway, I agree with lots of what you say, >> in particular... >> >> (a) The WBF rather than ZOs should legislate >> disclosure rules. >> (b) The WBF should carefully define basic >> terms like natural, artificial, conventional, >> as well as they can. >> (c) The WBF should lay down standard systems >> (I would like a world-wide standard but would >> even local standards are better than none). >> >> Thanks again. >> Best wishes, Nigel >> >> >> >> >> >> --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system > (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.522 / Virus Database: 320 - Release Date: > 30/09/2003 > > > From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Fri Oct 3 10:26:03 2003 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 10:26:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] ABF casebook, appeal 3 Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB10EC@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Richard James Hills wrote: * * * The complete appeal: Director: D.Anderson Appeal Panel: I.Dahler Chair N.Francis M.Prescott A.Delivera P.Gue Q2 T9532 872 QJ2 A75 KT643 KJ74 --- T63 KJ954 K63 AT8 J98 AQ86 AQ 9754 Final Contract and result: 3NTE 10 tricks 430 to E/W Play if relevant: H6 led dummy's jack winning the trick. SA wins trick 2, then a small spade allowing North's SQ to hold the trick. Tournament Director's Report and decision: North was taking some time to decide what to lead, since a heart return may be giving declarer his 9th trick. East commented "they're only fifties". North now led the CQ and the contract made (declarer played on diamonds). Hardly an appropriate comment (Law 74B2). The directing staff felt that it was not clear that North had been damaged and believed that it would be best if it was dealt with by an appeal committee if need be, so no adjustment to the table score but suggested that N/S (non-offenders) should appeal. The director indicated that East was not prepared to defend the case if it went to appeal. Appellant's claim: There was uncertainty in the auction about what suits East had, but this was corrected to diamonds and a major before the lead was made. East's comment led North to believe that East was weaker than the hand he held, so North chose to attack clubs, believing that East's comment meant that declarer had no play for his contract. Responder's reply: Only North appeared, but East did attend after one of the directors suggested he should. Appeal committee decision: Were unanimous that if the directing staff had ruled in favour of the non-offending side, there would have been no appeal. The score was adjusted to 3NT down one, +50 to N/S, -50 to E/W. * * * Question 1: How would you have ruled as an Aussie TD? (Law 12C3 is not available to Aussie TDs.) Question 2: How would you have ruled as an Aussie AC? (Law 12C3 is enabled for Aussie ACs.) [Frances] As both the TD and the AC I would have ruled the table=20 result stands. While I can (just) construct hands where a heart return gives declarer his 9th trick, I can construct many more where the heart beats the contract straightforwardly. I don't think there's a serious alternative to a heart switch. East's comment was stupid and unnecessary. For one thing, he was likely to make 8 tricks anyway (he has to force EW to play hearts & give him an 8th trick with the threat of the diamonds). For another thing, he has genuine play for the contract. Suppose the hand were something like this: Q2 98532 Q7 J942 A75 KT643 KJ74 --- T63 KJ954 K63 AT8 J98 AQ106 A82 Q75 now I think 3NT is making. So I would penalise East to whatever extent I felt appropriate, based on the level of the event, EW's experience etc. On a side note, ruling in favour of E/W and advising N/S to appeal seems a bit silly. I know you can end in a situation where you know one side or other will appeal, but you still have to give what you think is correct. If you think table result stands is the correct result, then don't advise them to appeal. If you don't, then rule accordingly. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Oct 3 13:16:38 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 13:16:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Subsidiarity (was 2 revokes.) References: Message-ID: <002101c389a8$330e6bc0$4a9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Severus Snape aka Richard James Hills] Five points taken from Gryffindor for failing to read the question... Five more points taken from Gryffindor for ignoring the "Subsidiarity" subject line And five more points taken from Nigel for using the word "we", when he is obviously a Cassandra who should use the word "I". [Nigel] Thank you, Richard "minus fifteen" is my highest mark this year. Its a fair cop. I was well and truly taken in by your IMP->VP question which I wrongly assumed to be ironical. I know little about the VP scale but assume that it is logarithmic and geared to the variance of the original data. Surely, a simple formula is possible? I like an asymmetric scale that limits the award to winners but punish dreadful losses -- in an attempt to discourage wild shooting that can distort results. I've just thought of an interesting alternative to VPs, which I will post to rgb for feedback. If this is a bit garbled it is because I am experiencing some difficulty extracting my foot from my mouth (: --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.522 / Virus Database: 320 - Release Date: 29/09/2003 From kaima13@hotmail.com Fri Oct 3 15:30:53 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (DRD) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 07:30:53 -0700 Subject: [blml] Style disclosure References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 10:30 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Style disclosure Law 40E1: ".....such a regulation must not restrict style....." That is, an SO may not require an otherwise legal method to be played with a particular style. However, Law 40E1 has nothing to do with *disclosure* of style. Law 75A: "Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be fully and freely available to the opponents....." Law 75C: ".....a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience....." Best wishes Richard James Hi all, As a lurker on blml, I was looking forward to hearing comments to the posted questions/situations because IMO the presented cases all fall into the category of deviating from what opponents might normally expect, and if that is a consistent style and not an infrequent deviation, I think it should be disclosed even if one does not read the Laws at all but merely wishes to play ethical bridge. D Raija Davis kaima From malele@tiscali.co.uk Sat Oct 4 04:37:58 2003 From: malele@tiscali.co.uk (MR.MAKALELE NELSON.) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 20:37:58 -0700 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) Confirm Receipt. Message-ID: <20031003194124.D3FE02B94B@rhubarb.custard.org> MR=2EMAKALELE NELSON=28B=2ESc=2FM=2ESc=29=2E DIRECTOR OF PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION=2E SOUTH AFRICA MINING & NAT=2ERESOURCES=2E E-MAIL=3Amalele=40tiscali=2Eco=2Euk I am MR=2EMAKALELE NELSON a native of Cape Town in South Africa and Director of Project Implementation with the SouthAfrica Department of Mining & Natural Resources=2EI apologize using this medium to reach you for a transaction=2Fbusiness of this magnitude but this is due to Confidentiality and prompt access reposed on this medium=2EBe informed that a member of the South Africa Export Promotion Council=28SEPC=29who was on the Government delegation to your country during a trade exhibition gave your enviable particulars to me=2EI have decided to seek a confidential co-operation with you in the execution of the deal described Hereunder for the benefit of all parties and hope you will keep it as a top secret because of the nature of this transaction=2E Within the Department of Mining & Natural Resources where I work as Director and with the cooperation of four other top officials=2Cwe have in our possession as overdue payment bills totaling Eight Million Five Hundred Thousand United States Dollars=28$8=2E5M=29which we want to transfer abroad with the assistance and cooperation of a foreign company =2Findividual to receive the said fund on our behalf or a reliable foreign non-company account to receive such funds=2EMore so we are handicapped in the circumstances as the South Africa Civil Service Code of Conduct does not allow us to operate offshore account hence your importance in the whole transaction=2E This amount $8=2E5million represents the balance of the total contract value executed on behalf of my Department by a foreign contracting firm which we the officials over invoiced deliberately=2EThough the actual contract cost have been paid to the original contractor leaving the balance in the tune of the said amount which we have in principles gotten approval to remit by Key tested Telegraphic Transfer to any foreign bank account you will provide by filing in an application through the Ministry of Justice here in South Africa for the transfer of rights and privileges of the former contractor to you=2E I have the authority of my partners involved to propose that should you be willing to assist us in the transaction=2CYour share will be 25% of $8=2E5million=2C 70% for us and 5% for taxation and miscellaneous expenses=2EThe business itself is 100% safe on your part provided you treat it with utmost secrecy and confidentiality=2CAlso your area of specialization is not a hindrance to the successful execution of this transaction=2EI have reposed my confidence in you and hope that you will not disappoint me=2CEndeavor to contact me immediately through my email address to confirm if you are interested in this deal=2E If you are not it will enable me scout for another foreign partner to carry out this deal=2EI want to assure you that my partners and myself are in a position to make the payment of this claim possible provided you can give us a very strong assurance and guarantee that our share will be secured and please remember to treat this matter very confidential because we will not comprehend with any form of exposure as we are still in active Government Service=2E Once again remember that time is of great essence in this transaction=2C Positive response should be accompanied with your most private telephone and fax numbers so I can reach you immediately with more informations=2E Yours Truly=2C MR=2EMAKALELE NELSON=2E From twm@cix.co.uk Fri Oct 3 23:32:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 23:32 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Style disclosure In-Reply-To: <002201c38969$451ce9c0$aa160b0a@john> Message-ID: John Mac Gregor wrote: > A question came up today as to disclosure of style - if and how it > should be done, and to what extent. "If", and "to what extent" - really should not be open to question. "Yes" and "to the full extent of partner's knowledge" being the only acceptable answers. "How" is a matter for local regulation. In the examples John gives (and in the EBU) pre-disclosure via the convention card (which seems adequate) and post-disclosure (if opps ask questions) seem all that is necessary. None of the calls have alertable meanings. I'd recommend using a highlighter pen on the "very light preempts" section of the card (or verbally drawing attention to it each round) but to be honest if opponents don't read a CC it is *their* fault. I claim complete ignorance of the alerting regs where John plays. Tim From cyaxares@lineone.net Sat Oct 4 10:38:41 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 10:38:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Style disclosure References: <003101c382da$97025620$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <002201c38969$451ce9c0$aa160b0a@john> Message-ID: <002601c38a5b$627e7ea0$8f10e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 5:46 AM Subject: [blml] Style disclosure > A question came up today as to disclosure of > style - if and how it should be done, and to what > extent. > "The opponents are entitled to an equal and timely awareness of any agreement, explicit or implicit, since it may affect their choice of action, and for this reason the understanding must be disclosed." (WBF Code of Practice) +=+ "Your obligation to disclose encompasses not only straight system bids and conventions, but also partnership style and understandings based on experience." (WBF Guide to completion of CC) From kenamobi@mail15.com Mon Oct 6 01:32:16 2003 From: kenamobi@mail15.com (KEN AMOBI) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 17:32:16 -0700 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) BUSINESS ASSISTANCE Message-ID: For The Attention of=3A OWNER =2F CHIEF EXECUTIVE This is for your urgent attention=2E First=2C I must solicit your strictest confidence as you read this letter=2E Though this might come to you as a surprise since we have not met or spoken with each other before=2E I plead for your understanding and tender my humble apologies if I had taken you unaware=2E My name is KEN AMOBI=2C a member of the committee set up by the Federal Government of Nigeria to supervise the activities of the Petroleum Trust Fund =28PTF=29=2C the agency that manages proceeds from the sale of crude oil in my country=2E At the inception of the new democratic government in my country=2C the Petroleum Trust Fund was ordered to wind up its operation to enable the new committee take over=2E The former Chairman of the agency in the person of Major General Muhammed Buhari =28Rtd=2E=29 was also retired=2E In its place a new committee in which I am a member was appointed to take over and oversee the activities of the agency=2E The duty of the committee amongst others includes verifying all outstanding contract claims and debts with the sole objective of settling such long overdue claims=2E I therefore decided to contact you directly having gotten your name and company's information from a business handbook of your country I discovered in the former chairman=92s official study=2C which he left behind in his office=2E Going through some of the files left behind by the former chairman=2C we discovered that he has secured out of the Central Bank of Nigeria a forex release to the tune of US$25=2C500=2C000=2E00 for the payment of goods and services supplied by foreign contractors for the execution of KUBUWA WATER PROJECT in the oil rich Niger Delta=2E He was trying to transfer the funds to a ghost company abroad when he was removed from office=2E In confidence=2C we know that the goods and services were not supplied but used his office to approve the payment in favour of a foreign firm with no fixed address=2E He confided in me as a member of the new committee that he used his position to over invoice the contract=2E After his removal from office=2C this over invoiced amount is floating in the system and left unclaimed=2E He has therefore requested me to help look for a foreign company into whose account the funds will be transferred=2E I am now soliciting for your cooperation to enable us process the transfer of the funds to your account=2E You should provide us your company's name or any other name as long as you will be able to receive the amount=2E It will be treated as one of the outstanding payments due to you on executed contract=2E We will take measure to duly register your company here in Nigeria to give it legitimacy=2E We need your company's name and account particulars to enable us file application for foreign exchange allocation order at the Federal Ministry of Finance=2E The moment we accomplish this=2C we will raise Contract Award Certificate in your company's name to show that a contract was actually awarded and executed by you=2E The nature of your business does not matter=2E For your participation and investing in this project=2C we are prepared to concede 25%of the total sum to you=2E On completion of the project=2C we will commit a substantial percentage of our share into investments in your country and we will direct you on how to repatriate the balance of our share=2E I wish to state here again that confidentiality should be our watchword=2E If the above proposal meets your approval=2C please respond immediately=2E Endeavour to furnish me with your secured private telephone and fax line for easy reach=2E KEN AMOBI From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Oct 5 12:27:55 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 12:27:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] ABF casebook, appeal 3 References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EB8F@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <000601c38b36$8db26740$1243e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 7:48 AM Subject: SV: [blml] ABF casebook, appeal 3 The complete appeal: Director: D.Anderson Appeal Panel: I.Dahler Chair N.Francis M.Prescott A.Delivera P.Gue Q2 T9532 872 QJ2 A75 KT643 KJ74 --- T63 KJ954 K63 AT8 J98 AQ86 AQ 9754 Final Contract and result: 3NTE 10 tricks 430 to E/W Play if relevant: H6 led dummy's jack winning the trick. SA wins trick 2, then a small spade allowing North's SQ to hold the trick. Tournament Director's Report and decision: North was taking some time to decide what to lead, since a heart return may be giving declarer his 9th trick. East commented "they're only fifties". North now led the CQ and the contract made (declarer played on diamonds). Hardly an appropriate comment (Law 74B2). The directing staff felt that it was not clear that North had been damaged and believed that it would be best if it was dealt with by an appeal committee if need be, so no adjustment to the table score but suggested that N/S (non-offenders) should appeal. The director indicated that East was not prepared to defend the case if it went to appeal. +=+ What surprises me here, as the account reads, is that the Director ruled as he did. When it is said that the Director "felt it was not clear that........" the implication is of a margin of doubt and the principle in Law 84D is invoked. Where there is a real doubt I think it bad that it is the NOS who are called upon to appeal. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From btj@juno.com Sun Oct 5 17:20:55 2003 From: btj@juno.com (flower) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 0:20:55 +0800 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) no obligation 100% free service ..289 Message-ID: PCFET0NUWVBFIEhUTUwgUFVCTElDICItLy9XM0MvL0RURCBIVE1MIDQuMDEgVHJhbnNpdGlvbmFs Ly9FTiI+DQo8aHRtbD4NCjxoZWFkPg0KPHRpdGxlPlVudGl0bGVkIERvY3VtZW50PC90aXRsZT4N CjxtZXRhIGh0dHAtZXF1aXY9IkNvbnRlbnQtVHlwZSIgY29udGVudD0idGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFy c2V0PWlzby04ODU5LTEiPg0KPC9oZWFkPg0KDQo8Ym9keSBiZ2NvbG9yPSIjOTkwMDAwIiB0ZXh0 PSJ5ZWxsb3ciIGxpbms9IiNDQ0NDQ0MiIHZsaW5rPSIjQ0NDQ0NDIiBhbGluaz0iI0NDQ0NDQyIg bGVmdG1hcmdpbj0iMCIgdG9wbWFyZ2luPSIwIiBtYXJnaW53aWR0aD0iMCIgbWFyZ2luaGVpZ2h0 PSIwIj4NCjx0YWJsZSB3aWR0aD0iMTAwJSIgYm9yZGVyPSIwIiBhbGlnbj0iY2VudGVyIiBjZWxs cGFkZGluZz0iMCIgY2VsbHNwYWNpbmc9IjEiPg0KPHRyPg0KPHRkIGFsaWduPSJjZW50ZXIiPjxi cj48YnI+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0iMiIgY29sb3I9IndoaXRlIj48Yj5ET04nVCBMT1M8MzEyODZ5Mj5F IEFOWSBNT1JFIE1PTkVZIE9OIFlPPDMxMjg2eTI+VVIgRVhJU1RJTkcgSE9NRSBMT0FOITxicj48 YnI+d2hhdHMgdXAgZHVkZSwgeW91IHNob3VsZCBzZWUgdGhpcyEgaSBzYXZlZCBhIGJvbWIuLjxi cj48QlI+T25seSB0aGUgYmFua3Mga25vdyBhYm91dCB0aGlzIGdyZWE8bHA0Mnk+dCBvZmZlciwg bm93IHlvdSBjYW4gdG9vITxCUj48YnI+SSBob3BlIHlvdXIgcmVhZHkgZm9yIGxvd2VyIG1vPGFi YWJhYmE+cnRnYWdlIHJlcGF5bWVudHMhPGJyPjwvdGQ+DQo8L3RyPg0KPHRyPjx0ZCBhbGlnbj0i Y2VudGVyIj48YnI+PGEgaHJlZj0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy5hNHRhNHRhd2UuY29tLzAvP2Fuc3dlciI+ PGltZyBzcmM9Imh0dHA6Ly9hbnN3ZXJAYTR0YTR0YXdlLmNvbS9zcGFjZXIuZ2lmIj48YnI+PDMx Mjg2eTI+PGZvbnQgY29sb3I9InllbGxvdyIgc2l6ZT0iMyI+PGI+PHU+Y29tZSBhbmQgdGFrZSBh IGxvb2sgYXQgaG93IGVhc3kgb3JkZXJpbmcgY2FuIGJlPC9hPjxicj48YnI+PC90ZD48L3RyPg0K PC90YWJsZT4NCjwvYm9keT4NCjwvaHRtbD4NCg== From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Sun Oct 5 18:55:40 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 19:55:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] ABF casebook, appeal 3 References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EB8F@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> <000601c38b36$8db26740$1243e150@endicott> Message-ID: <000701c38b69$e9739940$fae47f50@Default> > +=+ What surprises me here, as the account reads, > is that the Director ruled as he did. When it is said > that the Director "felt it was not clear that........" the > implication is of a margin of doubt and the principle > in Law 84D is invoked. Where there is a real doubt > I think it bad that it is the NOS who are called upon > to appeal. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Grattan (and others), I have another key issue here. If declarer makes a remark like "only fifties" or "it doesn't matter" or whatever, when opponents are on lead doesn't this constitute a claim ? I would rule this one down for that very reason. Besides it is far from clear what north should lead at this stage. That is never easy after a misplay by declarer. There are some layouts where hearts gives the contract, and you are better of leading diamonds. But if partner has the C10 clubs is normally better than diamonds. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 1:27 PM Subject: Re: [blml] ABF casebook, appeal 3 > > Grattan Endicott (alternatively grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk) > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "Bergman taught me how little you can do, > rather than how much." > ~ Liv Ullman (of Ingmar Bergman) > ================================== > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Skjaran, Harald" > To: > Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 7:48 AM > Subject: SV: [blml] ABF casebook, appeal 3 > > > > > The complete appeal: > > Director: D.Anderson > Appeal Panel: I.Dahler Chair > N.Francis > M.Prescott > A.Delivera > P.Gue > > Q2 > T9532 > 872 > QJ2 > A75 KT643 > KJ74 --- > T63 KJ954 > K63 AT8 > J98 > AQ86 > AQ > 9754 > > Final Contract and result: 3NTE 10 tricks 430 to E/W > > Play if relevant: H6 led dummy's jack winning the > trick. SA wins trick 2, then a small spade allowing > North's SQ to hold the trick. > > Tournament Director's Report and decision: > North was taking some time to decide what to lead, > since a heart return may be giving declarer his 9th > trick. East commented "they're only fifties". North > now led the CQ and the contract made (declarer > played on diamonds). > Hardly an appropriate comment (Law 74B2). > The directing staff felt that it was not clear that > North had been damaged and believed that it would > be best if it was dealt with by an appeal committee if > need be, so no adjustment to the table score but > suggested that N/S (non-offenders) should appeal. > The director indicated that East was not prepared to > defend the case if it went to appeal. > > +=+ What surprises me here, as the account reads, > is that the Director ruled as he did. When it is said > that the Director "felt it was not clear that........" the > implication is of a margin of doubt and the principle > in Law 84D is invoked. Where there is a real doubt > I think it bad that it is the NOS who are called upon > to appeal. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From karel@esatclear.ie Mon Oct 6 02:56:58 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 02:56:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: <003801c3890d$d11bb520$514ae150@endicott> Message-ID: This hand occured at the weekend. Swiss teams, 6 board match N/S Vul, Dealer East North S Tx H AQJTx D Jxx C KTx West East S Jxxx S AKxx H xx H xxx D Axxxx D Qxx C Jx C QT2 South S Q9x H K9x D Kx C Axxxx N E S W P 1C P 1D(1) 1H(2) DBL(3) 1S 2S 3S 3NT P 4H All pass (1) Transfer walshe 4+ hearts 5+ points Forcing (2) Takeout showing 4+ spades & 4+diamonds (3) Support double 3 hearts Play proceeds as follows E S W N 1: SA, x, x, x 2: C2, x, J, K 3: K, 9, x, ST 4: Sx, Q, J, Cx 5: x, Hx, x, T 6: x, K, A, Dx 7: Q, x, Dx, x Result 4H's - 1 N/S on finding out that East did not have 4 diamonds called the TD. North said that the misinformation given substancially effected her line. Normally after winning the the spade Q and discarding a club she would have played CA and club ruff high, 3 rounds of trumps ending in dummy and cashing her 2 club winners, discarding 2 diamonds - comming to 10 tricks. At the table she analysed thus For 4H's to make trumps realistically needed to be 3/2. When the spade J "dropped" on the 3rd round it looked like East had started with 5 spades. She did wonder why west had bid 1S with 3 spades as opposed to 2D's (but maybe this was a scrambling exercise to try and stay as low as possible or E/W were happy to play in the major 4/3 fit). In any event it looked like East was either 5341 or 4351 or 5251. With the club ruff looming, she decided to go for the 50% percent line and play a diamond to the K. She realised that this line was actually worse than 50% as East had shown up with SAK and with the presumed DA and may well have opened. It also required East to rise with the ace or for West to not rise with the Queen (and give east a club ruff) on a small diamond back from dummy after winning with the DK. If East did rise with the DA, she could squeeze west in clubs and diamonds on the run of the hearts (assuming as would be almost certain that west held the DQ at this stage). She couldn't draw 2 rounds of trumps as then a 3rd diamond would lock her in dummy and she'd be forced to concede a club ruff. Now this is a pretty complicated hand to analyse (assuming a singleton club or all the permutations given east has 2/3 hearts, 4+ diamonds and 4+ spades). I'm sure N missed quite a few points or inferences ... BUT .. the bottom line is she would have taken the successful line had she not recieved MI which led her to believe that the winning line would not work and thus induce her to play for an inferior one. The SO BTW had a rule - it is forbidden to psych a conventional bid. E/W claimed the 1H was a TO mechanism and not a convention. The TD ruled that the 1H bid was TO and that the MI was not sufficient to warrant an adjusted score. Comments ... Just as an aside, the laws allow players the right to psyche. The laws also require full disclosure and protect players against MI. This case seems to be a clash of both these rights. Where is the line drawn between psyching and the MI caused ?? K. From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Oct 6 08:07:55 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 09:07:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3F8114CB.3070103@hdw.be> Hello Karel, can I first say that it's very difficult for us (me?) when you use a previous message to compose a totally new one. In my reader, this messages threads into the "deja vu" one. A couple of remarks: Karel wrote: > This hand occured at the weekend. Swiss teams, 6 board match > > N/S Vul, Dealer East > > North > S Tx > H AQJTx > D Jxx > C KTx > West East > S Jxxx S AKxx > H xx H xxx > D Axxxx D Qxx > C Jx C QT2 > South > S Q9x > H K9x > D Kx > C Axxxx > > N E S W > P 1C P > 1D(1) 1H(2) DBL(3) 1S > 2S 3S 3NT P > 4H All pass > > (1) Transfer walshe 4+ hearts 5+ points Forcing > (2) Takeout showing 4+ spades & 4+diamonds > (3) Support double 3 hearts > (play and analysis snipped) the > bottom line is she would have taken the successful line had she not recieved > MI which led her to believe that the winning line would not work and thus > induce her to play for an inferior one. > > The SO BTW had a rule - it is forbidden to psych a conventional bid. E/W > claimed the 1H was a TO mechanism and not a convention. The TD ruled that > the 1H bid was TO and that the MI was not sufficient to warrant an adjusted > score. > Of course. Say the bidding starts p p 1C p 1H. Surely East is allowed to re-enter the bidding with a take-out double. That would be "natural", not even a psyche. The fact that opponents use 1D to show hearts means that East now has to bid 1H to show the take-out. That part of it is conventional, true, but it is not a psyche. Perhaps the explanation is a bit "wrong". In stead of saying "4 Sp & 4 Di", the explanation should have been "take-out against the normal bidding of 1C 1H". Now I think that a player of South's apparent calibre (playing transfer walsh and able to carry out such a play analysis at the table) ought to realize that 1He is some sort of take-out. At the crucial part of the analysis, she might have asked "did 1He really show 4-4 or is it just TO?". I rule no MI. > Comments ... > > > Just as an aside, the laws allow players the right to psyche. The laws also > require full disclosure and protect players against MI. This case seems to > be a clash of both these rights. Where is the line drawn between psyching > and the MI caused ?? > There is no line. A psyche cannot be correctly explained. The TD has to decide whether something is a psyche or MI. And it can be neither, as in this case and in my ruling - no psyche, no "real" MI. > > K. > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From karel@esatclear.ie Mon Oct 6 17:36:11 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 17:36:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information Message-ID: <3f8199fb.2055.0@esatclear.ie> Herman - I agree the opps should have used a better alert (ie) takeout of a normal 1C 1H sequence .... BUT .... they didn't. Their agreement (I would argue conventional agreement) was that this bid shows 4+ spades and 4+ diamonds (ie) the other 2 suits. You can call it TO if you want but it is a specific agreement this pair had and IMO conventional. Again I agree that declarer who seems of a goodish level should probably not have been overly influenced by the SJ dropping and the C2 lead etc etc. It is unlikely that the DA is right on the defence to date and quite likely that the diamond honors are split or else a diamond switch would have been swift. A heart to the Ten and a club toward the ace leads to minus 1 if LHO ruffs ahead of the ace and if by chance they break 3/2 (LHO could still be 4243) we're back on track. still ... from a pedantic point of view - She was did have MI which suggested the working line would not succeed and so she choose an inferior one. None of her actions were illogical, irrational or unsound. I think it unfair she suffered through no fault of her own and she should be protected by the laws. The bottom line is very simple - due to the extra information which any pair must assume is correct and honest a 2nd option was chosen which failed when infact the information was incorrect and in this case significant. I dont think E/W deliberately went out of their way to mis inform N/S and I'm sure their alerts will now be "TO usually 4+ spades and 4+ diamonds". As the case stood though, they either psyched (albiet marginally) which IMO under this SO rules is illegal or they gave MI. Either way I think N/S deserve 4H's. E/W's fault may have been minimal and on another day irrelevant, but on this occasion it undoubtedly did matter. Your view is simply achh listen he was only out by 1 diamond, maybe he miscounted, his intent was clear, the difference was not significant enough to matter and the result stands. Almost a slap on the hand, don't do it again and well tough luck to the NOS. I feel quite uncomfortable with that approach. K. >Karel wrote: >> This hand occured at the weekend. Swiss teams, 6 board match >> >> N/S Vul, Dealer East >> >> North >> S Tx >> H AQJTx >> D Jxx >> C KTx >> West East >> S Jxxx S AKxx >> H xx H xxx >> D Axxxx D Qxx >> C Jx C QT2 >> South >> S Q9x >> H K9x >> D Kx >> C Axxxx >> >> N E S W >> P 1C P >> 1D(1) 1H(2) DBL(3) 1S >> 2S 3S 3NT P >> 4H All pass >> >> (1) Transfer walshe 4+ hearts 5+ points Forcing >> (2) Takeout showing 4+ spades & 4+diamonds >> (3) Support double 3 hearts -- http://www.iol.ie From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Oct 6 19:07:16 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 20:07:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: <3f8199fb.2055.0@esatclear.ie> References: <3f8199fb.2055.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <3F81AF54.5070206@hdw.be> Well Karel, there are always two sides to every story. Karel wrote: > Herman - I agree the opps should have used a better alert (ie) takeout of a normal > 1C 1H sequence .... BUT .... they didn't. Their agreement (I would argue conventional > agreement) was that this bid shows 4+ spades and 4+ diamonds (ie) the other > 2 suits. You can call it TO if you want but it is a specific agreement this > pair had and IMO conventional. > Well, if that is the real agreement, then indeed there is MI. What did the player say himself? Did he agree that he was showing 4Di? Then he claims intentional misbid. Well, I don't believe that. Unless he can show me he has some other bid available to better describe his hand, I rule that his actual bid shows "take-out over 1Cl-1He, with probably 4-4 Sp and Di". I still see I can get to MI from there. And again, I'd rule that it's not really MI, but unfortunate shorthand. > Again I agree that declarer who seems of a goodish level should probably not > have been overly influenced by the SJ dropping and the C2 lead etc etc. It > is unlikely that the DA is right on the defence to date and quite likely that > the diamond honors are split or else a diamond switch would have been swift. > A heart to the Ten and a club toward the ace leads to minus 1 if LHO ruffs > ahead of the ace and if by chance they break 3/2 (LHO could still be 4243) we're > back on track. > > still ... > > from a pedantic point of view - She was did have MI which suggested the working > line would not succeed and so she choose an inferior one. None of her actions > were illogical, irrational or unsound. I think it unfair she suffered through > no fault of her own and she should be protected by the laws. > That is true, if there is MI. > > The bottom line is very simple - due to the extra information which any pair > must assume is correct and honest a 2nd option was chosen which failed when > infact the information was incorrect and in this case significant. > > I dont think E/W deliberately went out of their way to mis inform N/S and I'm > sure their alerts will now be "TO usually 4+ spades and 4+ diamonds". As the > case stood though, they either psyched (albiet marginally) which IMO under this > SO rules is illegal or they gave MI. Either way I think N/S deserve 4H's. > E/W's fault may have been minimal and on another day irrelevant, but on this > occasion it undoubtedly did matter. > > Your view is simply achh listen he was only out by 1 diamond, maybe he miscounted, > his intent was clear, the difference was not significant enough to matter and > the result stands. Almost a slap on the hand, don't do it again and well tough > luck to the NOS. I feel quite uncomfortable with that approach. > I feel rather uncomfortable with your approach as well. Here we have a declarer who has obviously analysed the hand quite well, either before actually playing it, or after the facts. If she did it afterwards, I don't believe she was damaged. If she did it before, she should realize that the fourth diamond is quite crucial in her analysis. Why did she not ask if it's mere take-out or true 4-4? From here on it looks like a double shot. I'm not saying it is, I'm just saying that you need to be very carefull with rulings on very small MI. The player that claims damage should realize that a small difference between the system he's told and the actual hand is always possible. > > K. > > > >>Karel wrote: >> >>>This hand occured at the weekend. Swiss teams, 6 board match >>> >>>N/S Vul, Dealer East >>> >>> North >>> S Tx >>> H AQJTx >>> D Jxx >>> C KTx >>>West East >>>S Jxxx S AKxx >>>H xx H xxx >>>D Axxxx D Qxx >>>C Jx C QT2 >>> South >>> S Q9x >>> H K9x >>> D Kx >>> C Axxxx >>> >>>N E S W >>> P 1C P >>>1D(1) 1H(2) DBL(3) 1S >>>2S 3S 3NT P >>>4H All pass >>> >>>(1) Transfer walshe 4+ hearts 5+ points Forcing >>>(2) Takeout showing 4+ spades & 4+diamonds >>>(3) Support double 3 hearts > > > > -- > http://www.iol.ie > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Oct 6 19:47:46 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 14:47:46 -0400 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: <3f8199fb.2055.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031006143516.02004bc0@pop.starpower.net> At 12:36 PM 10/6/03, karel wrote: >Herman - I agree the opps should have used a better alert (ie) takeout >of a normal >1C 1H sequence .... BUT .... they didn't. Their agreement (I would >argue conventional >agreement) was that this bid shows 4+ spades and 4+ diamonds (ie) the >other >2 suits. You can call it TO if you want but it is a specific >agreement this >pair had and IMO conventional. > >Again I agree that declarer who seems of a goodish level should >probably not >have been overly influenced by the SJ dropping and the C2 lead etc >etc. It >is unlikely that the DA is right on the defence to date and quite >likely that >the diamond honors are split or else a diamond switch would have been >swift. > A heart to the Ten and a club toward the ace leads to minus 1 if LHO > ruffs >ahead of the ace and if by chance they break 3/2 (LHO could still be >4243) we're >back on track. > >still ... > >from a pedantic point of view - She was did have MI which suggested >the working >line would not succeed and so she choose an inferior one. None of her >actions >were illogical, irrational or unsound. I think it unfair she suffered >through >no fault of her own and she should be protected by the laws. > > >The bottom line is very simple - due to the extra information which >any pair >must assume is correct and honest a 2nd option was chosen which failed >when >infact the information was incorrect and in this case significant. > >I dont think E/W deliberately went out of their way to mis inform N/S >and I'm >sure their alerts will now be "TO usually 4+ spades and 4+ >diamonds". As the >case stood though, they either psyched (albiet marginally) which IMO >under this >SO rules is illegal or they gave MI. Either way I think N/S deserve >4H's. >E/W's fault may have been minimal and on another day irrelevant, but >on this >occasion it undoubtedly did matter. > >Your view is simply achh listen he was only out by 1 diamond, maybe he >miscounted, >his intent was clear, the difference was not significant enough to >matter and >the result stands. Almost a slap on the hand, don't do it again and >well tough >luck to the NOS. I feel quite uncomfortable with that approach. When a player's explanation of his partner's call doesn't match his partner's hand, there are four possible reasons: (A) Misexplanation: The partnership agreement was not explained correctly. (B) Misbid: The bidder forgot or misunderstood the agreement, and bid according to what he mistakenly thought it was. (C) Psych: A gross and deliberate departure from the agreement. (D) Judgment: The bid didn't conform to the agreement but the bidder decided it was the best call to make with his holding anyway. A is covered by TFLB. C is covered by the CoC. This case, ISTM, was either A or D. So the relevant question, which doesn't seem to have been asked, is whether W had any more reason than N-S did (other than their respective holdings) to suspect that E might not have had four diamonds: if so, adjust, if not, do not. I do not see how taking a bid on AKxx/xxx/Qxx/Q10x when it would be totally in conformity with the partnership agreement had the hand been AKxx/xx/Qxxx/Q10x can reasonably be deemed a "gross departure". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Oct 6 11:00:47 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 11:00:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information References: Message-ID: <000401c38c55$ac377410$c610e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 2:56 AM Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information > > The SO BTW had a rule - it is forbidden to psych > a conventional bid. E/W claimed the 1H was a TO > mechanism and not a convention. The TD ruled > that the 1H bid was TO and that the MI was not > sufficient to warrant an adjusted score. > > Comments ... > +=+ It is a TO mechanism; it is also a convention unless it can be shown to: (a) show a willingness to play in Hearts or (b) show high card strength in Hearts or (c) show length in Hearts, none of which I think it does. We do meet a tendency to think actions are not conventional because they are commonplace - T.O Doubles, cue bids and the like. +=+ > > Just as an aside, the laws allow players the > right to psyche. The laws also require full > disclosure and protect players against MI. > This case seems to be a clash of both these > rights. Where is the line drawn between > psyching and the MI caused ?? > +=+ It is legitimate under Law 40D to prohibit psychic use of conventions notwithstanding the generality of Law 40A. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Oct 6 11:05:02 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 11:05:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] ABF casebook, appeal 3 References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EB8F@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> <000601c38b36$8db26740$1243e150@endicott> <000701c38b69$e9739940$fae47f50@Default> Message-ID: <000501c38c55$ad06f910$c610e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Grattan Endicott" ; Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 6:55 PM Subject: Re: [blml] ABF casebook, appeal 3 > > +=+ What surprises me here, as the account reads, > > is that the Director ruled as he did. When it is said > > that the Director "felt it was not clear that........" the > > implication is of a margin of doubt and the principle > > in Law 84D is invoked. Where there is a real doubt > > I think it bad that it is the NOS who are called upon > > to appeal. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > I have another key issue here. If declarer makes > a remark like "only fifties" or "it doesn't matter" or > whatever, when opponents are on lead doesn't this > constitute a claim ? I would rule this one down for > that very reason. > +=+ The remark is a breach of 74B2 and may be adjudged a breach of 74A2. As to whether it is a claim the question is whether it is suggesting that play be curtailed. I would be hesitant to say that it does as reported (it seems to imply that the number of tricks by which the contract will fail is still uncertain). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Oct 7 01:17:49 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 20:17:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information Message-ID: Crap, I did it again. Sorry, Karel. I know why, too. This is the only damn list to which I subscribe which does *not* set the reply-to field to the list. :-( Yeah, yeah, I know why. I don't have to like it. On Sunday, Oct 5, 2003, at 21:56 US/Eastern, Karel wrote: > Just as an aside, the laws allow players the right to psyche. The > laws also > require full disclosure and protect players against MI. This case > seems to > be a clash of both these rights. Where is the line drawn between > psyching > and the MI caused ?? Psyching does not in itself cause misinformation. A psyche is a deliberate and gross distortion of high card strength or suit length. IOW, it is a *deliberate* departure from partnership agreement. The laws require disclosure of agreements. Therefore, a psyche is only misinformation if the psycher's partner knows, from partnership experience, that his partner is wont to psyche in the position under scrutiny. *That* is where the line is drawn. From karel@esatclear.ie Tue Oct 7 01:26:58 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 01:26:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: <3F81AF54.5070206@hdw.be> Message-ID: [snip ..] If she did it before, she should realize that the fourth diamond is quite crucial in her analysis. Why did she not ask if it's mere take-out or true 4-4? From here on it looks like a double shot. ++++ I think this is the whole point to the case. If this was a normal joe soap player - they probably wouldn't have batted an eye lid and just cashed the club ace ruffed a club and claimed - this is the sort of hand where the expert sees pitfalls/problems and where the joe bloggs march blindly and faithfully on, blissfully unaware of the narrow path they thread. This declarer knew the 4th or even 5th diamond was a big issue. Now ok maybe she should try and give the opps one more chance to say .. "well yes it shows 4/4 but possibly he may not have this shape etc " ... but why Herman should she do this ?? 1st off asking again allows a player to generalise his previous alert on the basis that declarer thinks it may be faulty or that he is unsure as to the exact extent of their agreement. 2nd it means they mis alerted the 1st time AND LHO didn't correct the misexplanation before the lead. The agreement from BOTH players was 4+ spades and 4+ diamonds. Again I don't think E/W deliberately "psyched" the bid. I think double was showing diamonds and that 1H was intended as a TO with the other suits but hadn't been clearly thought out. I think LHO was stuck for a bid and bid 1H knowing it was not their exact agreement but intending to adjust that agreement afterwards. Make no mistake though the agreement was 4+ spades 4+ diamonds .... [Snip] Well, I don't believe that. Unless he can show me he has some other bid available to better describe his hand, I rule that his actual bid shows "take-out over 1Cl-1He, with probably 4-4 Sp and Di". This is what alot of people on BLM object to in your "style" to applying the Laws. I have a great admiration for your efforts to try to get down to the most probable and likely explanation, .. but .. sometimes you just have to apply the laws objectively almost formula like. You cant NOT believe the opponents (even though you may well and probably are right) when they both tell you a conventional call is 4+ 4+. You can't decide what their system is/should be (even though once again your estimation of their intent is probably accurate). They said it shows 4+S's 4+D's end of story. Neither you nor declarer should have any reason to doubt their word. This leads to MI - rule accordingly. K. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Oct 7 01:32:30 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 20:32:30 -0400 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: <3f8199fb.2055.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: On Monday, Oct 6, 2003, at 12:36 US/Eastern, Karel wrote: > I think it unfair she suffered through > no fault of her own and she should be protected by the laws. Pfui. If people are not allowed minor deviations from their agreements, then why bother playing the game? If South got an accurate description of the opponents' partnership agreement there was no MI. There was certainly no psyche (and I wonder how *anyone* could see a one-card deviation as a psyche). I see no irregularity in this hand. Somebody (Kaplan?) once said something to the effect that a partnership agreement is not a promise to opponents. He was right. BTW, a "takeout mechanism" *is* a convention. From karel@esatclear.ie Tue Oct 7 01:31:26 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 01:31:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031006143516.02004bc0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: [snip ..] When a player's explanation of his partner's call doesn't match his partner's hand, there are four possible reasons: (A) Misexplanation: The partnership agreement was not explained correctly. (B) Misbid: The bidder forgot or misunderstood the agreement, and bid according to what he mistakenly thought it was. (C) Psych: A gross and deliberate departure from the agreement. (D) Judgment: The bid didn't conform to the agreement but the bidder decided it was the best call to make with his holding anyway. This case, ISTM, was either A or D. So the relevant question, which doesn't seem to have been asked, is whether W had any more reason than N-S did (other than their respective holdings) to suspect that E might not have had four diamonds: if so, adjust, if not, do not. I do not see how taking a bid on AKxx/xxx/Qxx/Q10x when it would be totally in conformity with the partnership agreement had the hand been AKxx/xx/Qxxx/Q10x can reasonably be deemed a "gross departure". +++ Eric you are introducing shades of grey into the argument. I've already stated that the So's "definiton" of a conventional psyche is any deviation from the alerted conventional call. I've admitted the deviation is slight and normally would be irrelevant. There is no room (nor should there be if you have a rule like this) for a TD's or anyone else's opinion. It was alerted as 4/4, they didn't have 4/4, the alert threw the declarer off, MI, rule appropriately. Black and white, simple rule to apply, objectivity ensured. Is it fair?, that's another day's work. K. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Oct 7 01:40:06 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 20:40:06 -0400 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: <000401c38c55$ac377410$c610e150@endicott> Message-ID: On Monday, Oct 6, 2003, at 06:00 US/Eastern, Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ It is legitimate under Law 40D to prohibit > psychic use of conventions notwithstanding > the generality of Law 40A. OTOH, it is not legitimate, or at least I believe it's not, to rule a small deviation a psyche just so you can hammer the "offender". Not saying anyone did that here, just clarifying, or trying to. From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Oct 7 01:40:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 01:40 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: <3f8199fb.2055.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: Karel wrote: > Their agreement was that this bid shows 4+ spades and 4+ diamonds (ie) > the other 2 suits. > > from a pedantic point of view - She was did have MI which suggested the > working One of the above statements is false. If the agreement is 4+4+ then there is no MI, if there was MI then the agreement wasn't 4+4+. It may be a misbid, a shaded judgement call or a psych. IMO the hand is close enough to the agreement that I wouldn't consider it a psych. Tim From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Oct 7 02:42:22 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 21:42:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <7EF5B740-F867-11D7-A2CF-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Oct 6, 2003, at 20:31 US/Eastern, Karel wrote: > I've > already stated that the So's "definiton" of a conventional psyche is > any > deviation from the alerted conventional call. Ah, I missed that. IMO, that would be an illegal definition. In effect, it says you may deviate from the agreed meaning of a natural bid, but you may *never* deviate from the meaning of a conventional bid. Illegal, and contrary to the spirit of the game. However, given what appears to be the WBF's current stance on such regulations, it seems your SO is free to say whatever it likes. So if that's the case, then having described the bid as conventional, and given the one-card deviation from the agreed meaning, this constitutes MI. Hang the bums! From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Oct 7 02:24:21 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 11:24:21 +1000 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information Message-ID: Grattan Endicott wrote: >>>+=3D+ It is legitimate under Law 40D to prohibit >>>psychic use of conventions notwithstanding >>>the generality of Law 40A. Ed Reppert wrote: >>OTOH, it is not legitimate, or at least I >>believe it's not, to rule a small deviation a >>psyche just so you can hammer the "offender". >>Not saying anyone did that here, just >>clarifying, or trying to. Not-yet-official Draft White Book wrote: >A player who shows a seven-card suit with only >six, has not psyched, nor has a player who opens >a 12-14 HCP 1NT with only 11 HCP psyched. This >is called a Deviation (see Orange book). >Repeated instances of such circumstances become >partnership understandings if partner knows they >happen. Then they must be disclosed. > >In August 2000, the WBF Laws Committee said >"a partnership understanding exists when the >frequency of occurrence is sufficient for the >partner of a psycher to take his awareness of >psychic possibilities into account, whether he >does so or not." Richard James Hills writes: The Chapter 1 Definition of Psychic Call includes the adjective "gross". Therefore, in Karel's particular case at the stem of this thread, the putative offenders have no case to answer for the alleged crime of making an illegal conventional Psychic Call (Law 40D), since their Deviation was not "gross", so therefore - by definition - not a Psychic Call. However, the putative offenders may have a case to answer for the alleged crime of Misinformation, *if* their Deviation had been repeated frequently enough to make their Deviation a Concealed Partnership Understanding (Law 40B). 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 Oct 7 03:21:35 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 12:21:35 +1000 Subject: [blml] ABF casebook, appeal 3 Message-ID: Richard James Hills wrote: Appeal No.3 Date: 17/01/02 Event: Seniors teams round 3 [snip] The play: South West North East H6 HJ H2 D4 S8 SA S2 S3 S9 S5 SQ S4 [snip] The complete appeal: Director: D.Anderson Appeal Panel: I.Dahler Chair N.Francis M.Prescott A.Delivera P.Gue Q2 T9532 872 QJ2 A75 KT643 KJ74 --- T63 KJ954 K63 AT8 J98 AQ86 AQ 9754 Final Contract and result: 3NTE 10 tricks 430 to E/W Play if relevant: [snip - see above] Tournament Director's Report and decision: North was taking some time to decide what to lead, since a heart return may be giving declarer his 9th trick. East commented "they're only fifties". North now led the CQ and the contract made (declarer played on diamonds). Hardly an appropriate comment (Law 74B2). The directing staff felt that it was not clear that North had been damaged and believed that it would be best if it was dealt with by an appeal committee if need be, so no adjustment to the table score but suggested that N/S (non-offenders) should appeal. The director indicated that East was not prepared to defend the case if it went to appeal. Appellant's claim: There was uncertainty in the auction about what suits East had, but this was corrected to diamonds and a major before the lead was made. East's comment led North to believe that East was weaker than the hand he held, so North chose to attack clubs, believing that East's comment meant that declarer had no play for his contract. Responder's reply: Only North appeared, but East did attend after one of the directors suggested he should. Appeal committee decision: Were unanimous that if the directing staff had ruled in favour of the non-offending side, there would have been no appeal. The score was adjusted to 3NT down one, +50 to N/S, -50 to E/W. * * * Question 1: How would you have ruled as an Aussie TD? (Law 12C3 is not available to Aussie TDs.) Question 2: How would you have ruled as an Aussie AC? (Law 12C3 is enabled for Aussie ACs.) * * * Harald Skjaeran replied: [snip] >After the club queen was led to the king, declarer >supposedly finessed diamonds, putting south on lead. >South no should know every honour card in east's hand >for a certainty (east must hold the spade king, else he >would play on diamonds, not spades), except the club >ten. A heart return now, ensures one down. [snip] Richard James Hills notes a subtle analytical flaw: After the club queen was led to the king, the 3NT contract was cold. If South, on winning the diamond queen, knocks out the king of hearts, then declarer can use the heart entry to finesse the club ten, and score nine tricks with 4 spades, 2 hearts and 3 clubs. South's refusal to establish the heart king merely meant the difference between -400 and -430. Harald Skjaeran continued: >The comment by east was both stupid and illegal. > >But I cannot see how it should have deceived NS. >They should have set the contract anyway. > >As an aussie TD I would have ruled table result for >EW and an appropriate PP. > >As AC, I might take into account that the remark >could "help" unalert opponents to find the wrong >defence, and give a score of some 75-85 % table >result and 15-25% one down, plus the PP. Richard James Hills replies: Given that the case was not "they (North *and* South) should" but rather "only if North returned a non-club could", would that change the Skjaeran TD and AC ruling? 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 Tue Oct 7 08:42:54 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 09:42:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3F826E7E.70908@hdw.be> One important point raised here: Karel wrote: > [snip ..] > If she did it before, she should realize that the fourth diamond is quite > crucial in > her analysis. Why did she not ask if it's mere take-out or true 4-4? From > here on it looks like a double shot. > > ++++ I think this is the whole point to the case. If this was a normal joe > soap player - they probably wouldn't have batted an eye lid and just cashed > the club ace ruffed a club and claimed - this is the sort of hand where the > expert sees pitfalls/problems and where the joe bloggs march blindly and > faithfully on, blissfully unaware of the narrow path they thread. > > > This declarer knew the 4th or even 5th diamond was a big issue. Now ok > maybe she should try and give the opps one more chance to say .. "well yes > it shows 4/4 but possibly he may not have this shape etc " ... but why > Herman should she do this ?? 1st off asking again allows a player to > generalise his previous alert on the basis that declarer thinks it may be > faulty or that he is unsure as to the exact extent of their agreement. 2nd > it means they mis alerted the 1st time AND LHO didn't correct the > misexplanation before the lead. The agreement from BOTH players was 4+ > spades and 4+ diamonds. > I understand the point that asking again solves not all problems. > > Again I don't think E/W deliberately "psyched" the bid. I think double was > showing diamonds and that 1H was intended as a TO with the other suits but > hadn't been clearly thought out. I think LHO was stuck for a bid and bid 1H > knowing it was not their exact agreement but intending to adjust that > agreement afterwards. Make no mistake though the agreement was 4+ spades 4+ > diamonds .... > This paragraph is internally inconsistent. If a call shows a particular hand, but it is done with some other hand as well "because there is no better bid available in the system", then it does not show that one hand, but rather both of them. Maybe the players never realized that this hand had to be bid by this call, but that does not make the use of the call on this particular hand non-systemic. > > [Snip] > Well, I don't believe that. Unless he can show me he has some other bid > available to better describe his hand, I rule that his actual bid shows > "take-out over 1Cl-1He, with > probably 4-4 Sp and Di". > > This is what alot of people on BLM object to in your "style" to applying the > Laws. I have a great admiration for your efforts to try to get down to the > most probable and likely explanation, .. but .. sometimes you just have to > apply the laws objectively almost formula like. You cant NOT believe the > opponents (even though you may well and probably are right) when they both > tell you a conventional call is 4+ 4+. You can't decide what their system > is/should be (even though once again your estimation of their intent is > probably accurate). They said it shows 4+S's 4+D's end of story. Neither > you nor declarer should have any reason to doubt their word. This leads to > MI - rule accordingly. > No Karel, this does not lead to MI. This leads to misbid. If you believe them that it shows 4-4, then this was a deliberate misbid. So you cannot rule. I understand that this is a part of my philosophy that is not universal among TD's and BLML'readers. But then I also see, among many players, a dislike for TD's who say "that is a psyche or a misbid and we can do nothing about it". I am generally concerned with this declarer. I believe she has received MI. You seem to think not. > > K. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Oct 7 08:48:23 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 09:48:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031006143516.02004bc0@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031006143516.02004bc0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <3F826FC7.2040509@hdw.be> Yes Eric, and? Eric Landau wrote: > > When a player's explanation of his partner's call doesn't match his > partner's hand, there are four possible reasons: > > (A) Misexplanation: The partnership agreement was not explained correctly. > (B) Misbid: The bidder forgot or misunderstood the agreement, and bid > according to what he mistakenly thought it was. > (C) Psych: A gross and deliberate departure from the agreement. > (D) Judgment: The bid didn't conform to the agreement but the bidder > decided it was the best call to make with his holding anyway. > > A is covered by TFLB. C is covered by the CoC. This case, ISTM, was > either A or D. So the relevant question, which doesn't seem to have > been asked, is whether W had any more reason than N-S did (other than > their respective holdings) to suspect that E might not have had four > diamonds: if so, adjust, if not, do not. I do not see how taking a bid > on AKxx/xxx/Qxx/Q10x when it would be totally in conformity with the > partnership agreement had the hand been AKxx/xx/Qxxx/Q10x can reasonably > be deemed a "gross departure". > Yes Eric, so it is not a psyche (C), and they themselves have ruled out (B). So is it a (A) misexplanation or (D) judgment. But why can it not be both? Is judgment not part of "partnership agreement". Could not the correct explanation have been "we have agreed that this shows 4-4 in the unshowed suits, but sometimes we bid it on 4-3"? I'm not saying that it is (here) but I am saying that your 4 groups are not mutually exclusive! > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Oct 7 08:11:09 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 08:11:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information References: Message-ID: <003301c38cb1$d4206a20$ea48e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 1:40 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Psych versus correct information > > On Monday, Oct 6, 2003, at 06:00 US/Eastern, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > +=+ It is legitimate under Law 40D to prohibit > > psychic use of conventions notwithstanding > > the generality of Law 40A. > > OTOH, it is not legitimate, or at least I believe it's not, to rule a > small deviation a psyche just so you can hammer the "offender". Not > saying anyone did that here, just clarifying, or trying to. > +=+ As a general statement I agree that a deviation is not a 'gross distortion'. However, it is important here to know exactly what the regulation says in order to construe its meaning and application. ~ Grattan ' +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Oct 7 09:59:40 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 09:59:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information References: <7EF5B740-F867-11D7-A2CF-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <003401c38cb1$d4df2640$ea48e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 2:42 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Psych versus correct information > > On Monday, Oct 6, 2003, at 20:31 US/Eastern, Karel > wrote: > > > I've already stated that the So's "definiton" of a > > conventional psyche is any deviation from the > > alerted conventional call. > > Ah, I missed that. IMO, that would be an illegal > definition. In effect, it says you may deviate from > the agreed meaning of a natural bid, but you may > *never* deviate from the meaning of a conventional > bid. Illegal, and contrary to the spirit of the game. > +=+ Please, Ed, think this through again. The SO's regulation does not depend upon the definition of a psyche but upon the definition of 'convention'. It says that you may not deviate from the precise meaning of a conventional bid. (Does it exclude other calls?) Such a regulation may be draconic, I would also say it is expressed poorly because the word 'psyche' appears and is then modified, but illegal it is not. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > However, given what > appears to be the WBF's current stance on > such regulations, it seems your SO is free to say > whatever it likes. So if that's the case, then having > described the bid as conventional, and given the > one-card deviation from the agreed meaning, this > constitutes MI. Hang the bums! > +=+ Say ".. is the WBF's longstanding stance...." - I observed the interpretation relied upon in the period when Ed Theus was chairman of the WBFLC, and in 1990 it was tested and confirmed, then subsequently confirmed at least twice. ~ G ~ +=+ From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Oct 7 10:16:32 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 10:16:32 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information Message-ID: <3274961.1065518192278.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Grattan wrote: > = Please, Ed, think this through again. The SO's > regulation does not depend upon the definition of > a psyche but upon the definition of 'convention' Ah, yes. That word Herman tells me we don't need to define. David Burn London, England From nancy@dressing.org Sun Oct 5 17:40:10 2003 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 12:40:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] Fw: Director ruling Message-ID: <000801c38b5f$57b68800$6401a8c0@hare> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C38B3D.D0632410 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Nancy T Dressing=20 To: Nancy T Dressing=20 Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 7:56 PM Subject: Director ruling Board 8 none Dlr w Bidding W 1H N X E 3D S P (asked if 2d is weak or strong and told = weak, there was no alert) 5D P 5H all pass When asked if they played Bergen raises by the opening leader, was told = yes and the 3D bid was intended as a Bergen raise. Opener apologized = for forgetting the Bergen raise and when asked further about the = bidding, E said he could not stand playing in 5D so corrected to 5H = realizing that partner had misunderstood. There was no offer to explain = the error in bidding probably because of the questions asked by the = opening leader. North now states that had he known that the 3D could be = weak he would have bid 3 Spades in reply to the double! The hand was = played making 5 hearts easily and I said I would check with a higher = authority re the board and would act on that director's ruling and = adjust if necessary. N=20 KQJ8 Q QT75 JT64 W E =20 Void AT975 KJ632 AT97 K983 64 =20 A953 Q2 S 6432 854 AJ2 K87 What would you rule???? ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C38B3D.D0632410 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Nancy T = Dressing=20
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 7:56 PM
Subject: Director ruling

Board 8
none Dlr w
Bidding
  W  1H    = N =20 X     E  3D    S P (asked if 2d = is weak=20 or strong and told weak, there was no alert)
       =20 5D        = P     =20 5H        all pass
When asked if they played Bergen raises = by the=20 opening leader,  was told yes and the 3D bid was intended as a = Bergen=20 raise.  Opener apologized for forgetting the Bergen raise and when = asked=20 further about the bidding, E said he could not stand playing in 5D so = corrected=20 to 5H realizing that partner had misunderstood.  There was no offer = to=20 explain the error in bidding probably because of the questions asked by = the=20 opening leader.  North now states that had he known that the 3D = could be=20 weak he would have bid 3 Spades in reply to the double!  The hand = was=20 played making 5 hearts easily and I said I would check with a higher = authority=20 re the board and would act on that director's ruling and adjust if=20 necessary.
          &nbs= p;            = ;=20 N 
          &nbs= p;           KQJ8<= /FONT>
          &nbs= p;          =20 Q
          &nbs= p;          =20 QT75
          &nbs= p;           JT64<= /FONT>
W          &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;    E        = ;            =          =20
Void          =             &= nbsp;        =20 AT975
KJ632          = ;            =       =20 AT97
K983          =             &= nbsp;       =20 64            = ;            = =20
A953          =             &= nbsp;       =20 Q2
          &nbs= p;            = ;   =20 S
          &nbs= p;            = ;=20 6432
          &nbs= p;            = ;=20 854
          &nbs= p;            = ; AJ2
          &nbs= p;            = ;=20 K87
 
What would you = rule????
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C38B3D.D0632410-- From nancy@dressing.org Mon Oct 6 04:16:31 2003 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 23:16:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] Fw: Director ruling Message-ID: <000801c38bb8$3d633120$6401a8c0@hare> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C38B96.B6221CB0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Nancy T Dressing=20 To: Bridge Laws=20 Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 12:40 PM Subject: Fw: Director ruling Please note the correction from my previous message. The explanation of = 3D was Strong, not weak as typed in the previous message. Sorry!! Board 8 none Dlr w Bidding W 1H N X E 3D S P (after askingBridge if 2d is weak or = strong and told strong, there was no alert) 5D P 5H all pass When asked if they played Bergen raises by the opening leader, was told = yes and the 3D bid was intended as a Bergen raise. Opener apologized = for forgetting the Bergen raise and when asked further about the = bidding, E said he could not stand playing in 5D so corrected to 5H = realizing that partner had misunderstood. There was no offer to explain = the error in bidding probably because of the questions asked by the = opening leader. North now states that had he known that the 3D could be = weak he would have bid 3 Spades in reply to the double! The hand was = played making 5 hearts easily and I said I would check with a higher = authority re the board and would act on that director's ruling and = adjust if necessary. N=20 KQJ8 Q QT75 JT64 W E =20 Void AT975 KJ632 AT97 K983 64 =20 A953 Q2 S 6432 854 AJ2 K87 What would you rule???? ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C38B96.B6221CB0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Nancy T = Dressing=20
Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 12:40 PM
Subject: Fw: Director ruling

Please note the correction from my = previous=20 message.  The explanation of 3D was Strong, not weak as typed in = the=20 previous message.  Sorry!!
Board 8
none Dlr w
Bidding
  W  1H    = N =20 X     E  3D    S P (after = askingBridge=20 if 2d is weak or strong and told strong, there was no = alert)
       =20 5D        = P     =20 5H        all pass
When asked if they played Bergen raises = by the=20 opening leader,  was told yes and the 3D bid was intended as a = Bergen=20 raise.  Opener apologized for forgetting the Bergen raise and when = asked=20 further about the bidding, E said he could not stand playing in 5D so = corrected=20 to 5H realizing that partner had misunderstood.  There was no offer = to=20 explain the error in bidding probably because of the questions asked by = the=20 opening leader.  North now states that had he known that the 3D = could be=20 weak he would have bid 3 Spades in reply to the double!  The hand = was=20 played making 5 hearts easily and I said I would check with a higher = authority=20 re the board and would act on that director's ruling and adjust if=20 necessary.
          &nbs= p;            = ;=20 N 
          &nbs= p;           KQJ8<= /FONT>
          &nbs= p;          =20 Q
          &nbs= p;          =20 QT75
          &nbs= p;           JT64<= /FONT>
W          &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;    E        = ;            =          =20
Void          =             &= nbsp;        =20 AT975
KJ632          = ;            =       =20 AT97
K983          =             &= nbsp;       =20 64            = ;            = =20
A953          =             &= nbsp;       =20 Q2
          &nbs= p;            = ;   =20 S
          &nbs= p;            = ;=20 6432
          &nbs= p;            = ;=20 854
          &nbs= p;            = ; AJ2
          &nbs= p;            = ;=20 K87
 
What would you = rule????
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C38B96.B6221CB0-- From Schoderb@aol.com Mon Oct 6 18:19:53 2003 From: Schoderb@aol.com (Schoderb@aol.com) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 13:19:53 EDT Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information Message-ID: <79.1a4d891b.2cb2fe39@aol.com> -------------------------------1065460793 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Please excuse me interrupting in this thread, but I need to know something. Was the explanation of "TO showing 4+ spades & 4+ diamonds" correct as to their agreements? If so, will somebody tell me where the infraction of the Laws occurred? The only infraction I can find is that the SO violated Law 40A which to me is quite clear re psychic bidding or even making mistakes. To call this MI is really stretching the meanings and intents of the Laws. "Psych(sic) versus correct information" is a misnomer in more ways than one. The opponents are entitled to know the full nature of their opponents agreements, not the holdings of any particular hand. To play this hand double dummy for the declarer when there is no infraction of the Law to rule upon is "directing" beyoond the usual meaning of bridge "director." Again, what was the infraction? NO infraction, no ruling. =K= -------------------------------1065460793 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Please excuse me interrupting in this thread, but I need to kno= w something.  Was the explanation of "TO showing 4+ spades & 4+ dia= monds" correct as to their agreements? If so, will somebody tell me where th= e infraction of the Laws occurred?  The only infraction I can find is t= hat the SO violated Law 40A which to me is quite clear re psychic bidding or= even making mistakes.  To call this MI is really stretching the meanin= gs and intents of the Laws.
 
"Psych(sic) versus correct information" is a misnomer in more w= ays than one.  The opponents are entitled to know the full nature=20= of their opponents agreements, not the holdings of any particular hand. = ; To play this hand double dummy for the declarer when there is no infractio= n of the Law to rule upon is "directing" beyoond the usual meaning of bridge= "director."
Again, what was the infraction?  NO infraction, no ruling.=
 
=3DK=3D
-------------------------------1065460793-- From karel@esatclear.ie Mon Oct 6 19:10:03 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 19:10:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: <79.1a4d891b.2cb2fe39@aol.com> Message-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C38C3D.720E2850 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The So's rule - says "a player cannot psych a conventional bid "(ie) can't say overcall michaels showing the majors with 1 major or open a tartan 2M (5M & 4m) with no 4m, etc etc. I'm not defending the So's rule and yes it does disallow a subset of L40A - but given this rule and that the understanding was clear (ie) 4+s's & 4+d's this is a violation of the So's rule and a psyche. As to misinformation ... what pray tell is the point in alerting anything if what you are alerting is incorrect. Sure once/twice we allow it as a psyche, 3rd time we penalise etc etc ... but in the end why bother, whats the point in the opps listening to fairy stories. The SO in their wisdom has decided that a simple psyche is ok but a conventional one causes too much disruption and disallow it (not an unreasonable stance). So either the OS is psyching or has given MI (stretch it all you want - 3 diamonds is not 4). As I replied to Herman a normally irrelevant, insignificant detail but in this case actually relevant. K. -----Original Message----- From: Schoderb@aol.com [mailto:Schoderb@aol.com] Sent: 06 October 2003 18:20 To: karel@esatclear.ie; blml@rtflb.org Subject: Re: [blml] Psych versus correct information Please excuse me interrupting in this thread, but I need to know something. Was the explanation of "TO showing 4+ spades & 4+ diamonds" correct as to their agreements? If so, will somebody tell me where the infraction of the Laws occurred? The only infraction I can find is that the SO violated Law 40A which to me is quite clear re psychic bidding or even making mistakes. To call this MI is really stretching the meanings and intents of the Laws. "Psych(sic) versus correct information" is a misnomer in more ways than one. The opponents are entitled to know the full nature of their opponents agreements, not the holdings of any particular hand. To play this hand double dummy for the declarer when there is no infraction of the Law to rule upon is "directing" beyoond the usual meaning of bridge "director." Again, what was the infraction? NO infraction, no ruling. =K= ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C38C3D.720E2850 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The So's rule - says "a player = cannot psych=20 a conventional bid "(ie) can't say overcall michaels showing the majors = with 1=20 major or open a tartan 2M (5M & 4m) with no 4m, etc etc.  I'm = not=20 defending the So's rule and yes it does disallow a subset of L40A =  - but=20 given this rule and that the understanding was clear (ie) 4+s's & = 4+d's this=20 is a violation of the So's rule and a psyche. 
 
As to misinformation ... what pray = tell is=20 the point in alerting anything if what you are alerting is = incorrect.  Sure=20 once/twice we allow it as a psyche, 3rd time we penalise etc etc ... but = in the=20 end why bother, whats the point in the opps listening to fairy = stories. =20 The SO in their wisdom has decided that a simple psyche is ok but a = conventional=20 one causes too much disruption and disallow it (not an unreasonable=20 stance).
 
So either the OS is psyching or = has given MI=20 (stretch it all you want - 3 diamonds is not 4).  As I replied to = Herman a=20 normally irrelevant, insignificant detail but in this case actually=20 relevant.
 
K. 
-----Original Message-----
From: = Schoderb@aol.com=20 [mailto:Schoderb@aol.com]
Sent: 06 October 2003 = 18:20
To:=20 karel@esatclear.ie; blml@rtflb.org
Subject: Re: [blml] Psych = versus=20 correct information

Please excuse me interrupting in this thread, but I need = to know=20 something.  Was the explanation of "TO showing 4+ spades & 4+ = diamonds" correct as to their agreements? If so, will somebody tell me = where=20 the infraction of the Laws occurred?  The only infraction I can = find is=20 that the SO violated Law 40A which to me is quite clear re psychic = bidding or=20 even making mistakes.  To call this MI is really stretching the = meanings=20 and intents of the Laws.
 
"Psych(sic) versus correct information" is a misnomer in = more=20 ways than one.  The opponents are entitled to know the full = nature=20 of their opponents agreements, not the holdings of any particular = hand. =20 To play this hand double dummy for the declarer when there is no = infraction of=20 the Law to rule upon is "directing" beyoond the usual meaning of = bridge=20 "director."
Again, what was the infraction?  NO infraction, no=20 ruling.
 
=3DK=3D
------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C38C3D.720E2850-- From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Oct 7 10:56:05 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 11:56:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] Natural and Conventional In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030930164417.00a2a7b0@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030930164417.00a2a7b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <3F828DB5.1000609@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 11:16 AM 9/30/03, Herman wrote: > >> >> -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. > And why is this a bad thing? I agree that we have been debating this issue for some years now, but the question has always been (IMO): "do the laws authorize the ACBL to regulate such-and-such agreement?" never "is the ACBL right in wishing to regulate such-and-such agreement?" Why would it be a bad thing for the WBF to allow the ACBL to regulate that 1NT cannot be opened on an 8-count? Mind you, I'm not saying that I believe that it is right to forbid the 8-point 1NT opener, only that I can understand that some SO might want to do so. And I don't believe it is in the benefit of the world game to restrict a particular SO from doing such a thing. I doubt if ever the WBF consciously considered that banning the 8-point 1NT should be allowed or not. Just another example of bad law-writing, IMO. So I would suggest the WBF remove the word convention from it's authorization to SO's to restrict the use of agreements, and allow the ACBL to do what it wants. >> -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". > I know it's a good idea. And it has the added bonus of not needing to define convention anymore. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Oct 7 11:06:48 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 12:06:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3F829038.20801@hdw.be> I forgot about the point Karel was making in the first place: Karel wrote: > The So's rule - says "a player cannot psych a conventional bid "(ie) > can't say overcall michaels showing the majors with 1 major or open a > tartan 2M (5M & 4m) with no 4m, etc etc. I'm not defending the So's > rule and yes it does disallow a subset of L40A - but given this rule > and that the understanding was clear (ie) 4+s's & 4+d's this is a > violation of the So's rule and a psyche. > Karel seems to be saying that it is either a psyche or a misinformation, and that both are disallowed, for various reasons. But that is only the case IF the true agreement was 4-4. Surely Kojak, you have made rulings during your illustrious career in which you did not believe the pair who were saying that the explanation they had provided had been correct, in the face of a hand that did not conform to that putative agreement? Surely it is not so strange to believe that the actual agreement in this case is "TO over 1Cl-1He, so probably 4Sp and 4Di"? Surely that agreement is not forbidden in the SO involved? Surely with that as the agreement, no penalty for "psyching a conventional bid" need be applied? Of course in that case we need to rule MI? And then I won't return to my opinion that there was no damage. > So either the OS is psyching or has given MI (stretch it all you want - > 3 diamonds is not 4). As I replied to Herman a normally irrelevant, > insignificant detail but in this case actually relevant. > > K. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Tue Oct 7 11:33:47 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 12:33:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] Natural and Conventional In-Reply-To: <3F828DB5.1000609@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c38cbe$7f1344f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > >> -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". > > > > I know it's a good idea. And it has the added bonus of not needing to > define convention anymore. I believe it is a very good idea, in fact so good which is essentially how we (to my knowledge) already attempt to practice Law 27B in Norway: "...if the changed call conveys essentially the same information as it is understood that the insufficient bid has conveyed in the situation ..." (Except that we of course do "obey" the automatic ruling when either call can be understood as "conventional" in the usual sense). Sven From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Oct 7 11:55:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 11:55 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Karel wrote: > I've already stated that the So's "definiton" of a conventional psyche > is any deviation from the alerted conventional call. I didn't see this anywhere in the thread. You did say "The SO BTW had a rule - it is forbidden to psych a conventional bid." but that is not at all the same thing. The SO cannot "define" a psych since the definition is already in the laws. They could, possibly, issue an interpretation that "any deviation from agreements, no matter how trivial, will be regarded as gross". IMO this would be a direct contradiction of WBFLC interpretations. The SO could also (again IMO) have a rule that any minor deviation from disclosed conventional agreements will be prima facie evidence of an undisclosed agreement (and maybe that is what they have done). Personally I would not be in favour of such a rule. BTW Does the regulation apply to all conventional calls or only alertable ones? What are the penalties for an illegal psych? > I've admitted the deviation is slight and normally would be irrelevant. > There is no room (nor should there be if you have a rule like this) for > a TD's or anyone else's opinion. A TD may, as matter of principle, decide to uphold the laws of the game instead of enforcing a local regulation - how his SO subsequently handles the situation may prove interesting. Tim From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Oct 7 13:08:37 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 08:08:37 -0400 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: References: <000401c38c55$ac377410$c610e150@endicott> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031007080116.020103d0@pop.starpower.net> At 08:40 PM 10/6/03, Ed wrote: >On Monday, Oct 6, 2003, at 06:00 US/Eastern, Grattan Endicott wrote: > >>+=+ It is legitimate under Law 40D to prohibit >>psychic use of conventions notwithstanding >>the generality of Law 40A. > >OTOH, it is not legitimate, or at least I believe it's not, to rule a >small deviation a psyche just so you can hammer the "offender". Not >saying anyone did that here, just clarifying, or trying to. It is more than merely not legitimate, it is not possible. Partnerships' bidding systems aren't logically perfect. In any system there will be hands for which no particular call is defined, and it's up to the player to pick the systemic call that gives the most accurate picture of the hand with the least distortion relative to the system. Sometimes his alternatives may all be "conventional" by whatever definition his SO uses (and I suspect a correlation between the broadness of an SO's definition of "convention" and the extent to which they regulate them). If he must choose from alternative calls all of which are illegal because they represent minor deviations from his system, what is he to do? Withdraw from the game on the spot? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Oct 7 13:09:06 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 13:09:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information References: Message-ID: <009b01c38ccb$cf240580$199868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Karel] The So's rule - says "a player cannot psych a conventional bid "(ie) can't say overcall michaels showing the majors with 1 major or open a tartan 2M (5M & 4m) with no 4m, etc etc. I'm not defending the So's rule and yes it does disallow a subset of L40A - but given this rule and that the understanding was clear (ie) 4+s's & 4+d's this is a violation of the So's rule and a psyche. [Nigel] IMO... (1) The SO law banning psyches of conventional bids is wrong, especially since "conventional" is such a poorly defined concept. (2) The WBF is wrong to allow SOs such powers, especially as they exercise them stupidly. (3) "deliberate and gross" in the definition of "Psyche" is another example of the WBFLC introducing spurious subjectivity into the laws. (4) Karel is right, of course. If somebody volunteers that a call conventionally shows a minimum of four diamonds but in fact has only a trebleton, then it is a blatant psyche/misbid. Otherwise, where do you draw the line? Would it be OK if he had doubleton? a singleton? a void? [ --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.522 / Virus Database: 320 - Release Date: 29/09/2003 From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Oct 7 13:30:47 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 08:30:47 -0400 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: <3F826FC7.2040509@hdw.be> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031006143516.02004bc0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20031006143516.02004bc0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031007081817.02017170@pop.starpower.net> At 03:48 AM 10/7/03, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>When a player's explanation of his partner's call doesn't match his >>partner's hand, there are four possible reasons: >>(A) Misexplanation: The partnership agreement was not explained >>correctly. >>(B) Misbid: The bidder forgot or misunderstood the agreement, and bid >>according to what he mistakenly thought it was. >>(C) Psych: A gross and deliberate departure from the agreement. >>(D) Judgment: The bid didn't conform to the agreement but the bidder >>decided it was the best call to make with his holding anyway. >>A is covered by TFLB. C is covered by the CoC. This case, ISTM, was >>either A or D. So the relevant question, which doesn't seem to have >>been asked, is whether W had any more reason than N-S did (other than >>their respective holdings) to suspect that E might not have had four >>diamonds: if so, adjust, if not, do not. I do not see how taking a >>bid on AKxx/xxx/Qxx/Q10x when it would be totally in conformity with >>the partnership agreement had the hand been AKxx/xx/Qxxx/Q10x can >>reasonably be deemed a "gross departure". > >Yes Eric, so it is not a psyche (C), and they themselves have ruled >out (B). So is it a (A) misexplanation or (D) judgment. >But why can it not be both? >Is judgment not part of "partnership agreement". >Could not the correct explanation have been "we have agreed that this >shows 4-4 in the unshowed suits, but sometimes we bid it on 4-3"? > >I'm not saying that it is (here) but I am saying that your 4 groups >are not mutually exclusive! Perhaps I should have written "(D) Deviation due to judgment". My intent was to classify all cases in which the explanation differed from the agreement as A, and divide the cases in which the actual holding differed from the agreement (and explanantion) into B, C and D. The concept of "implicit agreement" makes A and D mutually exclusive (although it doesn't preclude both having occurred, independently, for the same call). If the correct explanantion was indeed "we have agreed that this shows 4-4 in the unshowed suits, but sometimes we bid it on 4-3", that is a typical implicit agreement, so A would apply. Explaining 4-4 when the "real" agreement is "usually 4-4, but sometimes 4-3" is clearly MI. D applies only when the explainer had no more reason to suspect 4-3 than the opponents, given the explanation, did. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Oct 7 13:31:55 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 14:31:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031007080116.020103d0@pop.starpower.net> References: <000401c38c55$ac377410$c610e150@endicott> <5.2.0.9.0.20031007080116.020103d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <3F82B23B.3000907@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > It is more than merely not legitimate, it is not possible. > Partnerships' bidding systems aren't logically perfect. In any system > there will be hands for which no particular call is defined, and it's up > to the player to pick the systemic call that gives the most accurate > picture of the hand with the least distortion relative to the system. > Sometimes his alternatives may all be "conventional" by whatever > definition his SO uses (and I suspect a correlation between the > broadness of an SO's definition of "convention" and the extent to which > they regulate them). If he must choose from alternative calls all of > which are illegal because they represent minor deviations from his > system, what is he to do? Withdraw from the game on the spot? > Which is actually a very good argument for my philosophy that minor deviations are not deviations at all, merely part of the system itself. Indeed where is the difference between a pair who play that 1He shows 4+Sp and 4(3)+Di, because they have noticed that they sometimes need to use the call with a 4333 hand, and the pair that have not yet noticed this, make the call as well, and describe it as 4+Sp4+Di. I don't see any real difference, especially not when both partners (both the one who has discussed it and the one who hasn't) treat the call as showing a willingness to play in diamonds. At the same time, I don't consider any different the following situations: -the pair who have discussed it and explain it as 4-4, occasionally 3; -the pair who have discussed it and explain it as 4-4: -the pair who have not discussed it and explain it as 4-4. All three have given, IMO, a correct explanation of their system. The first a little more complete than the second and the third, but not much so. Surely even in the first explanation there will be omissions. As to whether or not the incompleteness may cause damage, that is another question. But as to correctness, all three are the same. IMO. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Oct 7 13:46:55 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 13:46:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information References: <009b01c38ccb$cf240580$199868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <002101c38cd1$1731d0a0$b6ae8051@pbncomputer> > (3) "deliberate and gross" in the definition of > "Psyche" is another example of the WBFLC > introducing spurious subjectivity into the laws. More than twenty years ago, scientists at the University of Cambridge showed conclusively that a 1S opening on a three-card suit and an eight count was not a psyche. Given that the opening bid showed at least a four-card suit, a three-card suit was the minimum possible deviation, and could not therefore be described as "gross", since otherwise there would be no deviations that were not gross. It follows that a deviation of 25% from a stated requirement is not gross; since the opening bid showed at least 11 points, and 8 points represented a deviation of less than 25%, this could also not be considered gross. The question arose: to what deviations could "gross" actually be applied? The answer was not difficult to discover: the amount by which the reasoning of the person who wrote the rule deviated from the actions of a rational man was clearly "gross". David Burn London, England From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Oct 7 14:09:18 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 09:09:18 -0400 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: <003401c38cb1$d4df2640$ea48e150@endicott> Message-ID: <754C6309-F8C7-11D7-BE74-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Oct 7, 2003, at 04:59 US/Eastern, Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ Please, Ed, think this through again. The SO's > regulation does not depend upon the definition of > a psyche but upon the definition of 'convention'. It > says that you may not deviate from the precise > meaning of a conventional bid. (Does it exclude other > calls?) > Such a regulation may be draconic, I would also > say it is expressed poorly because the word 'psyche' > appears and is then modified, but illegal it is not. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Law 40D gives SOs the right to regulate conventions. Law 40A gives players the right to make, among others, a call or play which "departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use of a convention." When the SO makes a regulation that says *any* deviation from the previously announced meaning is prohibited, they make a regulation that is in conflict with Law 40A. This is a violation of Law 80F ("supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these laws"). Now, the WBFLC has said that the right in Law 40D is untrammeled (good word, Eric, thanks for reminding me of it). They have said nothing about the right in Law 40A directly. They have said, if I understand it correctly, that Law 80F is effectively null and void - it does not mean what it says, rather it means that a regulation cannot conflict with the specific law under which it is made. IMO, this is an artifact of the WBF's unwillingness to interfere with major subordinates who flout the laws rather than any argument from the laws themselves. If you hold the position that whatever the WBFLC says goes, then I suppose the regulation in question is not illegal. But I agree with Mr. Lincoln: "calling a tail a leg does not make it one." From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Tue Oct 7 09:47:00 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 10:47:00 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] ABF casebook, appeal 3 Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EB91@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Richard James Hills wrote: Appeal No.3 Date: 17/01/02 Event: Seniors teams round 3 [snip] The play: South West North East H6 HJ H2 D4 S8 SA S2 S3 S9 S5 SQ S4 [snip] The complete appeal: Director: D.Anderson Appeal Panel: I.Dahler Chair N.Francis M.Prescott A.Delivera P.Gue Q2 T9532 872 QJ2 A75 KT643 KJ74 --- T63 KJ954 K63 AT8 J98 AQ86 AQ 9754 Final Contract and result: 3NTE 10 tricks 430 to E/W Play if relevant: [snip - see above] Tournament Director's Report and decision: North was taking some time to decide what to lead, since a heart return may be giving declarer his 9th trick. East commented "they're only fifties". North now led the CQ and the contract made (declarer played on diamonds). Hardly an appropriate comment (Law 74B2). The directing staff felt that it was not clear that North had been damaged and believed that it would be best if it was dealt with by an appeal committee if need be, so no adjustment to the table score but suggested that N/S (non-offenders) should appeal. The director indicated that East was not prepared to defend the case if it went to appeal. Appellant's claim: There was uncertainty in the auction about what suits East had, but this was corrected to diamonds and a major before the lead was made. East's comment led North to believe that East was weaker than the hand he held, so North chose to attack clubs, believing that East's comment meant that declarer had no play for his contract. Responder's reply: Only North appeared, but East did attend after one of the directors suggested he should. Appeal committee decision: Were unanimous that if the directing staff had ruled in favour of the non-offending side, there would have been no appeal. The score was adjusted to 3NT down one, +50 to N/S, -50 to E/W. * * * Question 1: How would you have ruled as an Aussie TD? (Law 12C3 is not available to Aussie TDs.) Question 2: How would you have ruled as an Aussie AC? (Law 12C3 is enabled for Aussie ACs.) * * * Harald Skjaeran replied: [snip] >After the club queen was led to the king, declarer >supposedly finessed diamonds, putting south on lead. >South no should know every honour card in east's hand >for a certainty (east must hold the spade king, else he >would play on diamonds, not spades), except the club >ten. A heart return now, ensures one down. [snip] Richard James Hills notes a subtle analytical flaw: After the club queen was led to the king, the 3NT contract was cold. If South, on winning the diamond queen, knocks out the king of hearts, then declarer can use the heart entry to finesse the club ten, and score nine tricks with 4 spades, 2 hearts and 3 clubs. South's refusal to establish the heart king merely meant the difference between -400 and -430. ----- You are, of course, quite correct in your analysis, Richard. ----- Harald Skjaeran continued: >The comment by east was both stupid and illegal. > >But I cannot see how it should have deceived NS. >They should have set the contract anyway. > >As an aussie TD I would have ruled table result for >EW and an appropriate PP. > >As AC, I might take into account that the remark >could "help" unalert opponents to find the wrong >defence, and give a score of some 75-85 % table >result and 15-25% one down, plus the PP. Richard James Hills replies: Given that the case was not "they (North *and* South) should" but rather "only if North returned a non-club could", would that change the Skjaeran TD and AC ruling? ----- Given Richard's and Jaap's analysis of the hand, I would change my aussie T= D decision to one down. My aussie AC decision would be something like 60% 3NT down one and 40% tabl= e result. PP still on. 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 walt1@verizon.net Tue Oct 7 17:18:30 2003 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 12:18:30 -0400 Subject: [blml] Fw: Director ruling In-Reply-To: <000801c38b5f$57b68800$6401a8c0@hare> References: <000801c38b5f$57b68800$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <6.0.0.22.0.20031007120853.02bfd540@incoming.verizon.net> At 12:40 PM 5/10/2003, Nancy T Dressing wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Nancy T Dressing >To: Nancy T Dressing >Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 7:56 PM >Subject: Director ruling > >Board 8 >none Dlr w >Bidding > W 1H N X E 3D S P (asked if 2d is weak or strong and told > weak, there was no alert) > 5D P 5H all pass >When asked if they played Bergen raises by the opening leader, was told >yes and the 3D bid was intended as a Bergen raise. Opener apologized for >forgetting the Bergen raise and when asked further about the bidding, E >said he could not stand playing in 5D so corrected to 5H realizing that >partner had misunderstood. There was no offer to explain the error in >bidding probably because of the questions asked by the opening >leader. North now states that had he known that the 3D could be weak he >would have bid 3 Spades in reply to the double! The hand was played >making 5 hearts easily and I said I would check with a higher authority re >the board and would act on that director's ruling and adjust if necessary. > N > KQJ8 > Q > QT75 > JT64 >W E >Void AT975 >KJ632 AT97 >K983 64 >A953 Q2 > S > 6432 > 854 > AJ2 > K87 > >What would you rule???? Nancy North doesn't have a double and South doesn't have a 3S bid, if they always overbid like that and South wants to be in this auction I'd sure like to rule 5SX down three. Walt From jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Tue Oct 7 18:12:23 2003 From: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 19:12:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A_[blml]_Fw=3A_Director_ruling?= Message-ID: At 12:40 PM 5/10/2003, Nancy T Dressing wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Nancy T Dressing >To: Nancy T Dressing >Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 7:56 PM >Subject: Director ruling > >Board 8 >none Dlr w >Bidding > W 1H N X E 3D S P (asked if 2d is weak or strong and told > weak, there was no alert) > 5D P 5H all pass >When asked if they played Bergen raises by the opening leader, was told >yes and the 3D bid was intended as a Bergen raise. Opener apologized for >forgetting the Bergen raise and when asked further about the bidding, E >said he could not stand playing in 5D so corrected to 5H realizing that >partner had misunderstood. There was no offer to explain the error in >bidding probably because of the questions asked by the opening >leader. North now states that had he known that the 3D could be weak he >would have bid 3 Spades in reply to the double! The hand was played >making 5 hearts easily and I said I would check with a higher authority re >the board and would act on that director's ruling and adjust if necessary. > N > KQJ8 > Q > QT75 > JT64 >W E >Void AT975 >KJ632 AT97 >K983 64 >A953 Q2 > S > 6432 > 854 > AJ2 > K87 > >What would you rule???? i can't see where is the damage to redress but: 1) what do you mean by "making 5 hearts easily"? 2) which alternative score did NS require to be assigned? jpr >Nancy __________________________________________________ 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 ___________________________________________________ From juuso@jldata.fi Tue Oct 7 18:52:03 2003 From: juuso@jldata.fi (Juuso Leikola) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 20:52:03 +0300 Subject: [blml] Fw: Director ruling In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.0.20031007120853.02bfd540@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <000001c38cfb$b72aa0d0$654dee88@shuttle> -----Original Message----- From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = Walt Sent: 7. lokakuuta 2003 19:19 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [blml] Fw: Director ruling At 12:40 PM 5/10/2003, Nancy T Dressing wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Nancy T Dressing >To: Nancy T Dressing >Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 7:56 PM >Subject: Director ruling > >Board 8 >none Dlr w >Bidding > W 1H N X E 3D S P (asked if 2d is weak or strong and = told=20 > weak, there was no alert) > 5D P 5H all pass >When asked if they played Bergen raises by the opening leader, was = told=20 >yes and the 3D bid was intended as a Bergen raise. Opener apologized = for=20 >forgetting the Bergen raise and when asked further about the bidding, E = >said he could not stand playing in 5D so corrected to 5H realizing that = >partner had misunderstood. There was no offer to explain the error in=20 >bidding probably because of the questions asked by the opening=20 >leader. North now states that had he known that the 3D could be weak = he=20 >would have bid 3 Spades in reply to the double! The hand was played=20 >making 5 hearts easily and I said I would check with a higher authority = re=20 >the board and would act on that director's ruling and adjust if = necessary. > N > KQJ8 > Q > QT75 > JT64 >W E >Void AT975 >KJ632 AT97 >K983 64 >A953 Q2 > S > 6432 > 854 > AJ2 > K87 > >What would you rule???? Nancy North doesn't have a double and South doesn't have a 3S bid, if they = always=20 overbid like that and South wants to be in this auction I'd sure like to = rule 5SX down three. Walt Classical case: East can't stay below 6level, if 5 D is genue. 6H-2 or = even better 6 H D -2 by West. Juuso _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Oct 7 20:17:55 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 20:17:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information References: <754C6309-F8C7-11D7-BE74-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <001f01c38d08$4f8de560$fc20e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 2:09 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Psych versus correct information > > > Now, the WBFLC has said that the right in Law 40D > is untrammeled (good word, Eric, thanks for > reminding me of it). They have said nothing > about the right in Law 40A directly. They have said, > if I understand it correctly, that Law 80F is > effectively null and void > +=+ This is not what the WBF has said. They have said that in various Laws the power to make regulations is granted. Only those made under Law 80F are subject to the restriction in Law 80F, which is to say any regulation not empowered elsewhere in the Laws. 80F is the default situation. As to whether one supports the WBF construction of the Law, is this not a question of constitutional authority that we have debated from time to time here? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Oct 7 20:21:41 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 20:21:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information References: <79.1a4d891b.2cb2fe39@aol.com> Message-ID: <002001c38d08$50649650$fc20e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: ; Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 6:19 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Psych versus correct information > > "Psych(sic) versus correct information" is a misnomer > in more ways than one. The opponents are entitled > to know the full nature of their opponents agreements, > not the holdings of any particular hand. To play this > hand double dummy for the declarer when there is > no infraction of the Law to rule upon is "directing" > beyoond the usual meaning of bridge "director." > Again, what was the infraction? NO infraction, no > ruling. > > =K= > +=+ The crux of the matter is whether the regulation forbids a psyche of a conventional bid or, on the other hand, forbids any deviation from the meaning of a conventional bid. Only knowing this can we settle whether there is an infraction. Karel says the regulation is: "a player cannot psych a conventional bid (ie) can't say overcall michaels showing the majors with 1 major or open a tartan 2M (5M & 4m) with no 4m, etc etc." This latter extension modifies the meaning of 'psych' and, if construed in that way, apparently prohibits any deviation, not merely psyching. This is why I say the regulation is set confusingly; if this is what they mean it is better phrased without inclusion of the word 'psych'. My point is that the two principal streams in this cross-talking debate are each linked to a different regulation, one of which is referable in this instance, the other not. But which? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From karel@esatclear.ie Tue Oct 7 20:27:52 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 20:27:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: <009b01c38ccb$cf240580$199868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: [Karel] The So's rule - says "a player cannot psych a conventional bid "(ie) can't say overcall michaels showing the majors with 1 major or open a tartan 2M (5M & 4m) with no 4m, etc etc. I'm not defending the So's rule and yes it does disallow a subset of L40A - but given this rule and that the understanding was clear (ie) 4+s's & 4+d's this is a violation of the So's rule and a psyche. [Nigel] IMO... (1) The SO law banning psyches of conventional bids is wrong, especially since "conventional" is such a poorly defined concept. +++ I disagree. Look at the american situation - they ban multi 2D and alot of other "nasty" conventions at various levels to protect the Joe Bloggs from such abuse. I think you absolutely must allow SO's the ability to make their own rules. If a participant doesn't like the rules fine they don't have to play. I do agree though that this particular SO rule is abit loose. As pointed out by several the term convention is not really defined. Having been on the recieving end of this SO rule on a few occasions let me try to explain it. As Grattan stated it is draconian absolutely. It is simple in its definition. --> If a conventional bid (read not natural) shows a certain distribution and point range and the hand doesn't adhere to this then it is a psyche, full stop. In the main this applies to weak multi openings, multi meaning overcalls, generally multi faceted complicated bids. So it is aimed at protecting the mass versus the abnormal, similar to the american approach. (4) Karel is right, of course. If somebody volunteers that a call conventionally shows a minimum of four diamonds but in fact has only a trebleton, then it is a blatant psyche/misbid. Otherwise, where do you draw the line? Would it be OK if he had doubleton? a singleton? a void? +++ Now this is where Herman would disagree - he will try very hard to get all the facts and come to a reasonable decision on each individual hand, introducing umteen shades of gray, possibly being more fair, but definitely losing the uniform, consistent, standard rulings. The So in their draconian rule are seeking to avoid this, creating a simple black and white rule. As Nigel says - where do you draw the line and far more importantly why should any player accept your view of where this line is drawn. Sometimes I think a nice simple mechanical rule like the above may make life easier - at a cost to be sure, but worthwhile. K. From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Oct 7 20:43:26 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 20:43:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information References: <000401c38c55$ac377410$c610e150@endicott> <5.2.0.9.0.20031007080116.020103d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001301c38d0b$5eb85040$356a87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 1:08 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Psych versus correct information > Partnerships' bidding systems aren't logically perfect. In > any system there will be hands for which no particular call is defined, > and it's up to the player to pick the systemic call that gives the most > accurate picture of the hand with the least distortion relative to the > system. Sometimes his alternatives may all be "conventional" by > whatever definition his SO uses (and I suspect a correlation between > the broadness of an SO's definition of "convention" and the extent to > which they regulate them). If he must choose from alternative calls > all of which are illegal because they represent minor deviations from > his system, what is he to do? Withdraw from the game on the spot? > +=+ The problem is that a convention has a defined meaning not subject to distortion as a definition. If the SO says that you can only use that convention when you have the hand it describes then your lack of a call for the hand is immaterial - you may not make the call legally. The SO did not devise your methods. Tough; probably 'Pass' is all that remains. The regulation is ill-considered but not illegal. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Oct 7 21:58:46 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 16:58:46 -0400 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: <001f01c38d08$4f8de560$fc20e150@endicott> Message-ID: <0AF7BA24-F909-11D7-BE74-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Oct 7, 2003, at 15:17 US/Eastern, Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ This is not what the WBF has said. They have > said that in various Laws the power to make regulations > is granted. Only those made under Law 80F are subject > to the restriction in Law 80F, which is to say any regulation > not empowered elsewhere in the Laws. 80F is the default > situation. Nowhere in law 80F does it say that. It quite clearly (to me, anyway) says that SOs may make regulations "not in conflict with these laws". It's a general statement, applying to all such SO regulations. So if the WBFLC says it means something else, they're changing the meaning of the words in the law. Perhaps the next iteration will say "SOs may make regulations under this law, supplementary to any law, so long as they are not in conflict with any law. This presents no restrictions on the authority to make regulations given by other laws." But I don't think it's a good idea. > As to whether one supports the WBF construction of > the Law, is this not a question of constitutional authority > that we have debated from time to time here? I recognize, because I must, the authority of the WBFLC to make and interpret the laws. Doesn't mean I have to agree with them. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Oct 7 22:11:51 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 17:11:51 -0400 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tuesday, Oct 7, 2003, at 15:27 US/Eastern, Karel wrote: > +++ I disagree. Look at the american situation - they ban multi 2D > and alot > of other "nasty" conventions at various levels to protect the Joe > Bloggs > from such abuse. Is that why they do it? Or is it a matter of greasing the squeeky wheel? Define "nasty" in this context. When I became interested in the laws, I found myself somewhat bemused by the fact that in England, Drury was banned, while in North America, multi was banned. There seemed (still seems) no rational reason for it other than "it's not what certain players are used to" - and that wasn't the explanation given, at least in the case of Drury. I disagree that playing a convention with which opponents may not be (or even are not) familiar is "abuse". > I think you absolutely must allow SO's the ability to make > their own rules. On this we agree - up to a point. > If a participant doesn't like the rules fine they don't > have to play. Uh, huh. Two possible scenarios: (1) there's only one club in town. (2) you don't find out until after you start a session that the rules aren't what you thought they were (probably, in this country, because the rules are unpublished *because* the SO/TD wants to be able to "change his mind" whenever he feels like it). What do you do? Give up the game? > --> If a conventional bid (read not natural) shows a certain > distribution > and point range and the hand doesn't adhere to this then it is a > psyche, > full stop. > > In the main this applies to weak multi openings, multi meaning > overcalls, > generally multi faceted complicated bids. So it is aimed at > protecting the > mass versus the abnormal, similar to the american approach. I'm not so sure we agree on what "the american approach" is. > The So in their draconian rule are seeking to avoid this, creating a > simple > black and white rule. Black and white rules, generally speaking, make things easier. Draconian rules, OTOH, make things unpleasant. I suppose it's a matter of which you prefer - which may depend on whether you're making the ruling, adversely affected by it, or favored by it. > As Nigel says - where do you draw the line and far more importantly why > should any player accept your view of where this line is drawn. > Sometimes I > think a nice simple mechanical rule like the above may make life > easier - at > a cost to be sure, but worthwhile. And the rest of the time? :-) From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Oct 7 22:29:09 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 17:29:09 -0400 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: <3F82B23B.3000907@hdw.be> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031007080116.020103d0@pop.starpower.net> <000401c38c55$ac377410$c610e150@endicott> <5.2.0.9.0.20031007080116.020103d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031007171818.023a4cc0@pop.starpower.net> At 08:31 AM 10/7/03, Herman wrote: >Which is actually a very good argument for my philosophy that minor >deviations are not deviations at all, merely part of the system itself. > >Indeed where is the difference between a pair who play that 1He shows >4+Sp and 4(3)+Di, because they have noticed that they sometimes need >to use the call with a 4333 hand, and the pair that have not yet >noticed this, make the call as well, and describe it as 4+Sp4+Di. >I don't see any real difference, especially not when both partners >(both the one who has discussed it and the one who hasn't) treat the >call as showing a willingness to play in diamonds. > >At the same time, I don't consider any different the following situations: >-the pair who have discussed it and explain it as 4-4, occasionally 3; >-the pair who have discussed it and explain it as 4-4: >-the pair who have not discussed it and explain it as 4-4. >All three have given, IMO, a correct explanation of their system. The >first a little more complete than the second and the third, but not >much so. Surely even in the first explanation there will be omissions. >As to whether or not the incompleteness may cause damage, that is >another question. But as to correctness, all three are the same. IMO. "Implicit agreement" is not well-defined, and does cause some tricky situations. When the issue is over the nature of some sort of implicit agreement that it might be 4-3, it might be that Herman's approach is in most cases the most practical one, eliminating the need to make a "mind-reading" finding as to whether "the pair... have not noticed this [yet]". But explicit agreements are a different matter, and Herman's second case above is not at all similar to his first. If the pair have actually discussed the possibility that it might be 4-3 but do not mention this possibility when explaining their agreement to their opponents, that is 100% clear-cut MI. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Oct 7 22:45:32 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 17:45:32 -0400 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: <001301c38d0b$5eb85040$356a87d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <938A100A-F90F-11D7-BE74-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Oct 7, 2003, at 15:43 US/Eastern, grandeval wrote: > +=+ The problem is that a convention has a defined meaning not > subject to distortion as a definition. If the SO says that you can > only use > that convention when you have the hand it describes then your lack of > a call for the hand is immaterial - you may not make the call legally. > The SO did not devise your methods. Tough; probably 'Pass' is all that > remains. > The regulation is ill-considered but not illegal. Pass, indeed. And after that, find another SO. From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Tue Oct 7 23:01:24 2003 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 23:01:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Fw: Director ruling Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB112A@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Please note the correction from my previous message. The explanation of = 3D was Strong, not weak as typed in the previous message. Sorry!! Board 8 none Dlr w Bidding W 1H N X E 3D S P (after askingBridge if 2d is weak or = strong and told strong, there was no alert) 5D P 5H all pass When asked if they played Bergen raises by the opening leader, was told = yes and the 3D bid was intended as a Bergen raise. Opener apologized = for forgetting the Bergen raise and when asked further about the = bidding, E said he could not stand playing in 5D so corrected to 5H = realizing that partner had misunderstood. There was no offer to explain = the error in bidding probably because of the questions asked by the = opening leader. North now states that had he known that the 3D could be = weak he would have bid 3 Spades in reply to the double! =20 [Frances] I assume you mean South? The hand was played making 5 hearts easily and I said I would check with = a higher authority re the board and would act on that director's ruling = and adjust if necessary. N=20 KQJ8 Q QT75 JT64 W E =20 Void AT975 KJ632 AT97 K983 64 =20 A953 Q2 S 6432 854 AJ2 K87 What would you rule???? [Frances] 5H doesn't look exactly 'easy' on a trump lead, but that doesn't matter: = it made 11 tricks after the misunderstanding came to light. I can't see = how N/S have been damaged by South not bidding 3S. 5S N/S seems to be = going for at least 800 (and that's being generous). The only case they = might possibly have is to suggest that E should have bid 6H over 5D, if = 5D systemically showed (say) a diamond void. However I imagine if you = examined E/W's system you'd probably discover that the 5D bid was = impossible; even playing with screens East probably felt there was no LA = to 5H. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Oct 7 23:21:37 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 08:21:37 +1000 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information Message-ID: >+=3D+ Please, Ed, think this through again. The SO's >regulation does not depend upon the definition of >a psyche but upon the definition of 'convention'. It >says that you may not deviate from the precise >meaning of a conventional bid. (Does it exclude other >calls?) > Such a regulation may be draconic, I would also >say it is expressed poorly because the word 'psyche' >appears and is then modified, but illegal it is not. > ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ Richard James Hills: Yes and no. I agree with Grattan that an SO has the power to make draconic regulation of conventions under Law 40D. I also agree that the regulation would be better worded if it merely stated, "absolutely any trivial deviation from a conventional call makes that call an illegal call." I disagree with Grattan that the regulation, as it is currently worded, is legal. A psychic call is defined by the Laws as "gross". The regulation may *not* legally say that black is white, and define a psychic call as "any deviation". 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 Oct 7 23:48:55 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 08:48:55 +1000 Subject: [blml] Information theory (was Psych etc) Message-ID: Eric Landau: [snip] >Partnerships' bidding systems aren't logically >perfect. In any system there will be hands for >which no particular call is defined, and it's up >to the player to pick the systemic call that >gives the most accurate picture of the hand with >the least distortion relative to the system. [snip] Richard James Hills: The Laws are not logically perfect yet (as they contain the Rubens paradox after multiple non- established revokes). I agree that in any partnership agreement, there are some hands for which multiple possible system calls may be selected. Option A is chosen on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. Option B is chosen on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays. And you snooze on Saturdays. However, I disagree that *all* systems have at least one logical gap where a particular hand has zero system calls available. Sure, one Aussie pair plays an Acol Precision hybrid, where there is no system bid available for a 15 hcp 3-3-3-4 shape. But, in my parochial Aussie tournament experiences, such logically incomplete bidding systems are a rarity amongst Aussie experts. Of course, my point of view may be Heisenberg biased by the fact that my usual system is Symmetric Relay, which *requires* eradication of logical gaps. 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 Oct 7 23:58:16 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 23:58:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information References: <938A100A-F90F-11D7-BE74-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <006701c38d2a$591a1410$b22fe150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 10:45 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Psych versus correct information > > On Tuesday, Oct 7, 2003, at 15:43 US/Eastern, grandeval wrote: > > > +=+ The problem is that a convention has a defined meaning not > > subject to distortion as a definition. If the SO says that you > > can only use that convention when you have the hand it > > describes then your lack of a call for the hand is immaterial - > > you may not make the call legally. The SO did not devise your > > methods. Tough; probably 'Pass' is all that remains. > > The regulation is ill-considered but not illegal. > > Pass, indeed. And after that, find another SO. > +=+ Well, looking at it again, perhaps 1S is available if you feel you have to bid.? +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Oct 8 00:14:31 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 00:14:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031007080116.020103d0@pop.starpower.net> <000401c38c55$ac377410$c610e150@endicott> <5.2.0.9.0.20031007080116.020103d0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20031007171818.023a4cc0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <006801c38d2a$59dffc20$b22fe150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 10:29 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Psych versus correct information > > "Implicit agreement" is not well-defined, and does > cause some tricky situations. < +=+ We have the WBFLC statement on it, already quoted in this thread. My personal opinion is that it extends beyond experience within the partnership to mutually shared experience of the partners outside of the partnership - as, for example, the common practice in the bridge club where they both play - or indeed of the region in which they play where other regions treat a situation differently, or. Greater London as distinct from Lincolnshire. ~ G ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Oct 8 00:21:37 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 00:21:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information References: <0AF7BA24-F909-11D7-BE74-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <006901c38d2a$5af20860$b22fe150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 9:58 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Psych versus correct information > > On Tuesday, Oct 7, 2003, at 15:17 US/Eastern, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > +=+ This is not what the WBF has said. They have > > said that in various Laws the power to make regulations > > is granted. Only those made under Law 80F are subject > > to the restriction in Law 80F, which is to say any regulation > > not empowered elsewhere in the Laws. 80F is the default > > situation. > > Nowhere in law 80F does it say that. It quite clearly (to me, > anyway) says that SOs may make regulations "not in conflict > with these laws". It's a general statement, applying to all > such SO regulations. < +=+ The alternative view is that since there is no statement in 40D that it is subject to 80F it is not so restricted. This is the view adopted by the WBF and acted upon by various Zones and NBOs. Note that elsewhere in the laws when it is intended that a statement should be qualified by reference to another Law there is a cross-reference; the practice is established. Looking further, regulations made under 78D and 80E, for example, where there is equally no reference to 80F, are not subject to the 80F restriction. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Your opinion is interesting, and others have adopted the same line, I find it noteworthy that the argument only seems to be raised in respect of regulations under Law 40D. Kaplan decided to test it in Geneva 1990 and put the argument in an appeal of Kojak's ruling against him. His argument, which was not raised when he acquiesced in the Geneva CoCs beforehand, was rejected* and what previously had been simply an implied decision of the WBFLC under Theus became set in stone. All kinds of regulations, including some by the ACBL and the EBL (and as we see also other authorities) as well as by the WBF itself, have their justification in the ruling. At times the WBF is a convenient source of authority; at other times not so convenient. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ (* since it was an appeal of a regulation it was heard by the Executive and the R&R Committee sitting jointly. In the 'absence' of its Chairman, as Vice I expounded the position of the WBFLC.) From kaima13@hotmail.com Wed Oct 8 00:37:21 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (Raija Davis) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 16:37:21 -0700 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031007080116.020103d0@pop.starpower.net> <000401c38c55$ac377410$c610e150@endicott> <5.2.0.9.0.20031007080116.020103d0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20031007171818.023a4cc0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 2:29 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Psych versus correct information > At 08:31 AM 10/7/03, Herman wrote: > > >Which is actually a very good argument for my philosophy that minor > >deviations are not deviations at all, merely part of the system itself. > > > >Indeed where is the difference between a pair who play that 1He shows > >4+Sp and 4(3)+Di, because they have noticed that they sometimes need > >to use the call with a 4333 hand, and the pair that have not yet > >noticed this, make the call as well, and describe it as 4+Sp4+Di. > >I don't see any real difference, especially not when both partners > >(both the one who has discussed it and the one who hasn't) treat the > >call as showing a willingness to play in diamonds. > > > >At the same time, I don't consider any different the following situations: > >-the pair who have discussed it and explain it as 4-4, occasionally 3; > >-the pair who have discussed it and explain it as 4-4: > >-the pair who have not discussed it and explain it as 4-4. > >All three have given, IMO, a correct explanation of their system. The > >first a little more complete than the second and the third, but not > >much so. Surely even in the first explanation there will be omissions. > >As to whether or not the incompleteness may cause damage, that is > >another question. But as to correctness, all three are the same. IMO. > > "Implicit agreement" is not well-defined, and does cause some tricky > situations. When the issue is over the nature of some sort of implicit > agreement that it might be 4-3, it might be that Herman's approach is > in most cases the most practical one, eliminating the need to make a > "mind-reading" finding as to whether "the pair... have not noticed this > [yet]". But explicit agreements are a different matter, and Herman's > second case above is not at all similar to his first. If the pair have > actually discussed the possibility that it might be 4-3 but do not > mention this possibility when explaining their agreement to their > opponents, that is 100% clear-cut MI. Just a comment from the rank of lurkers: Where do you find the player who admits that "we have discussed it and agreed it could be 4-3, but I forgot to tell the opponents" In practice, MI can never be clear cut in this circumstance, because such forthcoming honesty may be hard to find . And when it exists, it should be applauded. When the self-serving statements result in "no MI." in the face of everyone knowing that the statement may well have been self-serving, might we not refrain from any MI charges in this case altogether, when it is dependent on how honest the player is? Raija Davis > > > 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 cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Oct 8 00:39:57 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 00:39:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information References: Message-ID: <007501c38d2c$6a2605a0$b22fe150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 11:21 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Psych versus correct information I disagree with Grattan that the regulation, as it is currently worded, is legal. A psychic call is defined by the Laws as "gross". The regulation may *not* legally say that black is white, and define a psychic call as "any deviation". +=+ Full circle to my point of origin. They say 'psych', then explain what they mean. It turns out they do not mean 'psyche' at all. What they do mean it is legal to regulate. The wording is bad but comprehensible, their action legal. ~ G ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Oct 8 00:56:21 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 00:56:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031007080116.020103d0@pop.starpower.net> <000401c38c55$ac377410$c610e150@endicott> <5.2.0.9.0.20031007080116.020103d0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20031007171818.023a4cc0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <003201c38d2e$b4b21e90$ad8c403e@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 10:29 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Psych versus correct information > At 08:31 AM 10/7/03, Herman wrote: > > >Which is actually a very good argument for > > my philosophy that minor deviations are not > > deviations at all, merely part of the system itself. > > ---------------------- o\x/o -------------------------- etc > > .......... 100% clear-cut MI. > +=+ I am fortunate to have received this a second time, expanding comprehension. +=+ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Oct 8 01:11:33 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 20:11:33 -0400 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031007171818.023a4cc0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: On Tuesday, Oct 7, 2003, at 17:29 US/Eastern, Eric Landau wrote: > f the pair have actually discussed the possibility that it might be > 4-3 but do not mention this possibility when explaining their > agreement to their opponents, that is 100% clear-cut MI. Unless the result of the discussion was "we came to no agreement". From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Oct 8 01:12:11 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 10:12:11 +1000 Subject: [blml] Implicit agreement (was Psych etc) Message-ID: Eric Landau: >>"Implicit agreement" is not well-defined, and does >>cause some tricky situations. Grattan Endicott: >+=3D+ We have the WBFLC statement on it, already >quoted in this thread. My personal opinion is that >it extends beyond experience within the partnership >to mutually shared experience of the partners >outside of the partnership - as, for example, the >common practice in the bridge club where they >both play - or indeed of the region in which they play >where other regions treat a situation differently, or. >Greater London as distinct from Lincolnshire. > ~ G ~ +=3D+ Richard James Hills: I am stunned that Grattan has apparently become an Acolyte of the De Wael School. I cannot agree with Grattan's broad definition of implicit agreement. Suppose I arrive in Greater London on business, and on my night off I decide to pop down to the Young Chelsea Club for a casual game. I arrive just as the session starts, and have no time to discuss system with my unknown partner. All I know is that my partner is a geriatric gentleman. On the very first deal, my partner opens 1H. RHO asks me, "Is that a four card major or a five card major?" Following Grattan's advice about common practice in the Greater London region, I reply, "We have a partnership agreement that partner's 1H opening promises a minimum of four hearts." I subsequently discover that the only bridge book that my geriatric partner has ever read was Terence Reese's book on the Little Major System. MadDog rules that I have given MI, and fines me a PP of a beer. This is highly irritating since I am a teetotaller. Why won't Grattan simply let me answer "Undiscussed" to RHO's 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 grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Wed Oct 8 01:22:38 2003 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 20:22:38 -0400 Subject: [blml] Fw: Director ruling In-Reply-To: <000801c38bb8$3d633120$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20031007200757.01e38798@mail.vzavenue.net> At 11:16 PM 10/5/2003, Nancy Dressing wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Nancy T Dressing >To: Bridge Laws >Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 12:40 PM >Subject: Fw: Director ruling > >Please note the correction from my previous message. The explanation of >3D was Strong, not weak as typed in the previous message. Sorry!! >Board 8 >none Dlr w >Bidding > W 1H N X E 3D S P (after askingBridge if 2d is weak or > strong and told strong, there was no alert) > 5D P 5H all pass >When asked if they played Bergen raises by the opening leader, was told >yes and the 3D bid was intended as a Bergen raise. Opener apologized for >forgetting the Bergen raise and when asked further about the bidding, E >said he could not stand playing in 5D so corrected to 5H realizing that >partner had misunderstood. There was no offer to explain the error in >bidding probably because of the questions asked by the opening >leader. North now states that had he known that the 3D could be weak he >would have bid 3 Spades in reply to the double! The hand was played >making 5 hearts easily and I said I would check with a higher authority re >the board and would act on that director's ruling and adjust if necessary. > N > KQJ8 > Q > QT75 > JT64 >W E >Void AT975 >KJ632 AT97 >K983 64 >A953 Q2 > S > 6432 > 854 > AJ2 > K87 > >What would you rule???? East had UI from the misexplanation. If he had heard a correct explanation, he would have taken 5D by West as a slam try showing a big two-suiter. I don't know the range East plays for 3D, but it looks like 6H by East is a LA (x KJxxxx AKxxx x will make 6H a good slam), and it goes down one. As for the MI, 3S by South over a weak Bergen raise looks like a reasonable call. He has eight points, but they are all working, and North is marked with a stiff heart. If South bids 3S, West will bid either 4S or 5D, and neither will excite East; East can read West for a spade void given his own spade holding, so the SA is worthless, so East will stop in 5H. Thus N-S were damaged by the UI; if you disagree with the UI ruling, they were clearly not damaged by the MI. Based on the UI, I rule 6H down one, +50 to N-s, -50 to E-W. East should be advised of his obligations in UI situations, but I will not give him a procedural penalty. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Oct 8 01:31:30 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 20:31:30 -0400 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: <006901c38d2a$5af20860$b22fe150@endicott> Message-ID: On Tuesday, Oct 7, 2003, at 19:21 US/Eastern, Grattan Endicott wrote: > Looking further, regulations made under 78D and 80E, for > example, where there is equally no reference to 80F, are > not subject to the 80F restriction. What is sauce for the > goose is sauce for the gander. I frankly can't think of a situation in which an SO has made scoring regulations that would be in conflict with any law, but if one did, I would consider it the same way I do regulations made under 40D - still subject to 80F. Some regulations made under 80E (bidding boxes, written bidding) would seem to be in violation of the footnote to Law 40. Same thing. These are, however, it seems to me, less a problem than are regulations under 40D. > Kaplan decided to test it in Geneva 1990 and put the > argument in an appeal of Kojak's ruling against him. His > argument, which was not raised when he acquiesced in the > Geneva CoCs beforehand, was rejected* and what previously > had been simply an implied decision of the WBFLC under > Theus became set in stone. All kinds of regulations, including > some by the ACBL and the EBL (and as we see also other > authorities) as well as by the WBF itself, have their > justification in the ruling. At times the WBF is a convenient > source of authority; at other times not so convenient. Well, I guess all I can say to this is that the decision opened, IMO, a can of worms (or a Pandora's box, take your pick) better left closed. From mikedod@gte.net Tue Oct 7 20:17:30 2003 From: mikedod@gte.net (mike dodson) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 12:17:30 -0700 Subject: [blml] Fw: Director ruling References: <000801c38bb8$3d633120$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <000201c38d36$c8ead750$0100a8c0@MikesDesk> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nancy T Dressing" Subject: Fw: Director ruling >Please note the correction from my previous message. The explanation of 3D was Strong, not weak as typed in the previous >message. Sorry!! >Board 8 >none Dlr w >Bidding > W 1H N X E 3D S P (after askingBridge if 2d is weak or strong and told strong, there was no alert) > 5D P 5H all pass >When asked if they played Bergen raises by the opening leader, was told yes and the 3D bid was intended as a Bergen raise. >Opener apologized for forgetting the Bergen raise and when asked further about the bidding, E said he could not stand >playing in 5D so corrected to 5H realizing that partner had misunderstood. There was no offer to explain the error in >bidding probably because of the questions asked by the opening leader. North now states that had he known that the 3D >could be weak he would have bid 3 Spades in reply to the double! The hand was played making 5 hearts easily and I said I >would check with a higher authority re the board and would act on that director's ruling and adjust if necessary. > N > KQJ8 > Q > QT75 > JT64 >W E >Void AT975 >KJ632 AT97 >K983 64 >A953 Q2 > S > 6432 > 854 > AJ2 > K87 >What would you rule???? The MI doesn't compare to the UI in this case. I rule 6H -1. With 2 aces going past 5H is an LA whatever sort of slam try 5D might be, in any jurisdiction. Mike Dodson From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Wed Oct 8 00:27:49 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 15:27:49 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 7 Oct 2003, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Tuesday, Oct 7, 2003, at 19:21 US/Eastern, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > I frankly can't think of a situation in which an SO has made scoring > regulations that would be in conflict with any law, but if one did, I > would consider it the same way I do regulations made under 40D - still > subject to 80F. Some regulations made under 80E (bidding boxes, written > bidding) would seem to be in violation of the footnote to Law 40. Same > thing. Bear in mind that the footnote specifically permits defences to conventions, and things like written bidding and bidboxes are only permitted to be displayed on the table during the time period when you may ask for a review. After that they are picked up / turned over. Notice L20C in the Online Laws, altered to permit reviewing the bidding during the play period. This is a suggestion that someone thought allowing the auction to remain visible via a L80E special condition was NOT a permissible regulation until that law change was made. --- As for scoring regulations, let me refer you to the Worldwide pairs game run every june, in which there is No Such Thing As A Split Score, despite L12. I pointed out this oversight in the software the first year the Ecats scoring system was used. I got a reply saying they didn't feel this was an issue, instructing me to look at the other results and enter a nonbalancing ArtAS if it ever came up. It HAS come up TWICE now in my Worldwide Pairs games (just my luck -- I award maybe two or three split scores a year, and have had one in that game two years running!) This last time I sent a special note to Mike Amos, listed as DiC for the event, calling his attention to the specific boards and players affected -- and the scores were not fixed nor did I even receive a reply! --- As to the bigger issue, the idea that all regulations must avoid conflict with all laws seems obvious enough I am quite surprised that it's even come up for discussion - let alone that the WBFLC holds it not to be true! GRB From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Wed Oct 8 02:08:35 2003 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 21:08:35 -0400 Subject: [blml] Fw: Director ruling In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20031007200757.01e38798@mail.vzavenue.net> References: <000801c38bb8$3d633120$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20031007210545.01f11aa0@mail.vzavenue.net> At 08:22 PM 10/7/2003, David J. Grabiner wrote: >At 11:16 PM 10/5/2003, Nancy Dressing wrote: >Board 8 >>none Dlr w >>Bidding >> W 1H N X E 3D S P (after askingBridge if 2d is weak or >> strong and told strong, there was no alert) >> 5D P 5H all pass >>When asked if they played Bergen raises by the opening leader, was told >>yes and the 3D bid was intended as a Bergen raise. Opener apologized for >>forgetting the Bergen raise and when asked further about the bidding, E >>said he could not stand playing in 5D so corrected to 5H realizing that >>partner had misunderstood. There was no offer to explain the error in >>bidding probably because of the questions asked by the opening >>leader. North now states that had he known that the 3D could be weak he >>would have bid 3 Spades in reply to the double! The hand was played >>making 5 hearts easily and I said I would check with a higher authority >>re the board and would act on that director's ruling and adjust if necessary. >> N >> KQJ8 >> Q >> QT75 >> JT64 >>W E >>Void AT975 >>KJ632 AT97 >>K983 64 >>A953 Q2 >> S >> 6432 >> 854 >> AJ2 >> K87 >> >>What would you rule???? >As for the MI, 3S by South over a weak Bergen raise looks like a >reasonable call. He has eight points, but they are all working, and North >is marked with a stiff heart. If South bids 3S, West will bid either 4S >or 5D, and neither will excite East; East can read West for a spade void >given his own spade holding, so the SA is worthless, so East will stop in 5H. I didn't look at the North hand in context. If North doubles that light (which is not irrational; Kaplan's book on defensive bidding calls this a double), then South's 3S is not a reasonable call given the correct information. In any case, this is irrelevant to the main ruling, which is based on East choosing a 5H call over the LA of 6H when the UI suggested 5H. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Oct 8 02:23:47 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 11:23:47 +1000 Subject: [blml] Keystone Cops (was Psych etc) Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >>Some regulations made under 80E (bidding >>boxes, written bidding) would seem to be in >>violation of the footnote to Law 40. Footnote to Law 40: >A player is not entitled, during the auction >and play periods, to any aids to his memory, >calculation or technique. However, sponsoring >organisations may designate unusual methods >and allow written defences against opponents' >unusual methods to be referred to at the >table. Richard James Hills: If Ed wishes to take the footnote to Law 40 entirely literally, then most bridge sessions in most SOs are illegal. Unless screens are used, players are aided in their memory of the vulnerability by the duplicate board remaining on the table. :-) So, I partially agree with the WBF that a Law may be overridden by a regulation made pursuant to a different Law. But I partially disagree with the WBF on this issue. I believe that there are some Laws which may *not* be overridden by regulation, since I believe that there are some Laws which are keystones integral to the nature of Duplicate Contract Bridge. In my opinion, it would be a worthwhile exercise if the WBF LC had an internal discussion on which are, and which are not, keystone Laws. In my opinion, the overriding of particular keystone Laws should be prohibited in the 2005 edition to the Laws, so that an SO is consequently prevented from taking on the role of Samson. 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 Wed Oct 8 08:31:48 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 09:31:48 +0200 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031007171818.023a4cc0@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031007080116.020103d0@pop.starpower.net> <000401c38c55$ac377410$c610e150@endicott> <5.2.0.9.0.20031007080116.020103d0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20031007171818.023a4cc0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <3F83BD64.2090002@hdw.be> Just a minor quibble, Eric: Eric Landau wrote: > At 08:31 AM 10/7/03, Herman wrote: > >> At the same time, I don't consider any different the following >> situations: >> -the pair who have discussed it and explain it as 4-4, occasionally 3; >> -the pair who have discussed it and explain it as 4-4: >> -the pair who have not discussed it and explain it as 4-4. >> All three have given, IMO, a correct explanation of their system. The >> first a little more complete than the second and the third, but not >> much so. Surely even in the first explanation there will be omissions. >> As to whether or not the incompleteness may cause damage, that is >> another question. But as to correctness, all three are the same. IMO. > > > "Implicit agreement" is not well-defined, and does cause some tricky > situations. When the issue is over the nature of some sort of implicit > agreement that it might be 4-3, it might be that Herman's approach is in > most cases the most practical one, eliminating the need to make a > "mind-reading" finding as to whether "the pair... have not noticed this > [yet]". But explicit agreements are a different matter, and Herman's > second case above is not at all similar to his first. If the pair have > actually discussed the possibility that it might be 4-3 but do not > mention this possibility when explaining their agreement to their > opponents, that is 100% clear-cut MI. > Of course you are right, Eric, but that is not the point I was trying to make. Sometimes, we find ourselves in situations where the nature of the question clearly suggests that opponents are not interested in the full answer. Then, saying "Sp&Di" is enough. And in other situations, opponents are interested (or will become so) in knowing that there are 4 diamonds. Then, saying "4Sp & 4Di" is MI, just as much so in the first as in the second case. So while you are certainly right that the moral "infraction" of the second pair (who have discussed the issue yet say nothing about it) is greater than the one from the first pair (who have not discussed it but have the same logical derivation), this is unimportant in our ruling on the case. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Oct 8 08:34:09 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 09:34:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031007080116.020103d0@pop.starpower.net> <000401c38c55$ac377410$c610e150@endicott> <5.2.0.9.0.20031007080116.020103d0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20031007171818.023a4cc0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <3F83BDF1.5070006@hdw.be> Raija Davis wrote: > > Just a comment from the rank of lurkers: > Where do you find the player who admits that "we have discussed it and > agreed it could be 4-3, but I forgot to tell the opponents" In practice, > MI can never be clear cut in this circumstance, because such forthcoming > honesty may be hard to find . And when it exists, it should be applauded. > When the self-serving statements result in "no MI." in the face of everyone > knowing that the statement may well have been self-serving, might we not > refrain from any MI charges in this case altogether, when it is dependent on > how honest the player is? Or rather, rule MI in both cases, and tell the first pair that it does not matter that they have not discussed it, when it is logical in itself. We can tell the first pair that we believe them, but we don't want a dishonest (other) pair to get away with when they could easily say the same thing when it is not true. > Raija Davis > > >> >>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 >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Oct 8 08:44:54 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 09:44:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] Implicit agreement (was Psych etc) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3F83C076.9060207@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > On the very first deal, my partner opens 1H. RHO asks > me, "Is that a four card major or a five card major?" > Following Grattan's advice about common practice in the > Greater London region, I reply, "We have a partnership > agreement that partner's 1H opening promises a minimum > of four hearts." > > I subsequently discover that the only bridge book that > my geriatric partner has ever read was Terence Reese's > book on the Little Major System. > > MadDog rules that I have given MI, and fines me a PP of > a beer. This is highly irritating since I am a > teetotaller. > > Why won't Grattan simply let me answer "Undiscussed" to > RHO's question? > He does! All he's saying is that such cases are highly unlikely to come up. Suppose that you know the elderly gentleman is from Perth (are you from the East coast, Richard?). Now you have more information than your London opponents. You know the systems likely to be played in Perth, they don't. You must tell them. "undiscussed" may well be true, but hardly sufficient. > Best wishes > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Oct 8 08:44:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 08:44 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Karel wrote: > The So's rule - says "a player cannot psych a conventional bid "(ie) > can't say overcall michaels showing the majors with 1 major I play Michaels as showing 5/5 in the majors. One day I may be dealt AKQT,Q98xx,x,xxx and have to find a bid over 1C. It wouldn't occur to me that I was psyching by bidding 2C - just trying to bid my hand. The hand is a minor deviation from agreements but still has "both majors". Bridge is a game of judgement and sometimes hands will occur that are awkward for one's system. Judgement (good or bad) is what one uses to select a call when a system hole appears. Of course if I then discuss the situation with partner we might choose to alter our agreements (and a failure to alter the CC would create MI). I'm pretty sure that even Meckwell have system holes - albeit far fewer than most partnerships. I can't imagine playing in a competition where every time a hole appears I will be convicted of MI. Tim From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Oct 8 09:02:37 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 09:02:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information References: Message-ID: <004c01c38d72$c2551590$1b2be150@endicott> Grattan Endicott Cc: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 12:27 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Psych versus correct information > > On Tue, 7 Oct 2003, Ed Reppert wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday, Oct 7, 2003, at 19:21 US/Eastern, Grattan Endicott > > wrote: > > > > > > I frankly can't think of a situation in which an SO has made > > scoring regulations that would be in conflict with any law, > > but if one did, I would consider it the same way I do > > regulations made under 40D - still subject to 80F. Some > > regulations made under 80E (bidding boxes, written > > bidding) would seem to be in violation of the footnote to > > Law 40. Same thing. > +=+ Er, that was Ed. A longer look at screen regulations will reveal more cases. +=+ < > Bear in mind that the footnote specifically permits defences to > conventions, and things like written bidding and bidboxes are only > permitted to be displayed on the table during the time period when > you may ask for a review. After that they are picked up / turned > over. > > Notice L20C in the Online Laws, altered to permit reviewing the > bidding during the play period. This is a suggestion that someone > thought allowing the auction to remain visible via a L80E special > condition was NOT a permissible regulation until that law change > was made. > +=+ Notice also how much flexibility is delegated in these laws to game providers. +=+ > --- > > As for scoring regulations, let me refer you to the Worldwide > pairs game run every June, in which there is No Such Thing As > A Split Score, despite L12. I pointed out this oversight in the > software the first year the Ecats scoring system was used. I got > a reply saying they didn't feel this was an issue, instructing me > to look at the other results and enter a nonbalancing ArtAS if it > ever came up. > > It HAS come up TWICE now in my Worldwide Pairs games (just my > luck -- I award maybe two or three split scores a year, and have > had one in that game two years running!) This last time I sent a > special note to Mike Amos, listed as DiC for the event, calling > his attention to the specific boards and players affected -- and > the scores were not fixed nor did I even receive a reply! > +=+ Mike, are you there ? +=+ > --- > > As to the bigger issue, the idea that all regulations must avoid > conflict with all laws seems obvious enough I am quite surprised > that it's even come up for discussion - let alone that the WBFLC > holds it not to be true! > +=+ Did you give any thought, Gordon, to the suggestion that following the WBF interpretation there is in fact no conflict with the laws since they authorize what is done? I must refrain from saying too much, but I think it fair to add that there is a wide consensus in representations received from Zones and NBOs that the laws should be explicit in the matter. Equally there is widespread urging that those explicit powers of regulation should go further in giving regulators the flexibility to adapt practices to 'local' perceptions of need. I do not know how the drafters will react but we do begin with a current tilt in which this is happening and with some specific requests and arguments. ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Oct 8 09:06:08 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 10:06:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3F83C570.8020804@hdw.be> OK Tim, two points: Tim West-Meads wrote: > Karel wrote: > >>The So's rule - says "a player cannot psych a conventional bid "(ie) >>can't say overcall michaels showing the majors with 1 major > > > I play Michaels as showing 5/5 in the majors. One day I may be dealt > AKQT,Q98xx,x,xxx and have to find a bid over 1C. It wouldn't occur to me > that I was psyching by bidding 2C - just trying to bid my hand. The hand > is a minor deviation from agreements but still has "both majors". > > Bridge is a game of judgement and sometimes hands will occur that are > awkward for one's system. Judgement (good or bad) is what one uses to > select a call when a system hole appears. Of course if I then discuss the > situation with partner we might choose to alter our agreements (and a > failure to alter the CC would create MI). I'm pretty sure that even > Meckwell have system holes - albeit far fewer than most partnerships. I > can't imagine playing in a competition where every time a hole appears I > will be convicted of MI. > one: Karel's SO's rule is a silly one, but of course you can get away with it by saying "this is not a psyche at all, this is our (implicit) agreement". two: "convicted of MI". why? Your partner has explained 2C as "majors". They have asked more and he has said "we have not agreed that 54 is enough, has to be 55". They have insisted (suppose they do) and partner has answered "he has never done it with 54". Do you really believe that this hand is not consistent with that explanation? I find it totally correct. Yet I also consider that your hand fits the explanation. This IS a 55, and everyone knows that it is. I would not even call it MI. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Wed Oct 8 09:41:19 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 10:41:19 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Psych versus correct information Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EB92@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Herman De Wael wrote: Raija Davis wrote: >=20 > Just a comment from the rank of lurkers: > Where do you find the player who admits that "we have discussed it and > agreed it could be 4-3, but I forgot to tell the opponents" In practice, > MI can never be clear cut in this circumstance, because such forthcoming > honesty may be hard to find . And when it exists, it should be applauded. > When the self-serving statements result in "no MI." in the face of everyo= ne > knowing that the statement may well have been self-serving, might we not > refrain from any MI charges in this case altogether, when it is dependent= on > how honest the player is? Or rather, rule MI in both cases, and tell the first pair that it does=20 not matter that they have not discussed it, when it is logical in=20 itself.=20 ----- If it's logical in itself, isn't it general bridge knowledge, and not somet= hing one's obliged to explain? Or is this bad wording? Regards, Harald Skj=E6ran ----- We can tell the first pair that we believe them, but we don't=20 want a dishonest (other) pair to get away with when they could easily=20 say the same thing when it is not true. > Raija Davis >=20 >=20 >> >>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 >> >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 >=20 --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ********************************************************************** This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports ********************************************************************** ************************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error=20 please notify NIF at postmaster@nif.idrett.no.=20 Abuse can be reported to abuse@nif.idrett.no This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports ************************************************************************** From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Oct 8 10:23:51 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 11:23:51 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EB92@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EB92@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <3F83D7A7.9020800@hdw.be> Not necessarily, Harald: Skjaran, Harald wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > Or rather, rule MI in both cases, and tell the first pair that it does > not matter that they have not discussed it, when it is logical in > itself. > ----- > If it's logical in itself, isn't it general bridge knowledge, and not something one's obliged to explain? Or is this bad wording? Something can be a logical derivative from the constraints of the system, and yet not be obvious to the opponents, who don't necessarily get to know all the restraints from the system. In the hand that was presented for Michael's, I could imagine doubling or bidding one heart. There may be reasons why this partnership explicitely forbid those calls, and those are the reason's why this particular 54 is handled as a 55. That's what I mean with being logical in itself. That's when a call which is described as being outside the system is actually within it. Besides, we are not talking about damage here. "Everyone knows" that an explanation 55 always includes some 54 with a strong 4-card suit. There can be no damage from the non-telling of this possibility. But it is MI nevertheless. Even when it's the first time this player has bid a 54 as Michaels'. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Oct 8 10:43:05 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 10:43:05 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information Message-ID: <4146244.1065606185612.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> >Do you really believe that this hand is not consistent with that explanation? I find it totally correct. Yet I also consider that your hand fits the explanation. This IS a 55, and everyone knows that it is. I would not even call it MI. Don't be ridiculous, Herman. Do you realise that what you have just said amounts to the assertion that a hand with 5-5 in the majors can have four losers in the minors? We have had all this before. You are not allowed to use your fabled "judgement" in areas where your choice of call may be constrained by regulation, or by the requirement for full disclosure. David Burn London, England From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Oct 8 11:03:40 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 12:03:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: <4146244.1065606185612.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> References: <4146244.1065606185612.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <3F83E0FC.4000203@hdw.be> As usual, David, I bow to your superior bridge knowledge. dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: >>Do you really believe that this hand is not consistent with that explanation? I find it totally correct. Yet I also consider that your hand fits the explanation. This IS a 55, and everyone knows that it is. I would not even call it MI. > > > Don't be ridiculous, Herman. Do you realise that what you have just said amounts to the assertion that a hand with 5-5 in the majors can have four losers in the minors? I realize that. Are you saying that it is highly unusual to bid a two suiter on AKQT QTxxx? If that IS what you are saying, then I retract my previous statement that "everyone knows" that this is possible. > > We have had all this before. You are not allowed to use your fabled "judgement" in areas where your choice of call may be constrained by regulation, I fully agree. If an SO has a regulation that it is forbidden to use the 2Cl call to show a two-suiter of only 9 cards, then you are not allowed to say that this is a 5-5. or by the requirement for full disclosure. I also agree, but only in part. If, on the second question, you reply that it is always 55, you cannot say that it is "judgment" to get you out of the MI. Only in part, I said. In those areas where "everyone knows" that certain lenghts are to be considered with a grain of salt, the simple statement "two-suiter" does not negate a 54. And I repeat, this may be a situation where not everyone knows this. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Oct 8 11:19:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 11:19 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: <3F83C570.8020804@hdw.be> Message-ID: Hi Herman > OK Tim, two points: > > >>The So's rule - says "a player cannot psych a conventional bid "(ie) > >>can't say overcall michaels showing the majors with 1 major > > > > I play Michaels as showing 5/5 in the majors. One day I may be dealt > > AKQT,Q98xx,x,xxx and have to find a bid over 1C. It wouldn't occur > > to me that I was psyching by bidding 2C - just trying to bid my hand. > > The hand is a minor deviation from agreements but still has "both > > majors". > > > > Bridge is a game of judgement and sometimes hands will occur that are > > awkward for one's system. Judgement (good or bad) is what one uses > > to select a call when a system hole appears. Of course if I then > > discuss the situation with partner we might choose to alter our > > agreements (and a failure to alter the CC would create MI). I'm > > pretty sure that even Meckwell have system holes - albeit far fewer > > than most partnerships. I can't imagine playing in a competition > > where every time a hole appears I will be convicted of MI. > > > > one: Karel's SO's rule is a silly one, but of course you can get away The SO rule is not entirely silly. Bidding Michaels on an 8212 hand is clearly a psyche. In low-level competition there is a case for making such psyches illegal. What is silly (IMO) is interpreting the rule to mean that every minor deviation is a psyche. > with it by saying "this is not a psyche at all, this is our (implicit) > agreement". Were it an implicit agreement I would, of course, say so. However pard and I have agreed "Michaels" with no further discussion. Michaels shows "5+/5+" and my partner *will* describe it as "Michaels, at least 5/5 in the majors" - as would I. The second time it came up with the same partner (assuming he said nothing to indicate disapproval of my choice) I would say "Sort of Michaels, usually 5-5 but can be 4/5 if the 4-carder is very strong and the 5 carder is very weak". > two: "convicted of MI". why? > Your partner has explained 2C as "majors". They have asked more and he > has said "we have not agreed that 54 is enough, has to be 55". They > have insisted (suppose they do) and partner has answered "he has never > done it with 54". > Do you really believe that this hand is not consistent with that > explanation? I find it totally correct. Yet I also consider that your > hand fits the explanation. This IS a 55, and everyone knows that it > is. I would not even call it MI. Fine, so (according to you) it isn't MI, it isn't a psyche. *We* are agreed that minor deviations from what is on the cc describing a convention are legal. *We* have no problem ruling under the silly regulation. *We* might disagree over whether the hand that started this thread is a "minor" or "gross" deviation but judgement rulings will never be universal. I believe that Karel might argue that *we* are not applying the regulation correctly. Tim From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Oct 8 11:51:56 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 11:51:56 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information Message-ID: <2343029.1065610316498.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> > I realize that. Are you saying that it is highly unusual to bid a two-suiter on AKQT QTxxx? It depends what you mean by "bid a two-suiter". If it were a question of using a two-suited bid to show the majors over a 1NT opening, then 4-5 and 5-4 would be considered "normal" to the point of being "universal". But although some expert players use Michaels on 4-5 and 5-4 in the majors, this is rare. I cannot recall an instance of a 2NT overcall with nine cards in the minors. There are contexts in which 5-4 is a "two-suiter"; there are contexts in which it is not. >If that IS what you are saying, then I retract my previous statement that "everyone knows" that this is possible. Almost no one would know that it is possible, especially if the convention card said 5-5 and the bid was explained as such at the table. What this boils down to is simply that players like Tim make a habit of not having what they are supposed to have for their bidding. They justify this by saying "in my judgement, I actually had..." 5-5 in the majors, or a balanced hand, or an opening bid, or whatever it is that they have manifestly not got. They want to be able to carry on doing this, because not having what the opponents think you have often produces good results. Since these people are, by and large, contemptuous of the abilities of partners and opponents alike, they do not worry that they do not have what partner thinks they have, since partner is not supposed to think anyway. These people will argue that the regulations do not make their actions illegal, or if they do, that the regulations are themselves illegal. They are in error, but that does not matter. David Burn London, England From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Oct 8 13:17:46 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 08:17:46 -0400 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: <001301c38d0b$5eb85040$356a87d9@4nrw70j> References: <000401c38c55$ac377410$c610e150@endicott> <5.2.0.9.0.20031007080116.020103d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031008080806.00a29ba0@pop.starpower.net> At 03:43 PM 10/7/03, grandeval wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Eric Landau" > > > Partnerships' bidding systems aren't logically perfect. In > > any system there will be hands for which no particular call is defined, > > and it's up to the player to pick the systemic call that gives the most > > accurate picture of the hand with the least distortion relative to the > > system. Sometimes his alternatives may all be "conventional" by > > whatever definition his SO uses (and I suspect a correlation between > > the broadness of an SO's definition of "convention" and the extent to > > which they regulate them). If he must choose from alternative calls > > all of which are illegal because they represent minor deviations from > > his system, what is he to do? Withdraw from the game on the spot? > >+=+ The problem is that a convention has a defined meaning not >subject to distortion as a definition. If the SO says that you can >only use >that convention when you have the hand it describes then your lack of >a call for the hand is immaterial - you may not make the call legally. >The SO did not devise your methods. Tough; probably 'Pass' is all that >remains. > The regulation is ill-considered but not illegal. Even tougher if I have an explicit partnership agreement that a pass in this position denies some number of high-card points. The obvious answer is that this is not a conventional pass, so violating the partnership agreement by passing wouldn't be illegal. But are we sure? We have clearly established that an SO's "right to regulate conventions" is really a right to regulate any call whatsoever, via the perfectly legal and, at least to the WBF, perfectly acceptable "ACBL loophole": "Any partnership using any conventions whatsoever must..." It is easy to see where we've stretched our interpretations to the point where we can easily put a player in a position in which taking any call is an infraction. This may require enacting rules that are "ill-considered", but that does happen from time to time. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Oct 8 13:15:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 13:15 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: <2343029.1065610316498.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: DALB wrote: > Almost no one would know that it is possible, Everybody knows it is "possible" that a given hand may not exactly match the bid chosen - but that doesn't really help. > especially if the convention card said 5-5 and the bid was explained as > such at the table. I would say that nobody at the table would could the possibility of 54 likely. Given that the "nobody" includes partner it is not a disclosure problem. > What this boils down to is simply that players like Tim make a habit of > not having what they are supposed to have for their bidding. > They justify this by saying "in my judgement, I actually had..." 5-5 in > the majors, or a balanced hand, or an opening bid, or whatever it is > that they have manifestly not got. I just say "sorry partner, it seemed like the best bid at the time". > They want to be able to carry on > doing this, because not having what the opponents think you have often > produces good results. Since these people are, by and large, > contemptuous of the abilities of partners and opponents alike, they do > not worry that they do not have what partner thinks they have, since > partner is not supposed to think anyway. There are different strategies available at bridge. When playing with a weaker partner against good opps I have found that "not having what is expected" often works well. If partner barely knows me then there is no "experience etc" to disclose - no problem. My regular partners make an effort to disclose to the best of their knowledge. That Emily is a much weaker bridge player than David Gold is not contempt - it is a simple acknowledgement of fact. I might play the same basic system with both but my choice of calls could vary considerably (putting David into a thin game on a Moysian requiring skill in selecting the right line is winning bridge - doing the same to Emily is not!). > These people will argue that the regulations do not make their actions > illegal, or if they do, that the regulations are themselves illegal. I will argue things like "regulations on psychs shouldn't be applied to situations where no psych has occurred". or "The EBU regulation on maximum point range for a natural weak 2 was illegal." or "a number of senior EBU people believe that the rule of 19 allows for a degree of judgement.". I wouldn't argue that a regulation that said conventions could only be used on hands that matched the CC was illegal. I'd argue it was stupid and impractical - but not illegal. Tim From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Oct 8 17:23:49 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 12:23:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wednesday, Oct 8, 2003, at 03:44 US/Eastern, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Of course if I then discuss the > situation with partner we might choose to alter our agreements (and a > failure to alter the CC would create MI). I'm not so sure that last part is true - at least, not in the ACBL, where nobody seems to read CCs. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Oct 8 17:29:32 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 12:29:32 -0400 Subject: SV: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: <3F83D7A7.9020800@hdw.be> Message-ID: <98B7D102-F9AC-11D7-8175-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Oct 8, 2003, at 05:23 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > "Everyone knows" that an explanation 55 always includes some 54 with a > strong 4-card suit. There can be no damage from the non-telling of > this possibility. But it is MI nevertheless. Even when it's the first > time this player has bid a 54 as Michaels'. If "everyone knows" it, then it's general bridge knowledge. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Oct 8 18:38:01 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 18:38:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information References: <2343029.1065610316498.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <003001c38dc2$ef3055c0$cf9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [David Burn] These people will argue that the regulations do not make their actions illegal, or if they do, that the regulations are themselves illegal. [Nigel] I agree with David: you should obey rules of a game even if... (1) You disagree with them and.... (2) Legislators are ignorant of the meaning or implication of their own legislation. However, David's attitude to Tim is unfair. Tim is searching for an approved route through a legal quagmire. Under cross-examination, many legislators and TDs seem to agree with Tim in taking local regulations like the "Orange Book" with a dose of "Andrew's Liver Salts." Tim just has the honesty to admit to his views; and he tries to establish if what he does is OK. This is a hard and thankless task given the enforced official silence of the WBFLC. [David] They are in error, but that does not matter. [Nigel] Obviously these issues matter little to those BLMLers who would like more subjectivity and sophistication; but they matter to me, to Tim, (to David, too I guess); and at the bridge- table, they affect tournament players, daily. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.524 / Virus Database: 321 - Release Date: 06/10/2003 From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Oct 8 09:53:52 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 09:53:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information References: Message-ID: <000a01c38dc3$53de1bb0$1e27e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 1:31 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Psych versus correct information > . Some regulations made under 80E (bidding > boxes, written bidding) would seem to be in > violation of the footnote to Law 40. Same thing. > These are, however, it seems to me, less a > problem than are regulations under 40D. > > And RJH argued: > I partially agree with the WBF that a Law > may be overridden by a regulation made > pursuant to a different Law. > But I partially disagree with the WBF on this > issue. I believe that there are some Laws > which may *not* be overridden by regulation, > since I believe that there are some Laws which > are keystones integral to the nature of > Duplicate Contract Bridge < +=+ Special pleading? There is no case for applying the principle to one Law and not to another and the specific overrides the general. Or as I said previously, the decision is convenient to some arguments but also inconvenient to others. ~ G ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Oct 8 19:06:45 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 19:06:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information References: <000401c38c55$ac377410$c610e150@endicott> <5.2.0.9.0.20031007080116.020103d0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20031008080806.00a29ba0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <003401c38dc6$f657dc20$9619e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 1:17 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Psych versus correct information > At 03:43 PM 10/7/03, grandeval wrote: > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Eric Landau" > > > Even tougher if I have an explicit partnership agreement that a > pass in this position denies some number of high-card points. > > The obvious answer is that this is not a conventional pass, so > violating the partnership agreement by passing wouldn't be > illegal. > > But are we sure? We have clearly established that an SO's "right > to regulate conventions" is really a right to regulate any call > whatsoever, via the perfectly legal and, at least to the WBF, > perfectly acceptable "ACBL loophole": "Any partnership using > any conventions whatsoever must..." > > It is easy to see where we've stretched our interpretations to the > point where we can easily put a player in a position in which > taking any call is an infraction. This may require enacting rules > that are "ill-considered", but that does happen from time to > time. > +=+ But, of course, you know what regulations apply before you enter so you will have them in mind as you devise your methods. ~ G ~ +=+ From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Oct 8 22:18:30 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 17:18:30 -0400 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031008171618.0202f0b0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:11 PM 10/7/03, Ed wrote: >On Tuesday, Oct 7, 2003, at 15:27 US/Eastern, Karel wrote: > >>+++ I disagree. Look at the american situation - they ban multi 2D >>and alot >>of other "nasty" conventions at various levels to protect the Joe Bloggs >>from such abuse. > >Is that why they do it? Or is it a matter of greasing the squeeky wheel? > >Define "nasty" in this context. Not played by any of the members of the ACBL Board of Directors, their spouses, or their close friends. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Oct 8 22:50:26 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 17:50:26 -0400 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: <003401c38dc6$f657dc20$9619e150@endicott> References: <000401c38c55$ac377410$c610e150@endicott> <5.2.0.9.0.20031007080116.020103d0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20031008080806.00a29ba0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031008173939.020145d0@pop.starpower.net> At 02:06 PM 10/8/03, Grattan wrote: > > >----- Original Message ----- > > >From: "Eric Landau" > > > > > Even tougher if I have an explicit partnership agreement that a > > pass in this position denies some number of high-card points. > > > > The obvious answer is that this is not a conventional pass, so > > violating the partnership agreement by passing wouldn't be > > illegal. > > > > But are we sure? We have clearly established that an SO's "right > > to regulate conventions" is really a right to regulate any call > > whatsoever, via the perfectly legal and, at least to the WBF, > > perfectly acceptable "ACBL loophole": "Any partnership using > > any conventions whatsoever must..." > > > > It is easy to see where we've stretched our interpretations to the > > point where we can easily put a player in a position in which > > taking any call is an infraction. This may require enacting rules > > that are "ill-considered", but that does happen from time to > > time. > >+=+ But, of course, you know what regulations apply before >you enter so you will have them in mind as you devise your >methods. I would, of course. I'm even arrogant enough to believe that I might do so successfully enough to avoid getting into one of those binds where anything I bid is illegal. But there are a few people out there who have a bit less of a grasp of bidding theory than I do, and will probably not be as successful. IMO, they should be allowed to play too. My real fear is that I only have this problem because as of today the ACBL can only exercise the "ACBL loophole" while the WBF looks the other way, or, at best, provides a tortured interpretation which arguably allows them to get away with it. If the WBF expands L40D to allow SOs to regulate any methods they choose, the ACBL will go hog-wild with the full, unarguable backing and blessing of TFLB, no loopholes or interpretations required. That will solve this problem once and for all. I will no longer need to know the rules "as [I] devise [my] methods", for I shall not be allowed to "devise [my] methods" at all. The ACBL Board of Directors will happily do it for me. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Oct 9 00:28:58 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 09:28:58 +1000 Subject: [blml] Keystone Cops (was Psych etc) Message-ID: RJH argued: >>>I partially agree with the WBF that a Law >>>may be overridden by a regulation made >>>pursuant to a different Law. >>> >>>But I partially disagree with the WBF on this >>>issue. I believe that there are some Laws >>>which may *not* be overridden by regulation, >>>since I believe that there are some Laws which >>>are keystones integral to the nature of >>>Duplicate Contract Bridge Grattan riposted: >>+=3D+ Special pleading? There is no case for >>applying the principle to one Law and not to >>another and the specific overrides the general. >>Or as I said previously, the decision is >>convenient to some arguments but also >>inconvenient to others. >> ~ G ~ +=3D+ Book of Judges, chapter 16, verses 29-30 (King James Bible translation): >29 And Samson took hold of the two middle pillars >upon which the house stood, and on which it was >borne up, of the one with his right hand, and of >the other with his left. > >30 And Samson said, Let me die with the >Philistines. And he bowed himself with all his >might; and the house fell upon the lords, and upon >all the people that were therein. So the dead which >he slew at his death were more than they which he >slew in his life. RJH continues: My point was that if SO's modify Laws which are keystones/pillars of Duplicate Contract Bridge, the game would collapse, as its fundamental nature would be altered. 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 Thu Oct 9 00:08:53 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 00:08:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information References: <000401c38c55$ac377410$c610e150@endicott> <5.2.0.9.0.20031007080116.020103d0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20031008080806.00a29ba0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20031008173939.020145d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001701c38df5$2dbd7200$0d9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Eric Landau] I will no longer need to know the rules "as [I] devise [my] methods", for I shall not be allowed to "devise [my] methods" at all. The ACBL Board of Directors will happily do it for me. [Nigel] This kind of farce results from the WBF dog letting itself be wagged by its nether regions. IMO, local legislatures should have no power to license systems or invent disclosure rules. The WBF should define levels of competition -- the same everywhere -- perhaps three... 1. "No fear" for tyros. Everyone must play the same standard system with a standard CC. You may cross out conventions on the CC but not amend or add to them. (There is no need to impose an unsound standard system. Among sensible standard system candidates are "BW Standard", "Mosquito", "Polish forcing pass", "Precision", "Acol", "SAYC" and "WBF Standard"). It doesn't really matter which; but after the WBF has made its choice, it should stick with it. 2. "Protected" - for social bridge players and keen learners. The WBF provides written defences to non-standard conventions. The inventor of anything avant-garde must suggest a defence for WBF approval/improvement. The WBF may ban conventions that some beginners may be loth to encounter. For example.. (a) Encryption in bidding and play. (b) Multi-meaning pre-empts with no anchor suit (like Multi). (c) Psychic controls (like Drury). 3. "Normal" - Anything goes, provided that you disclose relevant understandings as appropriate and both partners have completed standard format CCs. (2) may be a waste of time. Arguably, only (1) and (3) are really unnecessary. But even if there are even more levels, at least they would not vary so much from year to year and country to country. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.524 / Virus Database: 321 - Release Date: 07/10/2003 From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Thu Oct 9 00:03:10 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 15:03:10 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: <004c01c38d72$c2551590$1b2be150@endicott> Message-ID: On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ Er, that was Ed. Yes, sorry, I cut a bit more of the original post than I first intended. [I said:] > > Notice L20C in the Online Laws, altered to permit reviewing the > > bidding during the play period. This is a suggestion that someone > > thought allowing the auction to remain visible via a L80E special > > condition was NOT a permissible regulation until that law change > > was made. > > > +=+ Notice also how much flexibility is delegated in these laws > to game providers. +=+ I am afraid to even say this, for fear of triggering changes I don't want, but: Yes, I was very impressed at how very little extra flexibility from the established rules was granted to the online game providers. There was allowance made to give sites time to bring their software into line with the laws, of course. Some small modifications were granted. But you wisely refused to allow several things that were common in the early days of online bridge. Two examples: L25 and L45 still exist, instead of being tossed in favour of "use Undo as many times as both sides agree on"; and "play it out" was not officially sanctioned as a permissible way of settling a claim. (These things will always be done in social games, online and offline -- but the Online Laws took a clear stand that in tournaments, the existing rules are to be followed.) Compliance with the laws varies widely from site to site -- but I can only imagine how much worse the chaos would be if any more freedom had been explicitly granted in the online laws. > > As to the bigger issue, the idea that all regulations must avoid > > conflict with all laws seems obvious enough I am quite surprised > > that it's even come up for discussion - let alone that the WBFLC > > holds it not to be true! > > > +=+ Did you give any thought, Gordon, to the suggestion that > following the WBF interpretation there is in fact no conflict with > the laws since they authorize what is done? It's a suggestion often made on this list .... but a suggestion that ignores the fact that WBF interpretations aren't known to many directors and aren't at our fingertips when we have to rule. Suppose a player opens 1H, his partner alerts and explains it as 5-12 HCP, 4+ hearts, etc etc, and I show up to the table to adjust the score. Fine! All is well! If he asks me why I am adjusting, I can read him L40D, show him the system regulation in force for the event, and satisfy him. Now suppose a player psychs a strong 2C opening, and I show up to the table to adjust the score. Uhoh! The player asks me to read L40A aloud. Showing him L40D isn't going to calm him down, especially with the words "may make... a call... that departs from... previously announced use of a convention" sitting there plain as day in 40A. If we can't glean the answer about a matter of law from the law book itself, we have a problem on the floor. (And have no hope of being able to rule in a uniform fashion.) > I must refrain from saying too much, but I think it fair to > add that there is a wide consensus in representations received > from Zones and NBOs that the laws should be explicit in the > matter. Making it explicit, either way, is better than leaving it unwritten. I do fear for the future of the game, though, if we go too far in the direction of allowing local variation. GRB From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Oct 9 02:11:05 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 21:11:05 -0400 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031008171618.0202f0b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <75317E42-F9F5-11D7-A025-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Oct 8, 2003, at 17:18 US/Eastern, Eric Landau wrote: > At 05:11 PM 10/7/03, Ed wrote: > >> Define "nasty" in this context. > > Not played by any of the members of the ACBL Board of Directors, their > spouses, or their close friends. Heh. Sounds about right. From kaima13@hotmail.com Thu Oct 9 02:53:49 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (Raija Davis) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 18:53:49 -0700 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information References: <000401c38c55$ac377410$c610e150@endicott> <5.2.0.9.0.20031007080116.020103d0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20031008080806.00a29ba0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20031008173939.020145d0@pop.starpower.net> <001701c38df5$2dbd7200$0d9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 4:08 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Psych versus correct information > [Eric Landau] > I will no longer need to know the rules "as > [I] devise [my] methods", for I shall not be > allowed to "devise [my] methods" at all. The > ACBL Board of Directors will happily do it for > me. > > [Nigel] > > This kind of farce results from the WBF dog > letting itself be wagged by its nether regions. > > IMO, local legislatures should have no power > to license systems or invent disclosure rules. > > The WBF should define levels of competition -- > the same everywhere -- perhaps three... > > 1. "No fear" for tyros. Everyone must play the > same standard system with a standard CC. > You may cross out conventions on the CC but not > amend or add to them. (There is no need to > impose an unsound standard system. Among > sensible standard system candidates are "BW > Standard", "Mosquito", "Polish forcing pass", > "Precision", "Acol", "SAYC" and "WBF Standard"). > It doesn't really matter which; but after the > WBF has made its choice, it should stick with it. > > 2. "Protected" - for social bridge players and > keen learners. The WBF provides written defences > to non-standard conventions. The inventor of > anything avant-garde must suggest a defence for > WBF approval/improvement. The WBF may ban > conventions that some beginners may be loth > to encounter. For example.. > (a) Encryption in bidding and play. > (b) Multi-meaning pre-empts with no anchor suit > (like Multi). > (c) Psychic controls (like Drury). Nigel, I think you've fallen off the deep end...calling Drury a psychic control. Cheers, Raija Davis > 3. "Normal" - Anything goes, provided that you > disclose relevant understandings as appropriate > and both partners have completed standard format > CCs. > > (2) may be a waste of time. Arguably, only (1) > and (3) are really unnecessary. But even if > there are even more levels, at least they would > not vary so much from year to year and country > to country. > > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system > (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.524 / Virus Database: 321 - Release Date: > 07/10/2003 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From karel@esatclear.ie Wed Oct 8 12:57:28 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 12:57:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information Message-ID: <3f83fba8.78f5.0@esatclear.ie> [snip ...] One day I may be dealt >> > AKQT,Q98xx,x,xxx and have to find a bid over 1C. It wouldn't occur to me that I was psyching by bidding 2C - just trying to bid my hand. Just comming back to this SO's rule and lets loose the word psyche (as I/We agree it is bad wording) - insert illegal. In the above case bidding michaels with the clear understanding that it shows 5/5 is under this SO's rule "illegal". ANY deviation from the alerted convention is illegal and for better or for worse deemed a psyche, full stop, no but its close or I have AKQT etc etc. This SO's rule has been called silly (maybe), illegal (which I don't believe it is), draconian (yes), bad (depends on your point of view), etc Now getting back to the original problem does N/S now have a case ?? Presuming we agree that under the SO's rule the 4+S's & 4+D's was illegal (aka deemed a psyche)... what do you rule ?? .... avg+ or 4H's making or do we still squirm and wriggle and allow the score stand ?? K. -- http://www.iol.ie From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Oct 9 07:24:20 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 16:24:20 +1000 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information Message-ID: [snip] Karel asked: >Presuming we agree that under the SO's rule >the 4+S's & 4+D's was illegal (aka deemed >a psyche)... what do you rule ?? .... avg+ >or 4H's making or do we still squirm and >wriggle and allow the score stand ?? RJH replies: An intelligent SO (which this SO is manifestly not, given its draconian regulation) should specify what score-adjustment action is to be taken after the illegal use of a convention, or after the use of an illegal convention. The EBU has a sensible regulation: "If a contestant uses a convention that is not permitted, or is adjudged to have fielded a psyche, deviation or misbid then the hand should be completed. If he attains a score of A- or less then the score stands. Otherwise he gets A- and his opponents get A+. In the case of a fielded psyche there is a further [procedural] penalty to the offending side of at least the standard amount." Best wishes Richard James 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Oct 9 07:52:25 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 16:52:25 +1000 Subject: [blml] ABF casebook, appeal 4 - written bidding Message-ID: [actual deal irrelevant and snipped] South wrote 3C on the bidding pad. It was a written "3" without the "top", looking like a "5" without the "top". Final Contract and result: 3Cx making 9 tricks 470 to N/S Tournament Director's Report and decision: The director was called to the table before the defence started when East believed the final bid was 5C, which he doubled, not 3C. The hand was played and 9 tricks were made. The bid was not clearly a 3C but most people consulted read it as 3C. There is no proviso for an adjustment in Law, and the Directors generally believed it was up to East to clarify the bid before doubling. (The contract was played as 3Cx as East was aware of the intended bid of South before play commenced). Appellant's claim: East thought South had bid 5C, and doubled on that basis. Appeal committee decision: Whilst all the committee felt that "natural justice" would suggest a score of 110, it was a matter that should have a basis in law. A majority decision 3-2 that the score (470 to N/S) to stand (Law 21A). The dissenting view was that common sense should prevail and the score adjusted to 110 to N/S. Further the committee recommends that the ABF tournament committee consider the introduction of regulations to cover written bidding. Best wishes Richard James 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 svenpran@online.no Thu Oct 9 09:24:28 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 10:24:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] ABF casebook, appeal 4 - written bidding In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c38e3e$c1bcd380$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: 9. oktober 2003 08:52 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] ABF casebook, appeal 4 - written bidding > > [actual deal irrelevant and snipped] > > South wrote 3C on the bidding pad. It was a written "3" > without the "top", looking like a "5" without the "top". > > Final Contract and result: 3Cx making 9 tricks 470 to N/S > > Tournament Director's Report and decision: > The director was called to the table before the defence > started when East believed the final bid was 5C, which he > doubled, not 3C. > The hand was played and 9 tricks were made. > The bid was not clearly a 3C but most people consulted > read it as 3C. There is no proviso for an adjustment in > Law, and the Directors generally believed it was up to > East to clarify the bid before doubling. > (The contract was played as 3Cx as East was aware of the > intended bid of South before play commenced). > > Appellant's claim: > East thought South had bid 5C, and doubled on that basis. > > Appeal committee decision: > Whilst all the committee felt that "natural justice" > would suggest a score of 110, it was a matter that should > have a basis in law. > A majority decision 3-2 that the score (470 to N/S) to > stand (Law 21A). > The dissenting view was that common sense should prevail > and the score adjusted to 110 to N/S. > Further the committee recommends that the ABF tournament > committee consider the introduction of regulations to > cover written bidding. Why did the AC not quote Law 19A3? As I see it this law perfectly covers the case in question and there seems no need for any special law or regulation for written bidding? In addition I think that Law 20A also has some relevance here. (The AC majority decision was correct; I see no excuse for dissenting) regards Sven From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Oct 9 10:32:49 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 10:32:49 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] ABF casebook, appeal 4 - written bidding Message-ID: <186742.1065691969924.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Sven wrote: >Why did the AC not quote Law 19A3? Because it is of no relevance whatever. This applies only when a player breaks 19A2 by saying, for example, "I double five clubs"; if the bid was actually three clubs, he is deemed to have doubled that. >As I see it this law perfectly covers the case in question It does not. It has almost certainly never been applied in the history of duplicate contract bridge since about 1940. I think you may have misread the law altogether; not only does it not "perfectly cover the case in question", it does not even begin to apply. >and there seems no need for any special law or regulation for written bidding. Yes, there does. I am rather surprised at the implications of Richard's message - does this mean that there are currently no regulations for written bidding? As to the actual case, it seems to me that Law 21A may be of relevance; if you're going to double something, you ought to check what it is. But this view will find no favour in the current climate, where you can claim tricks without checking that you've got them, make bids without checking that it's your turn or what the bids you've made actually are, call cards from dummy without naming them, and generally be as careless as you like, confident that a Herman will come along and adjust the score on the basis of what you ought to have done, not what you did. David Burn London, England From svenpran@online.no Thu Oct 9 11:08:23 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 12:08:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] ABF casebook, appeal 4 - written bidding In-Reply-To: <186742.1065691969924.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <000001c38e4d$46343b40$6900a8c0@WINXP> > dalburn@btopenworld.com > Sven wrote: >=20 > >Why did the AC not quote Law 19A3? >=20 > Because it is of no relevance whatever. This applies only when a = player > breaks 19A2 by saying, for example, "I double five clubs"; if the bid = was > actually three clubs, he is deemed to have doubled that. The relevance is that when you double you are deemed (regardless of how = you make your double) to have doubled the last bid, not what you think or believe were the last bid. If your opponent says "three clubs" but you think he said "five clubs" = and you then double it does not matter whether you say "double", "I double = five" or whatever once you include the word "double". I do not know, but I assume that when using written bidding then all the calls are written in sequence on the same piece of paper which is passed around, and in that case the situation becomes somewhat analogous to = saying "Double five clubs" (the bid to become doubled is already written on the paper). =20 >=20 > >As I see it this law perfectly covers the case in question >=20 > It does not. It has almost certainly never been applied in the history = of > duplicate contract bridge since about 1940.=20 Really! Have you monitored duplicate contract bridge so well since 1940 = that you are in a position to make such a claim? However, Law 19A3 is there and it fits perfectly with Law 21A which is equally relevant. And I understand that we did indeed arrive at the same result. .........(personalities snipped) Regards Sven From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Oct 9 14:42:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 14:42 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: <3f83fba8.78f5.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: Karel wrote: > Just comming back to this SO's rule and lets loose the word psyche (as > I/We agree it is bad wording) - insert illegal. You can't change a regulation after an event and have it apply retrospectively. > In the above case bidding michaels with the clear understanding that it > shows 5/5 is under this SO's rule "illegal". ANY deviation from the > alerted convention is illegal and for better or for worse deemed a > psyche, full stop, no but its close or I have AKQT etc etc. Either you lose the word psyche or you don't. You can't just "deem" something a psyche. It must be a gross and deliberate distortion. However, if an SO were to have a rule that ANY deviation from a stated convention is illegal (minor deviation, system forget, mis-sorted hand) it should also specify the penalty for such a deviation. Having such a rule in an event which permits transfer overcalls still seems ludicrous to me. In the end I believe such a rule would severely undermine the disclosure process. One would end up expanding any agreed point range by 2+ in each direction and suit lengths by 1 just in case partner got an awkward hand. Irregular partnerships may as well give up before they start - there is almost no chance of them avoiding penalties. Tim From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Thu Oct 9 16:17:16 2003 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 11:17:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] ABF casebook, appeal 4 - written bidding In-Reply-To: <000001c38e3e$c1bcd380$6900a8c0@WINXP> from "Sven Pran" at Oct 09, 2003 10:24:28 AM Message-ID: <200310091517.h99FHH5r005244@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Sven Pran writes: > > > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > > Sent: 9. oktober 2003 08:52 > > To: blml@rtflb.org > > Subject: Re: [blml] ABF casebook, appeal 4 - written bidding > > > > [actual deal irrelevant and snipped] > > > > South wrote 3C on the bidding pad. It was a written "3" > > without the "top", looking like a "5" without the "top". > > > > Final Contract and result: 3Cx making 9 tricks 470 to N/S > > > > Tournament Director's Report and decision: > > The director was called to the table before the defence > > started when East believed the final bid was 5C, which he > > doubled, not 3C. > > The hand was played and 9 tricks were made. > > The bid was not clearly a 3C but most people consulted > > read it as 3C. There is no proviso for an adjustment in > > Law, and the Directors generally believed it was up to > > East to clarify the bid before doubling. > > (The contract was played as 3Cx as East was aware of the > > intended bid of South before play commenced). > > > > Appellant's claim: > > East thought South had bid 5C, and doubled on that basis. > > > > Appeal committee decision: > > Whilst all the committee felt that "natural justice" > > would suggest a score of 110, it was a matter that should > > have a basis in law. > > A majority decision 3-2 that the score (470 to N/S) to > > stand (Law 21A). > > The dissenting view was that common sense should prevail > > and the score adjusted to 110 to N/S. > > Further the committee recommends that the ABF tournament > > committee consider the introduction of regulations to > > cover written bidding. > > Why did the AC not quote Law 19A3? > > As I see it this law perfectly covers the case in question and there seems > no need for any special law or regulation for written bidding? > > In addition I think that Law 20A also has some relevance here. > > (The AC majority decision was correct; I see no excuse for dissenting) The AC majority is allowing a player to profit from bad handwiting. Most isn't good enough here. (As in most people thought it was a 3) I'm shocked that this is even an issue. From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Oct 9 19:25:20 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 19:25:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information References: <000401c38c55$ac377410$c610e150@endicott> <5.2.0.9.0.20031007080116.020103d0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20031008080806.00a29ba0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20031008173939.020145d0@pop.starpower.net> <001701c38df5$2dbd7200$0d9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <000d01c38e92$c82a4a50$c629e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 12:08 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Psych versus correct information > > This kind of farce results from the WBF dog > letting itself be wagged by its nether regions. > > IMO, local legislatures should have no power > to license systems or invent disclosure rules. > > The WBF should define levels of competition -- > the same everywhere -- perhaps three... > +=+ Dream on. The WBF is a federation of 'nation states', of whom none would allow the imposition of some external culture upon their several game environments. The governing council of the WBF and its executive are composed of the delegates of those bodies, not the independent emissaries of some external power, and can only act by mutual consent. The chief activity of a WBF President is the negotiation of that consent. The drafting of laws for the game is also a matter of negotiation and consent. These things apart, I really do not believe that those who organize bridge events should be denied full control of the methods that entrants to their competitions may employ. More, I believe there is the natural constraint on abuse of such powers - the constraint of the market and the feet that walk. This, in my opinion, is the reason that the minority who are so vocal on blml do not get the 'freedoms' - or of Nigel's anything-goes Level 3 should we say 'the anarchy' - for which they argue. That means that I defend, and wish to promote, the right of the Zone and of the NBO to establish its own game environment. The Estonian set-up would not suit the French, nor vice versa, the EBL set-up would not satisfy the ACBL, nor vice versa. I go further, wishing to ensure that each bridge club may do for itself what the Zone may do at its level - determine what methods are acceptable in its sessions. It follows that I do not see in this diversity any demolition of the rule of law : the Laws should provide the framework and allow of the scope for flexibility in subordinate regulation. As for the complaints of our fellow subscribers in the North Americas, their remedy, if such it be, lies internally within their own organization - it is not for the WBF to step in as a godfather to do it for them. Unless they can persuade their fellow members that they are right, and to vote accordingly, they can not alter the society in which they live. In the great democracies of this world is not this truth fundamental? Except you live in Iraq. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Oct 9 19:51:04 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 19:51:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] ABF casebook, appeal 4 - written bidding References: <200310091517.h99FHH5r005244@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <002f01c38e96$4e43a340$449c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> > > [Richard James Hills] > > South wrote 3C on the bidding pad. It was > > a written "3" without the "top", looking > > like a "5" without the "top". [Ron Johnson] > Most isn't good enough here. (As in most > people thought it was a 3) > The AC majority is allowing a player to > profit from bad handwiting. [Nigel] IMO Ron is right. My schoolfriends and I write a "five" that looks like a "three" wihout a "top". How would the AC rule if LHO overcalls my intended bid of "5C" with an insufficient cue-bid of "4C"? What if I call my friends as witnesses, to read my writing? IMO, unless their aim is to encourage others to try their luck with ambiguous written calls, the AC should impose a PP on South. Even better would be to devise appropriate stationery. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.524 / Virus Database: 321 - Release Date: 06/10/2003 From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Oct 9 20:17:38 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 20:17:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] ABF casebook, appeal 4 - written bidding References: <200310091517.h99FHH5r005244@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <000b01c38e9a$4895f200$1e9f193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 4:17 PM Subject: Re: [blml] ABF casebook, appeal 4 - written bidding > > > > > > Further the committee recommends that the ABF tournament > > > committee consider the introduction of regulations to > > > cover written bidding. > > > > Why did the AC not quote Law 19A3? > > > > As I see it this law perfectly covers the case in question and there seems > > no need for any special law or regulation for written bidding? > > > > In addition I think that Law 20A also has some relevance here. > > > > (The AC majority decision was correct; I see no excuse for dissenting) > > The AC majority is allowing a player to profit from bad handwiting. > > Most isn't good enough here. (As in most people thought it was a 3) > > I'm shocked that this is even an issue. > +=+ Now if anything is to cause shock I would think it is the proposition that an auction is being conducted with written bidding in the absence of proper regulations to establish conditions for written bidding (Law 80E). A particular question would be, for example: "When is a call deemed to have been made?", leading to the supplementary question: "Is an incompletely written call 'made'?" In principle I agree that Law 21A applies, but only if the bid that has been doubled was 'made' in accordance with the regulations. The absence of a regulation to provide the answer to this would appear to establish an SO's error and I have not found in my Law Book a pertinent law. If the call that was doubled was not made it might appear that Law 35A applies, and here perhaps also 12A2. With tongue in cheek, ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard_willey@symantec.com Thu Oct 9 20:48:57 2003 From: richard_willey@symantec.com (Richard Willey) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 12:48:57 -0700 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information Message-ID: Grattan wrote: >As for the complaints of our fellow >subscribers in the North Americas, their remedy, >if such it be, lies internally within their own >organization - it is not for the WBF to step in as >a godfather to do it for them. Unless they can >persuade their fellow members that they are >right, and to vote accordingly, they can not >alter the society in which they live. In the great >democracies of this world is not this truth >fundamental? The system of jurisprudence within the United States was carefully and=20 deliberately designed to limit the powers of the central authorities. The = framers of the United States constitution had enormous fear that an=20 unresponsive strong central government would seek to concentrate=20 authority. Accordingly, a system of checks and balances was established.=20 One central component of this structure is an independent judiciary=20 empowered interprets the laws. Furthermore, the United States was=20 clearly and consciously designed as a Republic and not a Democracy. Here, = once again, the political structure is designed to protect against ?the=20 tyranny of the majority?. I understand all to well that the European=20 legal structures are fundamentally very different from those in the United = States. I wish that some of the principles on this list had the same=20 appreciation.=20 Unfortunately, I have come to the conclusion that the over-riding goal of=20 the WBF laws community is creating laws to empower the Zonal=20 organizations.=20 I would argue that it is much more important to limit their discretionary=20 authority. Then again, I'm from North America. Grattan argues that players in the ACBL need to effect change within the=20 organization. Large numbers of individuals are having a dramatic impact=20 on the system through a conscious and deliberate decision not to become=20 actively involved in ACBL bridge. The organization is clearly dying,=20 however, the pending collapse won?t be reflected in the revenue figures=20 for another few years. From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Oct 9 22:02:51 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 17:02:51 -0400 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: <000d01c38e92$c82a4a50$c629e150@endicott> References: <000401c38c55$ac377410$c610e150@endicott> <5.2.0.9.0.20031007080116.020103d0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20031008080806.00a29ba0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20031008173939.020145d0@pop.starpower.net> <001701c38df5$2dbd7200$0d9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031009164321.022b08f0@pop.starpower.net> At 02:25 PM 10/9/03, Grattan wrote: >+=+ Dream on. The WBF is a federation of 'nation >states', of whom none would allow the imposition >of some external culture upon their several game >environments. The governing council of the WBF >and its executive are composed of the delegates >of those bodies, not the independent emissaries >of some external power, and can only act by mutual >consent. The chief activity of a WBF President is the >negotiation of that consent. The drafting of laws for >the game is also a matter of negotiation and consent. > These things apart, I really do not believe >that those who organize bridge events should be >denied full control of the methods that entrants to >their competitions may employ. More, I believe >there is the natural constraint on abuse of such >powers - the constraint of the market and the >feet that walk. Unfortunately, if those feet live in the ACBL, the closest non-ACBL duplicate game they can walk to is in Guatemala! > This, in my opinion, is the reason >that the minority who are so vocal on blml do not >get the 'freedoms' - or of Nigel's anything-goes > Level 3 should we say 'the anarchy' - for which >they argue. Is the fundamental nature of the game best left in the hands of the majority? Serious and experienced players are a tiny minority, but surely in a better position to appreciate the subtleties required for sensible rule-making. If the majority of fans of the American TV program "Survivor" had their way, next season's show would take the title literally, arm the players with lethal weapons, and award the prize to the literal survivor. This would be very entertaining to the majority, but they'd soon discover that they had a hard time finding anyone who wanted to try to qualify for the finals. > That means that I defend, and wish to promote, >the right of the Zone and of the NBO to establish >its own game environment. The Estonian set-up >would not suit the French, nor vice versa, >the EBL set-up would not satisfy the ACBL, nor >vice versa. I go further, wishing to ensure that >each bridge club may do for itself what the Zone >may do at its level - determine what methods are >acceptable in its sessions. It follows that I do not >see in this diversity any demolition of the rule of >law : the Laws should provide the framework and >allow of the scope for flexibility in subordinate >regulation. As for the complaints of our fellow >subscribers in the North Americas, their remedy, >if such it be, lies internally within their own >organization - it is not for the WBF to step in as >a godfather to do it for them. Unless they can >persuade their fellow members that they are >right, and to vote accordingly, they can not >alter the society in which they live. In the great >democracies of this world is not this truth >fundamental? Persuading is easy. Voting isn't an option -- ordinary members only get to vote for Unit boards, who in turn elect District boards, who in turn elect the national Board of Directors. For a change initiated at the bottom to reach the top requires mounting a massive effort in a majority of the ACBL's hundreds of Units across North America, and, if such were possible, would take decades. For at least half a century the ACBL BoD has been assiduously protecting the security of their positions, and have successfully put numerous obstacles in the way of any possible change of which they do not approve. Grattan's views are fine in theory, and might work in the ACBL if our national BoD was elected by vote of the membership, but as it is the ordinary ACBL member (if they are even aware of the existence of the WBF -- the ACBL doesn't go out of its way to talk or write about it) sees the authority of a small number of WBF officials over whom they have no control as the only alternative to the authority of a small number of ACBL officials over whom they have no control, and has seen enough of the former to prefer the devil they don't know to the one that they do. > Except you live in Iraq. The ACBL would do just fine in Iraq, where nobody expects organizations to be democratic, leaders to be elected, or ordinary citizens to have any influence over their governance whatsoever. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From adam@irvine.com Thu Oct 9 23:06:23 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 15:06:23 -0700 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 09 Oct 2003 12:48:57 PDT." Message-ID: <200310092206.PAA08018@mailhub.irvine.com> Once again wandering into a thread without having taken time to read all 8,326,514 posts already made to the thread. But here goes . . . > Grattan wrote: > > >As for the complaints of our fellow > >subscribers in the North Americas, their remedy, > >if such it be, lies internally within their own > >organization - it is not for the WBF to step in as > >a godfather to do it for them. Unless they can > >persuade their fellow members that they are > >right, and to vote accordingly, they can not > >alter the society in which they live. In the great > >democracies of this world is not this truth > >fundamental? > > The system of jurisprudence within the United States was carefully and > deliberately designed to limit the powers of the central authorities. The > framers of the United States constitution had enormous fear that an > unresponsive strong central government would seek to concentrate > authority. Accordingly, a system of checks and balances was established. > One central component of this structure is an independent judiciary > empowered interprets the laws. Actually, some would argue with this . . . the Constitution doesn't speak of either an "independent" judiciary or a judiciary empowered to "interpret" the Laws. Thomas Jefferson, who was one of the champions of a government as decentralized as possible, thought the idea of an independent judiciary was a bad one (although he may have originally thought otherwise, and come to that conclusion later after his own experience in the executive branch). But this is a side point. > Furthermore, the United States was > clearly and consciously designed as a Republic and not a Democracy. Here, > once again, the political structure is designed to protect against ?the > tyranny of the majority?. I think you have this analogy exactly backwards. Yes, a primary objective of the United States constitution was to limit the power of the central government (although giving it more powers than it had under the Articles of Confederation). But the United States Constitution did not do as much to limit the powers of the governments of constituent states as it did to limit itself. Note, for example, that the First Amendment prohibits *Congress* from establishing a national religion, abridging freedom of speech, etc., while not prohibiting the states from doing so. And the Tenth Amendment reserves all powers to the States that were not reserved for the central government or explicitly prohibited to the States. (But the Second through Eighth Amendments do serve as restrictions on the States.) Yet you seem to be drawing on this analogy to argue that the WBF, a central authority, should use its authority to limit what the member organizations (ZO's) can do. This is rather backward from what you're arguing the U.S. Constitution did, the purpose of which was (as you argued) to put limits on the power of the central authority. I agree with Grattan, who "wish[es] to ensure that each bridge club may do for itself what the Zone may do at its level - determine what methods are acceptable in its sessions". This makes sense to me; just as people in Poughkeepsie would prefer that the laws governing the people in Poughkeepsie be made by the people of Poughkeepsie and not by the people of Seattle, so people who frequent a bridge club would prefer to play by rules that their club can mutually agree on, and not have rules made for them by people two thousand miles away who never play at their club. Of course, the Constitution and Bill of Rights were set up to protect rights which the founders believed were endowed by their Creator, and should not be taken away by any men, even the government of a small town. So the people of Poughkeepsie can't pass a law banning trials by jury, for instance. But there are no such issues in bridge---bridge is a game, not real life, and there is no "right" to play a certain way endowed by any Creator, not even by Harold Vanderbilt. The only issues are that some people think the game should be played one way and others think it should be played another way. Since there is no reason why every bridge game in the world has to be played exactly the same way, it makes the most sense to me that the preferences of the players who are likely to play in a given event should rule, and that sponsoring organizations should do whatever is feasible to try to make everyone happy (by holding separate events); it does not make sense to me that players in an American tournament, who may prefer to play in a game where they don't have to deal with Multi or such, should be prevented from playing that way because players in France or India or wherever don't like playing like that. > I understand all to well that the European > legal structures are fundamentally very different from those in the United > States. I wish that some of the principles on this list had the same > appreciation. > > Unfortunately, I have come to the conclusion that the over-riding goal of > the WBF laws community is creating laws to empower the Zonal > organizations. > I would argue that it is much more important to limit their discretionary > authority. Then again, I'm from North America. I don't see what being from North America has to do with it. I'd guess that any bridge player who doesn't like the decisions their particular ZO is making would be in favor of the WBF limiting their ZO's discretionary power. > Grattan argues that players in the ACBL need to effect change within the > organization. Large numbers of individuals are having a dramatic impact > on the system through a conscious and deliberate decision not to become > actively involved in ACBL bridge. The organization is clearly dying, > however, the pending collapse won?t be reflected in the revenue figures > for another few years. The ACBL does have problems as an organization. Why the solution would be for the WBF to put restrictions on the steps the ACBL might be able to take to solve those problems, I can't fathom. Are those elected to the WBF board automatically going to have more business sense, or be better at promotion, or understand American bridge players, better than the ACBL? I think this argues for the opposite conclusion: we ought to presume (the incompetence of the current ACBL officials in this area notwithstanding) that zonal organizations are going to know more about the players and cultures in their own zones than board members from far-flung players all over the world do, and it's best to give them as much discretion as they need to adapt their strategies to their particular cultures. By the way, I don't disagree with anything Eric said. The ACBL has been doing enough of a botch-up job that it's understandable why some players may prefer somebody bigger to come in and take over. However, this does not support the argument that *as* *a* *matter* *of* *principle*, the WBF's goal should be to limit the discretionary powers of the member organizations. After all, someday the tables might be turned, and the ACBL may be the competent ones while the WBF may be composed of former ACBL board members---now what argument would you make for your "WBF-should-limit-ZO's-discretion" principle? -- Adam From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Oct 9 23:08:27 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 23:08:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information References: Message-ID: <003401c38eb1$f8f3d1f0$0d2fe150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 8:48 PM Subject: re: [blml] Psych versus correct information The system of jurisprudence within the United States was carefully and deliberately designed to limit the powers of the central authorities. Unfortunately, I have come to the conclusion that the over-riding goal of the WBF laws community is creating laws to empower the Zonal organizations. I would argue that it is much more important to limit their discretionary authority. Then again, I'm from North America. +=+ Now let me understand. Someone from 'North America' is advocating control by the WBF as the central authority. Right? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Oct 10 00:11:26 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 09:11:26 +1000 Subject: [blml] Corporate governance (was Psych etc) Message-ID: Grattan wrote: [snip] >>More, I believe there is the natural >>constraint on abuse of such powers - the >>constraint of the market and the feet >>that walk. Eric Landau replied: >Unfortunately, if those feet live in the >ACBL, the closest non-ACBL duplicate game >they can walk to is in Guatemala! RJH ripostes: Not so. Marv has described his enjoyment in playing in a non-ACBL home game a friend organised. This had almost no constraints on conventions, and so it therefore suited the "market" of Marv and like-minded others. [snip] Eric continued: >Is the fundamental nature of the game best >left in the hands of the majority? Serious >and experienced players are a tiny minority, >but surely in a better position to >appreciate the subtleties required for >sensible rule-making. RJH ripostes: A good point, but the ACBL Laws Commission is a tiny minority containing the serious and experienced Chip Martel and Eric Rodwell. [snip] Eric continued: >Grattan's views are fine in theory, and might >work in the ACBL if our national BoD was >elected by vote of the membership, RJH ripostes: But Eric is now arguing against his previous stated goal of having serious and experienced players making the rules - direct election of the ACBL Board of Directors increases the Schwarzenegger factor. In a fully democratic ballot of all ACBL members for a BoD spot, where World Champion Bud Reinhold ran against Eric Landau, Bud would win. Grattan wrote: >>Except you live in Iraq. Eric replied: >The ACBL would do just fine in Iraq, where >nobody expects organizations to be democratic, >leaders to be elected, or ordinary citizens to >have any influence over their governance >whatsoever. RJH ripostes: In my humble opinion, Eric's philippic is a tad overstated. Jeff Rubens revealed, in his eulogy of Edgar Kaplan, that a serious player *can* be elected to the ACBL BoD *if* that serious player is willing to put serious effort into serious lobbying and serious gladhanding. "O King, for traveling over the country, there are royal roads and roads for common citizens; but in geometry there is one road for all." -- Menaechmus (4th century BC) when his pupil Alexander the Great asked for a shortcut to geometry. Likewise, there is no royal road for election to the ABF National Authority. My postings to blml will *not* create a shortcut for me. If anything, my postings have created a right royal detour. :-) Best wishes Richard James 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 siegmund@mosquitonet.com Thu Oct 9 23:04:22 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 14:04:22 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information (fwd) Message-ID: On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ Now let me understand. Someone from > 'North America' is advocating control by the > WBF as the central authority. Right? I can see where it might have sounded that way. But I don't think that is quite what we are advocating. We want there to be checks on the power of our regional dictators. When I argue for (for instance) L40A to be maintained and L40D weakened, I am not asking for a "worldwide convention chart" -- I am calling for recognition of an individual player's rights. Something like the way new members of the European Union have to sign on to the Human Rights Declaration - only in this case, the "rights" in question are things like freedom to choose a system, a guarantee of a consistent and just resolution to a disputed claim, and an assurance that I will be compensated if my opponent steals from me using UI. Some of the proposed changes (like allowing regulation of all agreements, not just conventions) would simplify the laws and, on the surface, appear to give more power to the local groups of players. But this is like making the U.S. Constitution "simpler and more concise, and allowing more power to local bodies" by striking out all of the Bill of Rights except the 10th. No thanks, I don't want to allow my state to decide to ban free speech or get rid of jury trials just because it'd make the federal government smaller if they did. To sum up: the WBF currently serves to restrain the ACBL from some of the more extreme and harmful proposals they want to implement. (And the ACBLLC restrains the ACBL BoD in the same way -- refusing to grant permission to refer to one's own convention card, for instance.) We fear for the future of our game if the WBF is not there to demand that players be allowed certain freedoms and forced to adhere to certain responsibilities. GRB From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Oct 10 00:56:42 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 00:56:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information References: <000401c38c55$ac377410$c610e150@endicott> <5.2.0.9.0.20031007080116.020103d0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20031008080806.00a29ba0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20031008173939.020145d0@pop.starpower.net> <001701c38df5$2dbd7200$0d9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <5.2.0.9.0.20031009164321.022b08f0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001901c38ec2$3e24bae0$6fb2193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 10:02 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Psych versus correct information > > Except you live in Iraq. > > The ACBL would do just fine in Iraq, where > nobody expects organizations to be democratic, > leaders to be elected, or ordinary citizens to have > any influence over their governance whatsoever. > +=+ Not exactly what I have been hearing on radio and tv of the opinions of Iraqi citizens. They want democracy, and to run it themselves. Sadly fear of the re-emegence of the Baath Party, and of incursions by neighbouring principalities and powers into any vacuum, delays the day when they will be safely left to get on with it. I am not sure, reading the Willey history of the USA, how it is that each State (with a few gaps of conscience) does not have its own NBO. ~ G ~ +=+ From adam@irvine.com Fri Oct 10 01:49:47 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 17:49:47 -0700 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information (fwd) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 09 Oct 2003 14:04:22 -0800." Message-ID: <200310100049.RAA12248@mailhub.irvine.com> Gordon Bower wrote: > On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > +=+ Now let me understand. Someone from > > 'North America' is advocating control by the > > WBF as the central authority. Right? > > I can see where it might have sounded that way. But I don't think that is > quite what we are advocating. > > We want there to be checks on the power of our regional dictators. > > When I argue for (for instance) L40A to be maintained and L40D weakened, I > am not asking for a "worldwide convention chart" -- I am calling for > recognition of an individual player's rights. Something like the way new > members of the European Union have to sign on to the Human Rights > Declaration - only in this case, the "rights" in question are things like > freedom to choose a system, a guarantee of a consistent and just > resolution to a disputed claim, and an assurance that I will be > compensated if my opponent steals from me using UI. Or the "rights" in question could be the right to conduct an auction without difficult destructive bids when our side has the high cards, the right to trust that the opponents' bids mean close to what they're supposed to mean and not be psychic, ... Believe me, a lot of players think they have this last right. I don't think it's helpful at all to talk about rights, when it comes to bridge. If you want to play, play by the rules. If four people get together to play bridge, and three of them want to play with a "no psyching" rule, to what end would you argue with them about your "right" to psych? And why would you want to force three people to play with a rule they don't like, just so you can play with a rule you do like? Either play by their rules, or take your cards and go home. The same applies when larger groups of people get together to play. If most of the players there want to play with a rule you don't like, why would you want to force them to give up the rule? That seems awfully selfish. Again, either play by their rules, or find another group of players who would rather play your way, and play with them. In fact, it's possible for ACBL or other organizations to try to cater to everyone, by running different types of events. They could, for example, run a SuperChart pairs event (or even a SuperSuperChart event where forcing pass systems and stuff are allowed) concurrently with a GCC event. People who want to play all sorts of stuff could play in the less-restrictive event, and people who don't want to have to deal with that kind of stuff could play in the GCC event. Everyone's happy. Except that a proposal such as yours would prevent organizations from doing something like that. (*) Why would you want to prevent that? (*) [I'm not implying that you think the GCC should be scrapped. If you don't think it should, then change GCC in the above paragraph to something more restrictive so that it would fall afoul of your proposal. Like "Yellow Card", maybe.] Anyway, the main point I (and I think Grattan) am trying to make is: Assuming the ACBL were doing a decent job of determining what kind of game their players enjoy playing (a questionable assumption, to be sure; but I seriously doubt that the WBF has been doing a better job of determining American players' desires), they should be free to provide that game; and no player has a "right" to insist that the league should provide a game they like at the expense of other players. Bridge is a game, after all. Its purpose is for people to enjoy. > Some of the proposed changes (like allowing regulation of all agreements, > not just conventions) would simplify the laws and, on the surface, appear > to give more power to the local groups of players. But this is like making > the U.S. Constitution "simpler and more concise, and allowing more power > to local bodies" by striking out all of the Bill of Rights except the > 10th. No thanks, I don't want to allow my state to decide to ban free > speech or get rid of jury trials just because it'd make the federal > government smaller if they did. Side note: The Constitution does not prevent states from banning free speech. But it does prevent them from getting rid of jury trials. > To sum up: the WBF currently serves to restrain the ACBL from some of the > more extreme and harmful proposals they want to implement. How do you define "harmful"? Harmful to what, exactly? (I'm not saying they're not harmful; I'm saying that it's important to be more specific about what we mean by this term, so that we readers can decide whether what you consider "harm" really is harm.) -- Adam From wayne@ebridgenz.com Fri Oct 10 02:16:40 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:16:40 +1300 Subject: OT - RE: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002b01c38ecc$307432e0$dbe436d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sent: Friday, 10 October 2003 1:42 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Psych versus correct information > > > Karel wrote: > > > Just comming back to this SO's rule and lets loose the word > psyche (as > > I/We agree it is bad wording) - insert illegal. > > You can't change a regulation after an event and have it apply > retrospectively. > It might be possible in New Zealand. We recently had a member of Parliament take out dual citizenship with another country. Under New Zealand law that required the Speaker of the House to declarer the seat vacant. So did that happen. No way!!! The Government changed the law retrospectively so that Harry could keep his seat. Wayne From wayne@ebridgenz.com Fri Oct 10 02:27:38 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:27:38 +1300 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: <000d01c38e92$c82a4a50$c629e150@endicott> Message-ID: <002e01c38ecd$b71b37c0$dbe436d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Grattan Endicott > Sent: Friday, 10 October 2003 6:25 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Psych versus correct information > > Unless they can > persuade their fellow members that they are > right, and to vote accordingly, they can not > alter the society in which they live. In the great > democracies of this world is not this truth > fundamental? I doubt that many NO are governed democratically. My NO certainly is not. The vote to elect members to the NO is such that there is a strong emphasis on preserving the status quo. Members of the National Authority have 1 vote equal to delegates with 1 vote that they are exercising on behalf of around 1000 players. Wayne Burrows > Except you live in Iraq. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Oct 10 02:48:44 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 02:48:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information References: <000401c38c55$ac377410$c610e150@endicott> <5.2.0.9.0.20031007080116.020103d0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20031008080806.00a29ba0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20031008173939.020145d0@pop.starpower.net> <001701c38df5$2dbd7200$0d9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <000d01c38e92$c82a4a50$c629e150@endicott> Message-ID: <003601c38ed1$132e0d00$109c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> {Grattan Endicott] +=+ Dream on. The WBF is a federation of 'nation states', of whom none would allow the imposition of some external culture upon their several game environments. ... I really do not believe that those who organize bridge events should be denied full control of the methods that entrants to their competitions may employ. [Nigel] "I had a dream..." -- and thank you, Grattan, for commenting on it. Has the WBF ever *asked* the ZOs to relinquish local legislative power? Grattan's advertised commitment to devolution makes that unlikely. In order to organize bridge competitions at all, local organisations *must* plug the gaps in TFLB. Has anybody asked them whether they all want to duplicate this effort? It would be hard work for WBFLC to remedy TFLB omissions (licensing, disclosure, and so on); but the result would be a set of *defaults* so that each ZO would at least have the *option* of conforming to the same world-wide rules. As the WBFLC developed a *complete* set of simpler fairer laws, the pressure would increase on local organisations for legal convergence. When the laws begin to converge, the WBF might justify an application for Olympic recognition. [Grattan] More, I believe there is the natural constraint on abuse of such powers - the constraint of the market and the feet that walk. [Nigel] You are right... -- there is abuse of local power -- there is a natural constraint -- and these boots are meant for walking :{not mine -- but player-numbers *are* falling): Finally, the analogy with USA central and state government is stretched. Bridge is a *game*. If you want a world-wide *game* you should ensure that its rules are universal and fair. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.524 / Virus Database: 321 - Release Date: 06/10/2003 From lskelso@ihug.com.au Fri Oct 10 04:07:16 2003 From: lskelso@ihug.com.au (Laurie Kelso) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:07:16 +1000 Subject: [blml] ABF casebook, appeal 4 - written bidding In-Reply-To: <000b01c38e9a$4895f200$1e9f193e@4nrw70j> References: <200310091517.h99FHH5r005244@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20031010130716.008d5c60@pop3.norton.antivirus> At 20:17 9/10/03 +0100, you wrote: > >Grattan Endicott[alternatively cyaxares@lineone.net] > > The director was called to the table before the defence > > started when East believed the final bid was 5C, which he > > doubled, not 3C. > > The hand was played and 9 tricks were made. > > The bid was not clearly a 3C but most people consulted > > read it as 3C. There is no proviso for an adjustment in > > Law, and the Directors generally believed it was up to > > East to clarify the bid before doubling. > > (The contract was played as 3Cx as East was aware of the > > intended bid of South before play commenced). > > > > Appellant's claim: > > East thought South had bid 5C, and doubled on that basis. > > > > Appeal committee decision: > > Whilst all the committee felt that "natural justice" > > would suggest a score of 110, it was a matter that should > > have a basis in law. > > A majority decision 3-2 that the score (470 to N/S) to > > stand (Law 21A). > > The dissenting view was that common sense should prevail > > and the score adjusted to 110 to N/S. > > Further the committee recommends that the ABF tournament > > committee consider the introduction of regulations to > > cover written bidding. >> > >>Ron Johnson wrote >> The AC majority is allowing a player to profit from bad handwiting. >> >> Most isn't good enough here. (As in most people thought it was a 3) >> >> I'm shocked that this is even an issue. >> >+=+ Now if anything is to cause shock I would think it is the >proposition that an auction is being conducted with written >bidding in the absence of proper regulations to establish >conditions for written bidding (Law 80E). A particular >question would be, for example: "When is a call deemed >to have been made?", leading to the supplementary question: >"Is an incompletely written call 'made'?" > In principle I agree that Law 21A applies, but only if >the bid that has been doubled was 'made' in accordance >with the regulations. The absence of a regulation to provide >the answer to this would appear to establish an SO's error >and I have not found in my Law Book a pertinent law. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ When this situation occured, I was working at the other venue (about 3kms away), however I might still be able to shed some light. The ABF does have Regulations for written bidding. In answer to Grattan's concern I can quote: "7. A call is not made until the player has written the appropriate numeral, if necessary, with the appropriate symbol. Each call should be made in the vacant box nearest to the left of that players segment of the record sheet. The symbols are:......." The Appeal write up, in my opinion, poorly represents the true situation. The reference to a lack of regulation probably refers to there not being any mention of legibility issues within the ABF document. The directing staff ultimately ruled that the player had no recourse due to his own misunderstanding. The incident occured well into a 20 board match. Among the evidence available to the director were a number of bidding slips from the previous boards of the encounter. Laurie From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Oct 10 03:41:11 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 12:41:11 +1000 Subject: [blml] Corporate governance (was Psych etc) Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie wrote: [snip] >In order to organize bridge competitions at all, >local organisations *must* plug the gaps in TFLB. >Has anybody asked them whether they all want >to duplicate this effort? [snip] RJH waffles: I both agree and disagree with Nigel. I serve on the Tournament Committees of two of Canberra's ABF-affiliated bridge clubs, so I have some practical experience with the effort involved. In private emails with Nigel, we have been discussing the merits or otherwise of a single VP scale incorporated into the Laws. The Canberra clubs' Tournament Committees find the current situation satisfactory. There is the optional advice from the WBF on VP scales, so that the clubs do not have to reinvent the wheel. And, because the advice is optional, some club events with special needs adopt Conditions of Contest which do not use the WBF VP scale. No duplication of effort, no problem. Best wishes Richard James 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 b-satan-@gte.net Fri Oct 10 05:13:48 2003 From: b-satan-@gte.net (byvonne@yahoo.com) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 22:13:48 -0600 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) Order your Diploma now! Message-ID: <20031010041159.CAFCB2C3BA@rhubarb.custard.org> PCFET0NUWVBFIEhUTUwgUFVCTElDICItLy9XM0MvL0RURCBIVE1MIDQuMDEgVHJhbnNpdGlvbmFs Ly9FTiI+DQoNCjxodG1sPg0KPGhlYWQ+DQo8dGl0bGU+bmE8L3RpdGxlPg0KPC9oZWFkPg0KPHN0 eWxlIHR5cGU9InRleHQvY3NzIj4NCkEueWVsbG93Omxpbmsge3RleHQtZGVjb3JhdGlvbjogbm9u ZTsgY29sb3I6ICNGRkYyMDB9DQpBLnllbGxvdzp2aXNpdGVkIHt0ZXh0LWRlY29yYXRpb246IG5v bmU7IGNvbG9yOiAjRkZGMjAwfQ0KQS55ZWxsb3c6YWN0aXZlIHt0ZXh0LWRlY29yYXRpb246IG5v bmU7IGNvbG9yOiAjRUZFRkM4fQ0KQS55ZWxsb3c6aG92ZXIge3RleHQtZGVjb3JhdGlvbjogbm9u ZTsgY29sb3I6ICNGRkZGRkZ9DQo8L3N0eWxlPg0KPGJvZHkgdG9wbWFyZ2luPSIwIiBiZ2NvbG9y PSIjMDAwMEZGIj4NCjxkaXYgYWxpZ249ImNlbnRlciI+PGJyPg0KPHRhYmxlIHdpZHRoPSI2NTAi IGJvcmRlcj0iMSIgY2VsbHNwYWNpbmc9IjAiIGNlbGxwYWRkaW5nPSIyIiBib3JkZXJjb2xvcj0i IzAwMDAwMCI+PHRyPjx0ZD48dGFibGUgd2lkdGg9IjY1MCIgYm9yZGVyPSIwIiBjZWxsc3BhY2lu Zz0iMCIgY2VsbHBhZGRpbmc9IjQiIGFsaWduPSJjZW50ZXIiPjx0cj4NCjx0ZCBiZ2NvbG9yPSIj MDAzMzY2Ij48Zm9udCBzaXplPSIyIiBjb2xvcj0iI0ZGRkZGRiIgZmFjZT0iQXJpYWwsIEhlbHZl dGljYSwgc2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+LiBVIE4gPCEtLSAzMjF1ODlvIC0tPkkgViBFIFIgUyBJIFQgWSAu IEQgSSBQIEwgPCEtLSAzMjF1ODlvIC0tPk8gTSBBIFMgLjwvZm9udD48L3RkPjwvdHI+DQo8dHI+ PHRkIGJnY29sb3I9ImJsYWNrIiBoZWlnaHQ9IjQwIiB2YWxpZ249Im1pZGRsZSI+DQo8ZGl2IGFs aWduPSJjZW50ZXIiPjxmb250IGZhY2U9IlZlcmRhbmEsIEFyaWFsLCBIZWx2ZXRpY2EsIHNhbnMt c2VyaWYiIHNpemU9IjIiIGNvbG9yPSIjRkZGRkZGIj48aT5Xb3VsZCB5b3UgbGlrZSB0byBtYXhp bWlzZSB5b3VyIGluY29tZSBhbmQgcmVzcGVjdCBmcm9tIG90aGVycz88L2k+PGJyPjwvZm9udD48 L2Rpdj4NCjwvdGQ+PC90cj48dHI+IDx0ZCBiZ2NvbG9yPSJDQzAwMzMiPg0KPGRpdiBhbGlnbj0i Y2VudGVyIj48cD48Yj48aT48Zm9udCBmYWNlPSJWZXJkYW5hLCBBcmlhbCwgSGVsdmV0aWNhLCBz YW5zLXNlcmlmIiBzaXplPSIyIj5XZSBjYW4gYXNzaXN0IHdpdGggRGlwPCEtLSAzMjF1ODlvIC0t PmxvbWFzIGZyb20gcHJlc3RpZ2lvdXMgbm9uLWFjY3JlZGl0ZWQgdW5pdmVyc2l0PCEtLSAzMjF1 ODlvIC0tPmllcyBiYXNlZCBvbiB5b3VyIHByZXNlbnQga25vd2xlZGdlIGFuZCBsaWZlIGV4cGVy aWVuY2UuPC9mb250PjwvDQo8L3RkPjwvdHI+PHRyPjx0ZCBiZ2NvbG9yPSJ3aGl0ZSI+DQo8ZGl2 IGFsaWduPSJjZW50ZXIiPjxmb250IGZhY2U9IlZlcmRhbmEsIEFyaWFsLCBIZWx2ZXRpY2EsIHNh bnMtc2VyaWYiIHNpemU9IjMiPjxicj48Yj48Zm9udCBjb2xvcj0iI0ZGMDAwMCI+Tm8gZXhhbXMs IGNsYXNzZXMsIGludGVydmlld3Mgb3IgYm9va3MhPC9mb250PjwvYj48L2ZvbnQ+IDwvZGl2Pg0K PHAgYWxpZ249ImxlZnQiPjxmb250IGZhY2U9IlZlcmRhbmEsIEFyaWFsLCBIZWx2ZXRpY2EsIHNh bnMtc2VyaWYiIHNpemU9IjMiPjxpPkdlbnVpbmUgQmFjaGVsb3JzLCBNYXN0ZXJzLCBNQkEgYW5k IFBIRCdzIGF2YWlsYWJsZSBpbiBhbnkgZmllbGQgeW91IGNob29zZS4gUGVyZmVjdCBmb3IgeW91 ciBSZXN1bWUsIEpvYiBpbnRlcnZpZXcgb3IgdG8gaGFuZyBpbiB0aGUgd2FsbCBvZiB5b3VyIG9m ZmljZSE8L2k+PC9mb250PjwvcD4NCjxwIGFsaWduPSJjZW50ZXIiPjxmb250IGZhY2U9IlZlcmRh bmEsIEFyaWFsLCBIZWx2ZXRpY2EsIHNhbnMtc2VyaWYiIHNpemU9IjMiPjxiPjxmb250IHNpemU9 IjUiIGNvbG9yPSIjMDAwMEZGIj5ObyBvbmUgaXMgdHVybmVkIGRvd24uPC9mb250PjwvYj48L2Zv bnQ+PC9wPg0KPHAgYWxpZ249ImNlbnRlciI+PGZvbnQgZmFjZT0iVmVyZGFuYSwgQXJpYWwsIEhl bHZldGljYSwgc2Fucy1zZXJpZiIgc2l6ZT0iMyI+PGk+Q29uZmlkZW50aWFsaXR5IGFzc3VyZWQ8 L2k+PC9mb250Pjxicj48YnI+PC9wPg0KPC90ZD48L3RyPjx0cj48dGQgYmdjb2xvcj0iIzAwMDAw MCI+DQo8ZGl2IGFsaWduPSJjZW50ZXIiPjxwPjxmb250IHNpemU9IjIiIGZhY2U9IkFyaWFsLCBI ZWx2ZXRpY2EsIHNhbnMtc2VyaWYiIGNvbG9yPSIjRkZGRkZGIj48YnI+DQpDQUxMIFVTJm5ic3A7 IDI0IEhPVVJTIEEgREFZLCA3IERBWVMmbmJzcDsgQSBXRUVLPC9mb250PjwvcD4NCjxwPjxmb250 IHNpemU9IjIiIGZhY2U9IkFyaWFsLCBIZWx2ZXRpY2EsIHNhbnMtc2VyaWYiIGNvbG9yPSIjRkZG RkZGIj4mbmJzcDsgPGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0iMSI+KGluY2x1ZGluZyBTdW5kYXlzIGFuZCBob2xpZGF5 cyk6PC9mb250PjwvZm9udD48L3A+DQo8cD48Zm9udCBzaXplPSIyIiBmYWNlPSJBcmlhbCwgSGVs dmV0aWNhLCBzYW5zLXNlcmlmIiBjb2xvcj0iI0ZGRkZGRiI+PGI+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0iNSI+Q0FM TCBOT1chIDEtMjwhLS0gMzIxdTg5byAtLT4xMi0yMDItNDc4NTwvZm9udD48L2I+IDwvZm9udD4g PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0iNSIgZmFjZT0iQXJpYWwsIEhlbHZldGljYSwgc2Fucy1zZXJpZiIgY29sb3I9 IiNGRkZGRkYiPjxicj48L2I+PC9mb250PjwvcD48L2Rpdj4NCjwvdGQ+PC90cj48dHI+IDx0ZCBi Z2NvbG9yPSIjMDAzMzY2Ij4NCjxkaXYgYWxpZ249ImNlbnRlciI+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0iMiIgY29s b3I9IiNGRkZGRkYiIGZhY2U9IkFyaWFsLCBIZWx2ZXRpY2EsIHNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPjxiPkNhbGwg dXMgTk9XIHRvIHJlY2VpdmUgeW91ciBkaXBsbzwhLS0gMzIxdTg5byAtLT5tYSB3aXRoaW4gZGF5 cywgYW5kIHN0YXJ0IGltcHJvdmluZyB5b3VyIGxpZmUhPC9iPjwvZm9udD48L2Rpdj4NCjwvdGQ+ PC90cj48L3RhYmxlPjwvdGQ+PC90cj48L3RhYmxlPjwvZGl2Pg0KPC9ib2R5Pg0KPC9odG1sPg0K From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Tue Oct 7 14:00:19 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 15:00:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] Fw: Director ruling References: <000801c38bb8$3d633120$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <003a01c38cd3$0f6a03e0$fee77f50@Default> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0034_01C38CE3.B983E700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Nancy, South has 8 HCP so he knows 3D cannot be "strong". Whether 3D means D or = H or both, and whether the range is weak or invitational (or strong for = that matter), is IMO hardly relevant for his decision to bid 3S or not. = So no damage so table result.=20 The above holds true even if bidding 3S was the right thing to do. But = here what do NS want. To play 4S* or 5S* with equal vuln? That looks = like at least 500. They look like laywers who try to make points out of = procedural arguments only. Another question. How come 5H makes easily. No losers but 11 tricks is a = lot on good defence. You can probably always make because north gets = squeezed on the second trump. Not my idea of easy.=20 Jaap ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Nancy T Dressing=20 To: Bridge Laws=20 Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 5:16 AM Subject: [blml] Fw: Director ruling ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Nancy T Dressing=20 To: Bridge Laws=20 Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 12:40 PM Subject: Fw: Director ruling Please note the correction from my previous message. The explanation = of 3D was Strong, not weak as typed in the previous message. Sorry!! Board 8 none Dlr w Bidding W 1H N X E 3D S P (after askingBridge if 2d is weak or = strong and told strong, there was no alert) 5D P 5H all pass When asked if they played Bergen raises by the opening leader, was = told yes and the 3D bid was intended as a Bergen raise. Opener = apologized for forgetting the Bergen raise and when asked further about = the bidding, E said he could not stand playing in 5D so corrected to 5H = realizing that partner had misunderstood. There was no offer to explain = the error in bidding probably because of the questions asked by the = opening leader. North now states that had he known that the 3D could be = weak he would have bid 3 Spades in reply to the double! The hand was = played making 5 hearts easily and I said I would check with a higher = authority re the board and would act on that director's ruling and = adjust if necessary. N=20 KQJ8 Q QT75 JT64 W E = Void AT975 KJ632 AT97 K983 64 =20 A953 Q2 S 6432 854 AJ2 K87 What would you rule???? ------=_NextPart_000_0034_01C38CE3.B983E700 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Nancy,
 
South has 8 HCP so he knows 3D cannot = be "strong".=20 Whether 3D means D or H or both, and whether the range is weak = or=20 invitational (or strong for that matter), is IMO hardly relevant for his = decision to bid 3S or not. So no damage so table result.
 
The above holds true even if bidding 3S = was the=20 right thing to do. But here what do NS want. To play 4S* or 5S* with = equal vuln?=20 That looks like at least 500. They look like laywers who try to make = points out=20 of procedural arguments only.
 
Another question. How come 5H makes = easily. No=20 losers but 11 tricks is a lot on good defence. You can = probably=20 always make because north gets squeezed on the second trump. Not my idea = of=20 easy.
 
Jaap
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Nancy = T=20 Dressing
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 = 5:16=20 AM
Subject: [blml] Fw: Director = ruling

 
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Nancy T = Dressing=20
Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 12:40 PM
Subject: Fw: Director ruling

Please note the correction from my = previous=20 message.  The explanation of 3D was Strong, not weak as typed in = the=20 previous message.  Sorry!!
Board 8
none Dlr w
Bidding
  W  1H    = N =20 X     E  3D    S P (after = askingBridge=20 if 2d is weak or strong and told strong, there was no = alert)
       =20 5D        = P     =20 5H        all pass
When asked if they played Bergen = raises by the=20 opening leader,  was told yes and the 3D bid was intended as a = Bergen=20 raise.  Opener apologized for forgetting the Bergen raise and = when asked=20 further about the bidding, E said he could not stand playing in 5D so=20 corrected to 5H realizing that partner had misunderstood.  There = was no=20 offer to explain the error in bidding probably because of the = questions asked=20 by the opening leader.  North now states that had he known that = the 3D=20 could be weak he would have bid 3 Spades in reply to the double!  = The=20 hand was played making 5 hearts easily and I said I would check with a = higher=20 authority re the board and would act on that director's ruling and = adjust if=20 necessary.
          &nbs= p;            = ;=20 N 
          &nbs= p;           KQJ8<= /FONT>
          &nbs= p;          =20 Q
          &nbs= p;          =20 QT75
          &nbs= p;           JT64<= /FONT>
W          &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;    E        = ;            =          =20
Void          =             &= nbsp;        =20 AT975
KJ632          = ;            =       =20 AT97
K983          =             &= nbsp;       =20 = 64            = ;            = =20
A953          =             &= nbsp;       =20 Q2
          &nbs= p;            = ;   =20 S
          &nbs= p;            = ;=20 6432
          &nbs= p;            = ;=20 854
          &nbs= p;            = ; AJ2
          &nbs= p;            = ;=20 K87
 
What would you=20 rule????
------=_NextPart_000_0034_01C38CE3.B983E700-- From Schoderb@aol.com Tue Oct 7 14:22:46 2003 From: Schoderb@aol.com (Schoderb@aol.com) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 09:22:46 EDT Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information Message-ID: <102.36ce7fab.2cb41826@aol.com> -------------------------------1065532966 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/7/2003 9:11:10 AM Eastern Standard Time, ereppert@rochester.rr.com writes: Law 40D gives SOs the right to regulate conventions. Law 40A gives players the right to make, among others, a call or play which "departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use of a convention." When the SO makes a regulation that says *any* deviation from the previously announced meaning is prohibited, they make a regulation that is in conflict with Law 40A. This is a violation of Law 80F ("supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these laws"). Now, the WBFLC has said that the right in Law 40D is untrammeled (good word, Eric, thanks for reminding me of it). They have said nothing about the right in Law 40A directly. They have said, if I understand it correctly, that Law 80F is effectively null and void - it does not mean what it says, rather it means that a regulation cannot conflict with the specific law under which it is made. IMO, this is an artifact of the WBF's unwillingness to interfere with major subordinates who flout the laws rather than any argument from the laws themselves. If you hold the position that whatever the WBFLC says goes, then I suppose the regulation in question is not illegal. But I agree with Mr. Lincoln: "calling a tail a leg does not make it one." Thank you for concisely stating what has happened to our game. Law 80E was never meant to change the nature of the game, but has been used freely to justify those who find it most convenient to yell "Misinformation" when they can come up with a quick case. Law 80F was meant to apply to all the laws. And, oh yes, I'm fully aware of the WBFLC postion over the years. Or is it hard to understand that if I force my opponents into always having what their bid means, it is easier for the highly skilled to play the game? =K= -------------------------------1065532966 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In a message dated 10/7/2003 9:11:10 AM Eastern Standard Time, ereppert= @rochester.rr.com writes:
Law 40D gives  SOs the right to regulate=20= conventions. Law 40A gives
players the right to make, among others, a ca= ll or play which "departs
from commonly accepted, or previously announce= d, use of a convention."
When the SO makes a regulation that says *any*=20= deviation from the
previously announced meaning is prohibited, they make= a regulation that
is in conflict with Law 40A. This is a violation of L= aw 80F
("supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these laws").
Now, the WBFLC has said that the right in Law 40D is untrammeled (good word, Eric, thanks for reminding me of it). They have said nothing
abou= t the right in Law 40A directly. They have said, if I understand it
corr= ectly, that Law 80F is effectively null and void - it does not mean
what= it says, rather it means that a regulation cannot conflict with
the spe= cific law under which it is made. IMO, this is an artifact of
the WBF's=20= unwillingness to interfere with major subordinates who flout
the laws ra= ther than any argument from the laws themselves.

If you hold the posi= tion that whatever the WBFLC says goes, then I
suppose the regulation in= question is not illegal. But I agree with Mr.
Lincoln: "calling a tail=20= a leg does not make it one."
Thank you for concisely stating what has happened to our game.&= nbsp; Law 80E was never meant to change the nature of the game, but has been= used freely to justify those who find it most convenient to yell "Misinform= ation" when they can come up with a quick case.  Law 80F was meant to a= pply to all the laws.
And, oh yes, I'm fully aware of the WBFLC postion over the year= s.  Or is it hard to understand that if I force my opponents into alway= s having what their bid means, it is easier for the highly skilled to play t= he game?
=3DK=3D
-------------------------------1065532966-- From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Oct 10 08:30:28 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 03:30:28 -0400 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031009164321.022b08f0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <9EF18654-FAF3-11D7-90E4-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Oct 9, 2003, at 17:02 US/Eastern, Eric Landau wrote: > If the majority of fans of the American TV program "Survivor" had > their way, next season's show would take the title literally, arm the > players with lethal weapons, and award the prize to the literal > survivor. This would be very entertaining to the majority, but they'd > soon discover that they had a hard time finding anyone who wanted to > try to qualify for the finals. I'm not so sure I'd bet on that. Robert Heinlein called this particular time in human history "the crazy years". He may well have been right. From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Fri Oct 10 10:03:15 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 11:03:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] Fw: Director ruling References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB112A@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <002b01c38f0d$788c18e0$61f93b51@Default> Hi, In have seen that my original mail was delayed some days. Anyway you raise an important point. After the misexplanation you might argue that they have to bid 6H (I know you don't but others do). I think this logic is often overdone (the basic idea is ok). 5D in this sequence will always be interpreted as 'partner forgot system' or 'I forgot system' so bidding 6H is no LA in the real world. A recent case was similar. Bidding starts 1NT, x, 2S, pas, 3C. Now everybody in real life will think '1NT opener took 2S as a transfer'. But there is always someone who wants the 2S bidder to interpret 3C as a game try for S (after a penalty double of 1NT, please....). This kind of lawyering destroys the game, imho. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hinden, Frances SI-PXS" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 12:01 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Fw: Director ruling Please note the correction from my previous message. The explanation of 3D was Strong, not weak as typed in the previous message. Sorry!! Board 8 none Dlr w Bidding W 1H N X E 3D S P (after askingBridge if 2d is weak or strong and told strong, there was no alert) 5D P 5H all pass When asked if they played Bergen raises by the opening leader, was told yes and the 3D bid was intended as a Bergen raise. Opener apologized for forgetting the Bergen raise and when asked further about the bidding, E said he could not stand playing in 5D so corrected to 5H realizing that partner had misunderstood. There was no offer to explain the error in bidding probably because of the questions asked by the opening leader. North now states that had he known that the 3D could be weak he would have bid 3 Spades in reply to the double! [Frances] I assume you mean South? The hand was played making 5 hearts easily and I said I would check with a higher authority re the board and would act on that director's ruling and adjust if necessary. N KQJ8 Q QT75 JT64 W E Void AT975 KJ632 AT97 K983 64 A953 Q2 S 6432 854 AJ2 K87 What would you rule???? [Frances] 5H doesn't look exactly 'easy' on a trump lead, but that doesn't matter: it made 11 tricks after the misunderstanding came to light. I can't see how N/S have been damaged by South not bidding 3S. 5S N/S seems to be going for at least 800 (and that's being generous). The only case they might possibly have is to suggest that E should have bid 6H over 5D, if 5D systemically showed (say) a diamond void. However I imagine if you examined E/W's system you'd probably discover that the 5D bid was impossible; even playing with screens East probably felt there was no LA to 5H. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From bdmr@gte.net Fri Oct 10 12:46:30 2003 From: bdmr@gte.net (bnorth@erols.com) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 19:46:30 +0800 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) Heya Message-ID: PCFET0NUWVBFIEhUTUwgUFVCTElDICItLy9XM0MvL0RURCBIVE1MIDQuMDEgVHJhbnNpdGlvbmFs Ly9FTiI+DQoNCjxodG1sPg0KPGhlYWQ+DQo8dGl0bGU+bmE8L3RpdGxlPg0KPC9oZWFkPg0KPHN0 eWxlIHR5cGU9InRleHQvY3NzIj4NCkEueWVsbG93Omxpbmsge3RleHQtZGVjb3JhdGlvbjogbm9u ZTsgY29sb3I6ICNGRkYyMDB9DQpBLnllbGxvdzp2aXNpdGVkIHt0ZXh0LWRlY29yYXRpb246IG5v bmU7IGNvbG9yOiAjRkZGMjAwfQ0KQS55ZWxsb3c6YWN0aXZlIHt0ZXh0LWRlY29yYXRpb246IG5v bmU7IGNvbG9yOiAjRUZFRkM4fQ0KQS55ZWxsb3c6aG92ZXIge3RleHQtZGVjb3JhdGlvbjogbm9u ZTsgY29sb3I6ICNGRkZGRkZ9DQo8L3N0eWxlPg0KPGJvZHkgdG9wbWFyZ2luPSIwIiBiZ2NvbG9y PSIjMDAwMDMzIj4NCjxkaXYgYWxpZ249ImNlbnRlciI+PGJyPg0KPHRhYmxlIHdpZHRoPSI2NTAi IGJvcmRlcj0iMSIgY2VsbHNwYWNpbmc9IjAiIGNlbGxwYWRkaW5nPSIyIiBib3JkZXJjb2xvcj0i IzAwMDAwMCI+PHRyPjx0ZD48dGFibGUgd2lkdGg9IjY1MCIgYm9yZGVyPSIwIiBjZWxsc3BhY2lu Zz0iMCIgY2VsbHBhZGRpbmc9IjQiIGFsaWduPSJjZW50ZXIiPjx0cj4NCjx0ZCBiZ2NvbG9yPSIj MDAzMzY2Ij48Zm9udCBzaXplPSIyIiBjb2xvcj0iI0ZGRkZGRiIgZmFjZT0iQXJpYWwsIEhlbHZl dGljYSwgc2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+LiBVIE4gPCEtLSBha2J2Y3h6NyAtLT5JIFYgRSBSIFMgSSBUIFkg LiBEIEkgUCBMIDwhLS0gYWtidmN4ejcgLS0+TyBNIEEgUyAuPC9mb250PjwvdGQ+PC90cj4NCjx0 cj48dGQgYmdjb2xvcj0iYmxhY2siIGhlaWdodD0iNDAiIHZhbGlnbj0ibWlkZGxlIj4NCjxkaXYg YWxpZ249ImNlbnRlciI+PGZvbnQgZmFjZT0iVmVyZGFuYSwgQXJpYWwsIEhlbHZldGljYSwgc2Fu cy1zZXJpZiIgc2l6ZT0iMiIgY29sb3I9IiNGRkZGRkYiPjxpPkRvIHlvdSB3YW50IGZvciBhIHBy b3NwZXJvdXMgZnV0dXJlLCBpbmNyZWFzZWQgbW9uZXkgZWFybmluZyBwb3dlciwgYW5kIHRoZSBy ZXNwZWN0IG9mIGFsbD88L2k+PGJyPjwvZm9udD48L2Rpdj4NCjwvdGQ+PC90cj48dHI+IDx0ZCBi Z2NvbG9yPSJDQzAwMzMiPg0KPGRpdiBhbGlnbj0iY2VudGVyIj48cD48Yj48aT48Zm9udCBmYWNl PSJWZXJkYW5hLCBBcmlhbCwgSGVsdmV0aWNhLCBzYW5zLXNlcmlmIiBzaXplPSIyIj5XZSBjYW4g YXNzaXN0IHdpdGggRGlwPCEtLSBha2J2Y3h6NyAtLT5sb21hcyBmcm9tIHByZXN0aWdpb3VzIG5v bi1hY2NyZWRpdGVkIHVuaXZlcnNpdDwhLS0gYWtidmN4ejcgLS0+aWVzIGJhc2VkIG9uIHlvdXIg cHJlc2VudCBrbm93bGVkZ2UgYW5kIGxpZmUgZXhwZXJpZW5jZS48L2ZvbnQ+PC8NCjwvdGQ+PC90 cj48dHI+PHRkIGJnY29sb3I9IndoaXRlIj4NCjxkaXYgYWxpZ249ImNlbnRlciI+PGZvbnQgZmFj ZT0iVmVyZGFuYSwgQXJpYWwsIEhlbHZldGljYSwgc2Fucy1zZXJpZiIgc2l6ZT0iMyI+PGJyPjxi Pjxmb250IGNvbG9yPSIjRkYwMDAwIj5ObyByZXF1aXJlZCB0ZXN0cywgY2xhc3NlcywgYm9va3Ms IG9yIGludGVydmlld3MuIDwvZm9udD48L2I+PC9mb250PiA8L2Rpdj4NCjxwIGFsaWduPSJsZWZ0 Ij48Zm9udCBmYWNlPSJWZXJkYW5hLCBBcmlhbCwgSGVsdmV0aWNhLCBzYW5zLXNlcmlmIiBzaXpl PSIzIj48aT5CYWNoZWxvcnMsIG1hc3RlcnMsIE1CQSwgYW5kIGRvY3RvcmF0ZSAoUGhEKSBkaXBs b21hcyBhdmFpbGFibGUgaW4gdGhlIGZpZWxkIG9mIHlvdXIgY2hvaWNlIC0gdGhhdCdzIHJpZ2h0 LCB5b3UgY2FuIGJlY29tZSBhIERvY3RvciBhbmQgcmVjZWl2ZSBhbGwgdGhlIGJlbmVmaXRzIGFu ZCBhZG1pcmF0aW9uIHRoYXQgY29tZXMgd2l0aCBpdCE8L2k+PC9mb250PjwvcD4NCjxwIGFsaWdu PSJjZW50ZXIiPjxmb250IGZhY2U9IlZlcmRhbmEsIEFyaWFsLCBIZWx2ZXRpY2EsIHNhbnMtc2Vy aWYiIHNpemU9IjMiPjxiPjxmb250IHNpemU9IjUiIGNvbG9yPSIjMDAwMEZGIj5ObyBvbmUgaXMg dHVybmVkIGRvd24uPC9mb250PjwvYj48L2ZvbnQ+PC9wPg0KPHAgYWxpZ249ImNlbnRlciI+PGlt ZyBzcmM9Imh0dHA6Ly9yYW5kQHd3dy5jb2x1bWJpYS5lZHUvY3UvYnVzaW5lc3MvaW1hZ2VzL2Rp cGxvbWEuZ2lmIj4NCjxwIGFsaWduPSJjZW50ZXIiPjxmb250IGZhY2U9IlZlcmRhbmEsIEFyaWFs LCBIZWx2ZXRpY2EsIHNhbnMtc2VyaWYiIHNpemU9IjMiPjxpPkNvbmZpZGVudGlhbGl0eSBhc3N1 cmVkPC9pPjwvZm9udD48YnI+PGJyPjwvcD4NCjwvdGQ+PC90cj48dHI+PHRkIGJnY29sb3I9IiMw MDAwMDAiPg0KPGRpdiBhbGlnbj0iY2VudGVyIj48cD48Zm9udCBzaXplPSIyIiBmYWNlPSJBcmlh bCwgSGVsdmV0aWNhLCBzYW5zLXNlcmlmIiBjb2xvcj0iI0ZGRkZGRiI+PGJyPg0KQ0FMTCBVUyZu YnNwOyAyNCBIT1VSUyBBIERBWSwgNyBEQVlTJm5ic3A7IEEgV0VFSzwvZm9udD48L3A+DQo8cD48 Zm9udCBzaXplPSIyIiBmYWNlPSJBcmlhbCwgSGVsdmV0aWNhLCBzYW5zLXNlcmlmIiBjb2xvcj0i I0ZGRkZGRiI+Jm5ic3A7IDxmb250IHNpemU9IjEiPihpbmNsdWRpbmcgU3VuZGF5cyBhbmQgaG9s aWRheXMpOjwvZm9udD48L2ZvbnQ+PC9wPg0KPHA+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0iMiIgZmFjZT0iQXJpYWws IEhlbHZldGljYSwgc2Fucy1zZXJpZiIgY29sb3I9IiNGRkZGRkYiPjxiPjxmb250IHNpemU9IjUi PkNBTEwgTk9XISAxLTI8IS0tIGFrYnZjeHo3IC0tPjEyLTIwMi00Nzg1PC9mb250PjwvYj4gPC9m b250PiA8Zm9udCBzaXplPSI1IiBmYWNlPSJBcmlhbCwgSGVsdmV0aWNhLCBzYW5zLXNlcmlmIiBj b2xvcj0iI0ZGRkZGRiI+PGJyPjwvYj48L2ZvbnQ+PC9wPjwvZGl2Pg0KPC90ZD48L3RyPjx0cj4g PHRkIGJnY29sb3I9IiMwMDMzNjYiPg0KPGRpdiBhbGlnbj0iY2VudGVyIj48Zm9udCBzaXplPSIy IiBjb2xvcj0iI0ZGRkZGRiIgZmFjZT0iQXJpYWwsIEhlbHZldGljYSwgc2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+PGI+ Q2FsbCB1cyBOT1cgdG8gcmVjZWl2ZSB5b3VyIGRpcGxvPCEtLSBha2J2Y3h6NyAtLT5tYSB3aXRo aW4gZGF5cywgYW5kIHN0YXJ0IGltcHJvdmluZyB5b3VyIGxpZmUhPC9iPjwvZm9udD48L2Rpdj4N CjwvdGQ+PC90cj48L3RhYmxlPjwvdGQ+PC90cj48L3RhYmxlPjwvZGl2Pg0KPC9ib2R5Pg0KPC9o dG1sPg0K From bjudy14@erols.com Fri Oct 10 13:00:01 2003 From: bjudy14@erols.com (baster@email.com) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:00:01 +0800 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) Genuine College Diplomas - no essays, books or exams! fdksop Message-ID: PCFET0NUWVBFIEhUTUwgUFVCTElDICItLy9XM0MvL0RURCBIVE1MIDQuMDEgVHJhbnNpdGlvbmFs Ly9FTiI+DQoNCjxodG1sPg0KPGhlYWQ+DQo8dGl0bGU+bmE8L3RpdGxlPg0KPC9oZWFkPg0KPHN0 eWxlIHR5cGU9InRleHQvY3NzIj4NCkEueWVsbG93Omxpbmsge3RleHQtZGVjb3JhdGlvbjogbm9u ZTsgY29sb3I6ICNGRkYyMDB9DQpBLnllbGxvdzp2aXNpdGVkIHt0ZXh0LWRlY29yYXRpb246IG5v bmU7IGNvbG9yOiAjRkZGMjAwfQ0KQS55ZWxsb3c6YWN0aXZlIHt0ZXh0LWRlY29yYXRpb246IG5v bmU7IGNvbG9yOiAjRUZFRkM4fQ0KQS55ZWxsb3c6aG92ZXIge3RleHQtZGVjb3JhdGlvbjogbm9u ZTsgY29sb3I6ICNGRkZGRkZ9DQo8L3N0eWxlPg0KPGJvZHkgdG9wbWFyZ2luPSIwIiBiZ2NvbG9y PSIjMDAzMzAwIj4NCjxkaXYgYWxpZ249ImNlbnRlciI+PGJyPg0KPHRhYmxlIHdpZHRoPSI2NTAi IGJvcmRlcj0iMSIgY2VsbHNwYWNpbmc9IjAiIGNlbGxwYWRkaW5nPSIyIiBib3JkZXJjb2xvcj0i IzAwMDAwMCI+PHRyPjx0ZD48dGFibGUgd2lkdGg9IjY1MCIgYm9yZGVyPSIwIiBjZWxsc3BhY2lu Zz0iMCIgY2VsbHBhZGRpbmc9IjQiIGFsaWduPSJjZW50ZXIiPjx0cj4NCjx0ZCBiZ2NvbG9yPSIj MDAzMzY2Ij48Zm9udCBzaXplPSIyIiBjb2xvcj0iI0ZGRkZGRiIgZmFjZT0iQXJpYWwsIEhlbHZl dGljYSwgc2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+LiBVIE4gPCEtLSBnNHNhZDZrIC0tPkkgViBFIFIgUyBJIFQgWSAu IEQgSSBQIEwgPCEtLSBnNHNhZDZrIC0tPk8gTSBBIFMgLjwvZm9udD48L3RkPjwvdHI+DQo8dHI+ PHRkIGJnY29sb3I9ImJsYWNrIiBoZWlnaHQ9IjQwIiB2YWxpZ249Im1pZGRsZSI+DQo8ZGl2IGFs aWduPSJjZW50ZXIiPjxmb250IGZhY2U9IlZlcmRhbmEsIEFyaWFsLCBIZWx2ZXRpY2EsIHNhbnMt c2VyaWYiIHNpemU9IjIiIGNvbG9yPSIjRkZGRkZGIj48aT5EbyB5b3Ugd2FudCB0byBpbmNyZWFz ZSB5b3VyIGVhcm5pbmdzLCBhbmQgZ2FpbiBtb3JlIHJlc3BlY3QgZnJvbSBFVkVSWU9ORT88L2k+ PGJyPjwvZm9udD48L2Rpdj4NCjwvdGQ+PC90cj48dHI+IDx0ZCBiZ2NvbG9yPSJDQzAwMzMiPg0K PGRpdiBhbGlnbj0iY2VudGVyIj48cD48Yj48aT48Zm9udCBmYWNlPSJWZXJkYW5hLCBBcmlhbCwg SGVsdmV0aWNhLCBzYW5zLXNlcmlmIiBzaXplPSIyIj5XZSBjYW4gYXNzaXN0IHdpdGggRGlwPCEt LSBnNHNhZDZrIC0tPmxvbWFzIGZyb20gcHJlc3RpZ2lvdXMgbm9uLWFjY3JlZGl0ZWQgdW5pdmVy c2l0PCEtLSBnNHNhZDZrIC0tPmllcyBiYXNlZCBvbiB5b3VyIHByZXNlbnQga25vd2xlZGdlIGFu ZCBsaWZlIGV4cGVyaWVuY2UuPC9mb250PjwvDQo8L3RkPjwvdHI+PHRyPjx0ZCBiZ2NvbG9yPSJ3 aGl0ZSI+DQo8ZGl2IGFsaWduPSJjZW50ZXIiPjxmb250IGZhY2U9IlZlcmRhbmEsIEFyaWFsLCBI ZWx2ZXRpY2EsIHNhbnMtc2VyaWYiIHNpemU9IjMiPjxicj48Yj48Zm9udCBjb2xvcj0iI0ZGMDAw MCI+Tm8gYm9va3MsIGludGVydmlld3Mgb3IgZXhhbXMhPC9mb250PjwvYj48L2ZvbnQ+IDwvZGl2 Pg0KPHAgYWxpZ249ImxlZnQiPjxmb250IGZhY2U9IlZlcmRhbmEsIEFyaWFsLCBIZWx2ZXRpY2Es IHNhbnMtc2VyaWYiIHNpemU9IjMiPjxpPkJhY2hlbG9ycywgbWFzdGVycywgTUJBLCBhbmQgZG9j dG9yYXRlIChQaEQpIGRpcGxvbWFzIGF2YWlsYWJsZSBpbiB0aGUgZmllbGQgb2YgeW91ciBjaG9p Y2UgLSB0aGF0J3MgcmlnaHQsIHlvdSBjYW4gYmVjb21lIGEgRG9jdG9yIGFuZCByZWNlaXZlIGFs bCB0aGUgYmVuZWZpdHMgYW5kIGFkbWlyYXRpb24gdGhhdCBjb21lcyB3aXRoIGl0ITwvaT48L2Zv bnQ+PC9wPg0KPHAgYWxpZ249ImNlbnRlciI+PGZvbnQgZmFjZT0iVmVyZGFuYSwgQXJpYWwsIEhl bHZldGljYSwgc2Fucy1zZXJpZiIgc2l6ZT0iMyI+PGI+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0iNSIgY29sb3I9IiMw MDAwRkYiPk5vIG9uZSBpcyB0dXJuZWQgZG93bi48L2ZvbnQ+PC9iPjwvZm9udD48L3A+DQo8cCBh bGlnbj0iY2VudGVyIj48aW1nIHNyYz0iaHR0cDovL3JhbmRAd3d3LmNvbHVtYmlhLmVkdS9jdS9i dXNpbmVzcy9pbWFnZXMvZGlwbG9tYS5naWYiPg0KPHAgYWxpZ249ImNlbnRlciI+PGZvbnQgZmFj ZT0iVmVyZGFuYSwgQXJpYWwsIEhlbHZldGljYSwgc2Fucy1zZXJpZiIgc2l6ZT0iMyI+PGk+Q29u ZmlkZW50aWFsaXR5IGFzc3VyZWQ8L2k+PC9mb250Pjxicj48YnI+PC9wPg0KPC90ZD48L3RyPjx0 cj48dGQgYmdjb2xvcj0iIzAwMDAwMCI+DQo8ZGl2IGFsaWduPSJjZW50ZXIiPjxwPjxmb250IHNp emU9IjIiIGZhY2U9IkFyaWFsLCBIZWx2ZXRpY2EsIHNhbnMtc2VyaWYiIGNvbG9yPSIjRkZGRkZG Ij48YnI+DQpDQUxMIFVTJm5ic3A7IDI0IEhPVVJTIEEgREFZLCA3IERBWVMmbmJzcDsgQSBXRUVL PC9mb250PjwvcD4NCjxwPjxmb250IHNpemU9IjIiIGZhY2U9IkFyaWFsLCBIZWx2ZXRpY2EsIHNh bnMtc2VyaWYiIGNvbG9yPSIjRkZGRkZGIj4mbmJzcDsgPGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0iMSI+KGluY2x1ZGlu ZyBTdW5kYXlzIGFuZCBob2xpZGF5cyk6PC9mb250PjwvZm9udD48L3A+DQo8cD48Zm9udCBzaXpl PSIyIiBmYWNlPSJBcmlhbCwgSGVsdmV0aWNhLCBzYW5zLXNlcmlmIiBjb2xvcj0iI0ZGRkZGRiI+ PGI+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0iNSI+Q0FMTCBOT1chIDEtMjwhLS0gZzRzYWQ2ayAtLT4xMi0yMDItNDc4 NTwvZm9udD48L2I+IDwvZm9udD4gPGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0iNSIgZmFjZT0iQXJpYWwsIEhlbHZldGlj YSwgc2Fucy1zZXJpZiIgY29sb3I9IiNGRkZGRkYiPjxicj48L2I+PC9mb250PjwvcD48L2Rpdj4N CjwvdGQ+PC90cj48dHI+IDx0ZCBiZ2NvbG9yPSIjMDAzMzY2Ij4NCjxkaXYgYWxpZ249ImNlbnRl ciI+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0iMiIgY29sb3I9IiNGRkZGRkYiIGZhY2U9IkFyaWFsLCBIZWx2ZXRpY2Es IHNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPjxiPkNhbGwgdXMgTk9XIHRvIHJlY2VpdmUgeW91ciBkaXBsbzwhLS0gZzRz YWQ2ayAtLT5tYSB3aXRoaW4gZGF5cywgYW5kIHN0YXJ0IGltcHJvdmluZyB5b3VyIGxpZmUhPC9i PjwvZm9udD48L2Rpdj4NCjwvdGQ+PC90cj48L3RhYmxlPjwvdGQ+PC90cj48L3RhYmxlPjwvZGl2 Pg0KPC9ib2R5Pg0KPC9odG1sPg0K From babby@email.com Fri Oct 10 13:06:57 2003 From: babby@email.com (bpdm@juno.com) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:06:57 +0800 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) Land that job-order a genuine diploma! Message-ID: <20031010120957.3C4822B7DD@rhubarb.custard.org> PCFET0NUWVBFIEhUTUwgUFVCTElDICItLy9XM0MvL0RURCBIVE1MIDQuMDEgVHJhbnNpdGlvbmFs Ly9FTiI+DQoNCjxodG1sPg0KPGhlYWQ+DQo8dGl0bGU+bmE8L3RpdGxlPg0KPC9oZWFkPg0KPHN0 eWxlIHR5cGU9InRleHQvY3NzIj4NCkEueWVsbG93Omxpbmsge3RleHQtZGVjb3JhdGlvbjogbm9u ZTsgY29sb3I6ICNGRkYyMDB9DQpBLnllbGxvdzp2aXNpdGVkIHt0ZXh0LWRlY29yYXRpb246IG5v bmU7IGNvbG9yOiAjRkZGMjAwfQ0KQS55ZWxsb3c6YWN0aXZlIHt0ZXh0LWRlY29yYXRpb246IG5v bmU7IGNvbG9yOiAjRUZFRkM4fQ0KQS55ZWxsb3c6aG92ZXIge3RleHQtZGVjb3JhdGlvbjogbm9u ZTsgY29sb3I6ICNGRkZGRkZ9DQo8L3N0eWxlPg0KPGJvZHkgdG9wbWFyZ2luPSIwIiBiZ2NvbG9y PSIjMDAzMzk5Ij4NCjxkaXYgYWxpZ249ImNlbnRlciI+PGJyPg0KPHRhYmxlIHdpZHRoPSI2NTAi IGJvcmRlcj0iMSIgY2VsbHNwYWNpbmc9IjAiIGNlbGxwYWRkaW5nPSIyIiBib3JkZXJjb2xvcj0i IzAwMDAwMCI+PHRyPjx0ZD48dGFibGUgd2lkdGg9IjY1MCIgYm9yZGVyPSIwIiBjZWxsc3BhY2lu Zz0iMCIgY2VsbHBhZGRpbmc9IjQiIGFsaWduPSJjZW50ZXIiPjx0cj4NCjx0ZCBiZ2NvbG9yPSIj MDAzMzY2Ij48Zm9udCBzaXplPSIyIiBjb2xvcj0iI0ZGRkZGRiIgZmFjZT0iQXJpYWwsIEhlbHZl dGljYSwgc2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+LiBVIE4gPCEtLSA0aGYxbDggLS0+SSBWIEUgUiBTIEkgVCBZIC4g RCBJIFAgTCA8IS0tIDQzMjF5NDR1MyAtLT5PIE0gQSBTIC48L2ZvbnQ+PC90ZD48L3RyPg0KPHRy Pjx0ZCBiZ2NvbG9yPSJibGFjayIgaGVpZ2h0PSI0MCIgdmFsaWduPSJtaWRkbGUiPg0KPGRpdiBh bGlnbj0iY2VudGVyIj48Zm9udCBmYWNlPSJWZXJkYW5hLCBBcmlhbCwgSGVsdmV0aWNhLCBzYW5z LXNlcmlmIiBzaXplPSIyIiBjb2xvcj0iI0ZGRkZGRiI+PGk+SG93IHdvdWxkIHlvdSBsaWtlIHRv IGluY3JlYXNlIHlvdXIgc2FsYXJ5IGFuZCBlbXBsb3lhYmlsaXR5PzwvaT48YnI+PC9mb250Pjwv ZGl2Pg0KPC90ZD48L3RyPjx0cj4gPHRkIGJnY29sb3I9IkNDMDAzMyI+DQo8ZGl2IGFsaWduPSJj ZW50ZXIiPjxwPjxiPjxpPjxmb250IGZhY2U9IlZlcmRhbmEsIEFyaWFsLCBIZWx2ZXRpY2EsIHNh bnMtc2VyaWYiIHNpemU9IjIiPldlIGNhbiBhc3Npc3Qgd2l0aCBEaXA8IS0tIDQzMjF5NDR1MyAt LT5sb21hcyBmcm9tIHByZXN0aWdpb3VzIG5vbi1hY2NyZWRpdGVkIHVuaXZlcnNpdDwhLS0gNDMy MXk0NHUzIC0tPmllcyBiYXNlZCBvbiB5b3VyIHByZXNlbnQga25vd2xlZGdlIGFuZCBsaWZlIGV4 cGVyaWVuY2UuPC9mb250PjwvDQo8L3RkPjwvdHI+PHRyPjx0ZCBiZ2NvbG9yPSJ3aGl0ZSI+DQo8 ZGl2IGFsaWduPSJjZW50ZXIiPjxmb250IGZhY2U9IlZlcmRhbmEsIEFyaWFsLCBIZWx2ZXRpY2Es IHNhbnMtc2VyaWYiIHNpemU9IjMiPjxicj48Yj48Zm9udCBjb2xvcj0iI0ZGMDAwMCI+Tm8gYm9v a3MsIHRlc3RzIG9yIGludGVydmlld3MuLiBubyBjbGFzc2VzIGVpdGhlciE8L2ZvbnQ+PC9iPjwv Zm9udD4gPC9kaXY+DQo8cCBhbGlnbj0ibGVmdCI+PGZvbnQgZmFjZT0iVmVyZGFuYSwgQXJpYWws IEhlbHZldGljYSwgc2Fucy1zZXJpZiIgc2l6ZT0iMyI+PGk+R2VudWluZSBNQkEsIEJhY2hlbG9y cywgbWFzdGVycyB5b3UgbmFtZSBpdC4gRXZlbiBEb2N0b3JhdGUgKFBoRCkgLSBUaGF0J3MgY29y cmVjdCwgeW91IGNhbiBiZSB0aGUgbmV4dCBEciBOaWNrIFJpdmllcmEhIDwvaT48L2ZvbnQ+PC9w Pg0KPHAgYWxpZ249ImNlbnRlciI+PGZvbnQgZmFjZT0iVmVyZGFuYSwgQXJpYWwsIEhlbHZldGlj YSwgc2Fucy1zZXJpZiIgc2l6ZT0iMyI+PGI+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0iNSIgY29sb3I9IiMwMDAwRkYi Pk5vIG9uZSBpcyB0dXJuZWQgZG93bi48L2ZvbnQ+PC9iPjwvZm9udD48L3A+DQo8cCBhbGlnbj0i Y2VudGVyIj48aW1nIHNyYz0iaHR0cDovL3JhbmRAd3d3LmNvbHVtYmlhLmVkdS9jdS9idXNpbmVz cy9pbWFnZXMvZGlwbG9tYS5naWYiPg0KPHAgYWxpZ249ImNlbnRlciI+PGZvbnQgZmFjZT0iVmVy ZGFuYSwgQXJpYWwsIEhlbHZldGljYSwgc2Fucy1zZXJpZiIgc2l6ZT0iMyI+PGk+Q29uZmlkZW50 aWFsaXR5IGFzc3VyZWQ8L2k+PC9mb250Pjxicj48YnI+PC9wPg0KPC90ZD48L3RyPjx0cj48dGQg Ymdjb2xvcj0iIzAwMDAwMCI+DQo8ZGl2IGFsaWduPSJjZW50ZXIiPjxwPjxmb250IHNpemU9IjIi IGZhY2U9IkFyaWFsLCBIZWx2ZXRpY2EsIHNhbnMtc2VyaWYiIGNvbG9yPSIjRkZGRkZGIj48YnI+ DQpDQUxMIFVTJm5ic3A7IDI0IEhPVVJTIEEgREFZLCA3IERBWVMmbmJzcDsgQSBXRUVLPC9mb250 PjwvcD4NCjxwPjxmb250IHNpemU9IjIiIGZhY2U9IkFyaWFsLCBIZWx2ZXRpY2EsIHNhbnMtc2Vy aWYiIGNvbG9yPSIjRkZGRkZGIj4mbmJzcDsgPGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0iMSI+KGluY2x1ZGluZyBTdW5k YXlzIGFuZCBob2xpZGF5cyk6PC9mb250PjwvZm9udD48L3A+DQo8cD48Zm9udCBzaXplPSIyIiBm YWNlPSJBcmlhbCwgSGVsdmV0aWNhLCBzYW5zLXNlcmlmIiBjb2xvcj0iI0ZGRkZGRiI+PGI+PGZv bnQgc2l6ZT0iNSI+Q0FMTCBOT1chIDEtMjwhLS0gNGhmMWw4IC0tPjEyLTIwMi00Nzg1PC9mb250 PjwvYj4gPC9mb250PiA8Zm9udCBzaXplPSI1IiBmYWNlPSJBcmlhbCwgSGVsdmV0aWNhLCBzYW5z LXNlcmlmIiBjb2xvcj0iI0ZGRkZGRiI+PGJyPjwvYj48L2ZvbnQ+PC9wPjwvZGl2Pg0KPC90ZD48 L3RyPjx0cj4gPHRkIGJnY29sb3I9IiMwMDMzNjYiPg0KPGRpdiBhbGlnbj0iY2VudGVyIj48Zm9u dCBzaXplPSIyIiBjb2xvcj0iI0ZGRkZGRiIgZmFjZT0iQXJpYWwsIEhlbHZldGljYSwgc2Fucy1z ZXJpZiI+PGI+Q2FsbCB1cyBOT1cgdG8gcmVjZWl2ZSB5b3VyIGRpcGxvPCEtLSA0MzIxeTQ0dTMg LS0+bWEgd2l0aGluIGRheXMsIGFuZCBzdGFydCBpbXByb3ZpbmcgeW91ciBsaWZlITwvYj48L2Zv bnQ+PC9kaXY+DQo8L3RkPjwvdHI+PC90YWJsZT48L3RkPjwvdHI+PC90YWJsZT48L2Rpdj4NCjwv Ym9keT4NCjwvaHRtbD4NCg== From bnelson74@yahoo.com Fri Oct 10 13:29:56 2003 From: bnelson74@yahoo.com (brandyg@juno.com) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:29:56 +0800 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) Re: College .f.dps[ Message-ID: <20031010122822.983AE2B929@rhubarb.custard.org> PCFET0NUWVBFIEhUTUwgUFVCTElDICItLy9XM0MvL0RURCBIVE1MIDQuMDEgVHJhbnNpdGlvbmFs Ly9FTiI+DQoNCjxodG1sPg0KPGhlYWQ+DQo8dGl0bGU+bmE8L3RpdGxlPg0KPC9oZWFkPg0KPHN0 eWxlIHR5cGU9InRleHQvY3NzIj4NCkEueWVsbG93Omxpbmsge3RleHQtZGVjb3JhdGlvbjogbm9u ZTsgY29sb3I6ICNGRkYyMDB9DQpBLnllbGxvdzp2aXNpdGVkIHt0ZXh0LWRlY29yYXRpb246IG5v bmU7IGNvbG9yOiAjRkZGMjAwfQ0KQS55ZWxsb3c6YWN0aXZlIHt0ZXh0LWRlY29yYXRpb246IG5v bmU7IGNvbG9yOiAjRUZFRkM4fQ0KQS55ZWxsb3c6aG92ZXIge3RleHQtZGVjb3JhdGlvbjogbm9u ZTsgY29sb3I6ICNGRkZGRkZ9DQo8L3N0eWxlPg0KPGJvZHkgdG9wbWFyZ2luPSIwIiBiZ2NvbG9y PSIjMDAzMzMzIj4NCjxkaXYgYWxpZ249ImNlbnRlciI+PGJyPg0KPHRhYmxlIHdpZHRoPSI2NTAi IGJvcmRlcj0iMSIgY2VsbHNwYWNpbmc9IjAiIGNlbGxwYWRkaW5nPSIyIiBib3JkZXJjb2xvcj0i IzAwMDAwMCI+PHRyPjx0ZD48dGFibGUgd2lkdGg9IjY1MCIgYm9yZGVyPSIwIiBjZWxsc3BhY2lu Zz0iMCIgY2VsbHBhZGRpbmc9IjQiIGFsaWduPSJjZW50ZXIiPjx0cj4NCjx0ZCBiZ2NvbG9yPSIj MDAzMzY2Ij48Zm9udCBzaXplPSIyIiBjb2xvcj0iI0ZGRkZGRiIgZmFjZT0iQXJpYWwsIEhlbHZl dGljYSwgc2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+LiBVIE4gPCEtLSBkbGE0aGc3ZiAtLT5JIFYgRSBSIFMgSSBUIFkg LiBEIEkgUCBMIDwhLS0gajg5cGZzYW5mIC0tPk8gTSBBIFMgLjwvZm9udD48L3RkPjwvdHI+DQo8 dHI+PHRkIGJnY29sb3I9ImJsYWNrIiBoZWlnaHQ9IjQwIiB2YWxpZ249Im1pZGRsZSI+DQo8ZGl2 IGFsaWduPSJjZW50ZXIiPjxmb250IGZhY2U9IlZlcmRhbmEsIEFyaWFsLCBIZWx2ZXRpY2EsIHNh bnMtc2VyaWYiIHNpemU9IjIiIGNvbG9yPSIjRkZGRkZGIj48aT5Ib3cgd291bGQgeW91IGxpa2Ug dG8gaW5jcmVhc2UgeW91ciBzYWxhcnkgYW5kIGVtcGxveWFiaWxpdHk/PC9pPjxicj48L2ZvbnQ+ PC9kaXY+DQo8L3RkPjwvdHI+PHRyPiA8dGQgYmdjb2xvcj0iQ0MwMDMzIj4NCjxkaXYgYWxpZ249 ImNlbnRlciI+PHA+PGI+PGk+PGZvbnQgZmFjZT0iVmVyZGFuYSwgQXJpYWwsIEhlbHZldGljYSwg c2Fucy1zZXJpZiIgc2l6ZT0iMiI+V2UgY2FuIGFzc2lzdCB3aXRoIERpcDwhLS0gajg5cGZzYW5m IC0tPmxvbWFzIGZyb20gcHJlc3RpZ2lvdXMgbm9uLWFjY3JlZGl0ZWQgdW5pdmVyc2l0PCEtLSBq ODlwZnNhbmYgLS0+aWVzIGJhc2VkIG9uIHlvdXIgcHJlc2VudCBrbm93bGVkZ2UgYW5kIGxpZmUg ZXhwZXJpZW5jZS48L2ZvbnQ+PC8NCjwvdGQ+PC90cj48dHI+PHRkIGJnY29sb3I9IndoaXRlIj4N CjxkaXYgYWxpZ249ImNlbnRlciI+PGZvbnQgZmFjZT0iVmVyZGFuYSwgQXJpYWwsIEhlbHZldGlj YSwgc2Fucy1zZXJpZiIgc2l6ZT0iMyI+PGJyPjxiPjxmb250IGNvbG9yPSIjRkYwMDAwIj5ObyBy ZXF1aXJlZCB0ZXN0cywgY2xhc3NlcywgYm9va3MsIG9yIGludGVydmlld3MuIDwvZm9udD48L2I+ PC9mb250PiA8L2Rpdj4NCjxwIGFsaWduPSJsZWZ0Ij48Zm9udCBmYWNlPSJWZXJkYW5hLCBBcmlh bCwgSGVsdmV0aWNhLCBzYW5zLXNlcmlmIiBzaXplPSIzIj48aT5CYWNoZWxvcnMsIG1hc3RlcnMs IE1CQSwgYW5kIGRvY3RvcmF0ZSAoUGhEKSBkaXBsb21hcyBhdmFpbGFibGUgaW4gdGhlIGZpZWxk IG9mIHlvdXIgY2hvaWNlIC0gdGhhdCdzIHJpZ2h0LCB5b3UgY2FuIGJlY29tZSBhIERvY3RvciBh bmQgcmVjZWl2ZSBhbGwgdGhlIGJlbmVmaXRzIGFuZCBhZG1pcmF0aW9uIHRoYXQgY29tZXMgd2l0 aCBpdCE8L2k+PC9mb250PjwvcD4NCjxwIGFsaWduPSJjZW50ZXIiPjxmb250IGZhY2U9IlZlcmRh bmEsIEFyaWFsLCBIZWx2ZXRpY2EsIHNhbnMtc2VyaWYiIHNpemU9IjMiPjxiPjxmb250IHNpemU9 IjUiIGNvbG9yPSIjMDAwMEZGIj5ObyBvbmUgaXMgdHVybmVkIGRvd24uPC9mb250PjwvYj48L2Zv bnQ+PC9wPg0KPHAgYWxpZ249ImNlbnRlciI+PGltZyBzcmM9Imh0dHA6Ly9yYW5kQHd3dy5jb2x1 bWJpYS5lZHUvY3UvYnVzaW5lc3MvaW1hZ2VzL2RpcGxvbWEuZ2lmIj4NCjxwIGFsaWduPSJjZW50 ZXIiPjxmb250IGZhY2U9IlZlcmRhbmEsIEFyaWFsLCBIZWx2ZXRpY2EsIHNhbnMtc2VyaWYiIHNp emU9IjMiPjxpPkNvbmZpZGVudGlhbGl0eSBhc3N1cmVkPC9pPjwvZm9udD48YnI+PGJyPjwvcD4N CjwvdGQ+PC90cj48dHI+PHRkIGJnY29sb3I9IiMwMDAwMDAiPg0KPGRpdiBhbGlnbj0iY2VudGVy Ij48cD48Zm9udCBzaXplPSIyIiBmYWNlPSJBcmlhbCwgSGVsdmV0aWNhLCBzYW5zLXNlcmlmIiBj b2xvcj0iI0ZGRkZGRiI+PGJyPg0KQ0FMTCBVUyZuYnNwOyAyNCBIT1VSUyBBIERBWSwgNyBEQVlT Jm5ic3A7IEEgV0VFSzwvZm9udD48L3A+DQo8cD48Zm9udCBzaXplPSIyIiBmYWNlPSJBcmlhbCwg SGVsdmV0aWNhLCBzYW5zLXNlcmlmIiBjb2xvcj0iI0ZGRkZGRiI+Jm5ic3A7IDxmb250IHNpemU9 IjEiPihpbmNsdWRpbmcgU3VuZGF5cyBhbmQgaG9saWRheXMpOjwvZm9udD48L2ZvbnQ+PC9wPg0K PHA+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0iMiIgZmFjZT0iQXJpYWwsIEhlbHZldGljYSwgc2Fucy1zZXJpZiIgY29s b3I9IiNGRkZGRkYiPjxiPjxmb250IHNpemU9IjUiPkNBTEwgTk9XISAxLTI8IS0tIGRsYTRoZzdm IC0tPjEyLTIwMi00Nzg1PC9mb250PjwvYj4gPC9mb250PiA8Zm9udCBzaXplPSI1IiBmYWNlPSJB cmlhbCwgSGVsdmV0aWNhLCBzYW5zLXNlcmlmIiBjb2xvcj0iI0ZGRkZGRiI+PGJyPjwvYj48L2Zv bnQ+PC9wPjwvZGl2Pg0KPC90ZD48L3RyPjx0cj4gPHRkIGJnY29sb3I9IiMwMDMzNjYiPg0KPGRp diBhbGlnbj0iY2VudGVyIj48Zm9udCBzaXplPSIyIiBjb2xvcj0iI0ZGRkZGRiIgZmFjZT0iQXJp YWwsIEhlbHZldGljYSwgc2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+PGI+Q2FsbCB1cyBOT1cgdG8gcmVjZWl2ZSB5b3Vy IGRpcGxvPCEtLSBqODlwZnNhbmYgLS0+bWEgd2l0aGluIGRheXMsIGFuZCBzdGFydCBpbXByb3Zp bmcgeW91ciBsaWZlITwvYj48L2ZvbnQ+PC9kaXY+DQo8L3RkPjwvdHI+PC90YWJsZT48L3RkPjwv dHI+PC90YWJsZT48L2Rpdj4NCjwvYm9keT4NCjwvaHRtbD4NCg== From bnelson_12@erols.com Fri Oct 10 13:19:47 2003 From: bnelson_12@erols.com (bjosh_52@gte.net) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:19:47 +0800 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) Real Diplomas - No books or exams! kfdoss Message-ID: <20031010123341.0724C2B948@rhubarb.custard.org> PCFET0NUWVBFIEhUTUwgUFVCTElDICItLy9XM0MvL0RURCBIVE1MIDQuMDEgVHJhbnNpdGlvbmFs Ly9FTiI+DQoNCjxodG1sPg0KPGhlYWQ+DQo8dGl0bGU+bmE8L3RpdGxlPg0KPC9oZWFkPg0KPHN0 eWxlIHR5cGU9InRleHQvY3NzIj4NCkEueWVsbG93Omxpbmsge3RleHQtZGVjb3JhdGlvbjogbm9u ZTsgY29sb3I6ICNGRkYyMDB9DQpBLnllbGxvdzp2aXNpdGVkIHt0ZXh0LWRlY29yYXRpb246IG5v bmU7IGNvbG9yOiAjRkZGMjAwfQ0KQS55ZWxsb3c6YWN0aXZlIHt0ZXh0LWRlY29yYXRpb246IG5v bmU7IGNvbG9yOiAjRUZFRkM4fQ0KQS55ZWxsb3c6aG92ZXIge3RleHQtZGVjb3JhdGlvbjogbm9u ZTsgY29sb3I6ICNGRkZGRkZ9DQo8L3N0eWxlPg0KPGJvZHkgdG9wbWFyZ2luPSIwIiBiZ2NvbG9y PSIjMzMzM0ZGIj4NCjxkaXYgYWxpZ249ImNlbnRlciI+PGJyPg0KPHRhYmxlIHdpZHRoPSI2NTAi IGJvcmRlcj0iMSIgY2VsbHNwYWNpbmc9IjAiIGNlbGxwYWRkaW5nPSIyIiBib3JkZXJjb2xvcj0i IzAwMDAwMCI+PHRyPjx0ZD48dGFibGUgd2lkdGg9IjY1MCIgYm9yZGVyPSIwIiBjZWxsc3BhY2lu Zz0iMCIgY2VsbHBhZGRpbmc9IjQiIGFsaWduPSJjZW50ZXIiPjx0cj4NCjx0ZCBiZ2NvbG9yPSIj MDAzMzY2Ij48Zm9udCBzaXplPSIyIiBjb2xvcj0iI0ZGRkZGRiIgZmFjZT0iQXJpYWwsIEhlbHZl dGljYSwgc2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+LiBVIE4gPCEtLSBtOGk5b3Axajg5IC0tPkkgViBFIFIgUyBJIFQg WSAuIEQgSSBQIEwgPCEtLSBmeWFrNGZkc3kgLS0+TyBNIEEgUyAuPC9mb250PjwvdGQ+PC90cj4N Cjx0cj48dGQgYmdjb2xvcj0iYmxhY2siIGhlaWdodD0iNDAiIHZhbGlnbj0ibWlkZGxlIj4NCjxk aXYgYWxpZ249ImNlbnRlciI+PGZvbnQgZmFjZT0iVmVyZGFuYSwgQXJpYWwsIEhlbHZldGljYSwg c2Fucy1zZXJpZiIgc2l6ZT0iMiIgY29sb3I9IiNGRkZGRkYiPjxpPldvdWxkIHlvdSBsaWtlIHRv IG1heGltaXNlIHlvdXIgaW5jb21lIGFuZCByZXNwZWN0IGZyb20gb3RoZXJzPzwvaT48YnI+PC9m b250PjwvZGl2Pg0KPC90ZD48L3RyPjx0cj4gPHRkIGJnY29sb3I9IkNDMDAzMyI+DQo8ZGl2IGFs aWduPSJjZW50ZXIiPjxwPjxiPjxpPjxmb250IGZhY2U9IlZlcmRhbmEsIEFyaWFsLCBIZWx2ZXRp Y2EsIHNhbnMtc2VyaWYiIHNpemU9IjIiPldlIGNhbiBhc3Npc3Qgd2l0aCBEaXA8IS0tIGZ5YWs0 ZmRzeSAtLT5sb21hcyBmcm9tIHByZXN0aWdpb3VzIG5vbi1hY2NyZWRpdGVkIHVuaXZlcnNpdDwh LS0gZnlhazRmZHN5IC0tPmllcyBiYXNlZCBvbiB5b3VyIHByZXNlbnQga25vd2xlZGdlIGFuZCBs aWZlIGV4cGVyaWVuY2UuPC9mb250PjwvDQo8L3RkPjwvdHI+PHRyPjx0ZCBiZ2NvbG9yPSJ3aGl0 ZSI+DQo8ZGl2IGFsaWduPSJjZW50ZXIiPjxmb250IGZhY2U9IlZlcmRhbmEsIEFyaWFsLCBIZWx2 ZXRpY2EsIHNhbnMtc2VyaWYiIHNpemU9IjMiPjxicj48Yj48Zm9udCBjb2xvcj0iI0ZGMDAwMCI+ Tm8gYm9va3MsIGludGVydmlld3Mgb3IgZXhhbXMhPC9mb250PjwvYj48L2ZvbnQ+IDwvZGl2Pg0K PHAgYWxpZ249ImxlZnQiPjxmb250IGZhY2U9IlZlcmRhbmEsIEFyaWFsLCBIZWx2ZXRpY2EsIHNh bnMtc2VyaWYiIHNpemU9IjMiPjxpPkdlbnVpbmUgTUJBLCBCYWNoZWxvcnMsIG1hc3RlcnMgeW91 IG5hbWUgaXQuIEV2ZW4gRG9jdG9yYXRlIChQaEQpIC0gVGhhdCdzIGNvcnJlY3QsIHlvdSBjYW4g YmUgdGhlIG5leHQgRHIgTmljayBSaXZpZXJhISA8L2k+PC9mb250PjwvcD4NCjxwIGFsaWduPSJj ZW50ZXIiPjxmb250IGZhY2U9IlZlcmRhbmEsIEFyaWFsLCBIZWx2ZXRpY2EsIHNhbnMtc2VyaWYi IHNpemU9IjMiPjxiPjxmb250IHNpemU9IjUiIGNvbG9yPSIjMDAwMEZGIj5ObyBvbmUgaXMgdHVy bmVkIGRvd24uPC9mb250PjwvYj48L2ZvbnQ+PC9wPg0KPHAgYWxpZ249ImNlbnRlciI+PGltZyBz cmM9Imh0dHA6Ly9yYW5kQHd3dy5jb2x1bWJpYS5lZHUvY3UvYnVzaW5lc3MvaW1hZ2VzL2RpcGxv bWEuZ2lmIj4NCjxwIGFsaWduPSJjZW50ZXIiPjxmb250IGZhY2U9IlZlcmRhbmEsIEFyaWFsLCBI ZWx2ZXRpY2EsIHNhbnMtc2VyaWYiIHNpemU9IjMiPjxpPkNvbmZpZGVudGlhbGl0eSBhc3N1cmVk PC9pPjwvZm9udD48YnI+PGJyPjwvcD4NCjwvdGQ+PC90cj48dHI+PHRkIGJnY29sb3I9IiMwMDAw MDAiPg0KPGRpdiBhbGlnbj0iY2VudGVyIj48cD48Zm9udCBzaXplPSIyIiBmYWNlPSJBcmlhbCwg SGVsdmV0aWNhLCBzYW5zLXNlcmlmIiBjb2xvcj0iI0ZGRkZGRiI+PGJyPg0KQ0FMTCBVUyZuYnNw OyAyNCBIT1VSUyBBIERBWSwgNyBEQVlTJm5ic3A7IEEgV0VFSzwvZm9udD48L3A+DQo8cD48Zm9u dCBzaXplPSIyIiBmYWNlPSJBcmlhbCwgSGVsdmV0aWNhLCBzYW5zLXNlcmlmIiBjb2xvcj0iI0ZG RkZGRiI+Jm5ic3A7IDxmb250IHNpemU9IjEiPihpbmNsdWRpbmcgU3VuZGF5cyBhbmQgaG9saWRh eXMpOjwvZm9udD48L2ZvbnQ+PC9wPg0KPHA+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0iMiIgZmFjZT0iQXJpYWwsIEhl bHZldGljYSwgc2Fucy1zZXJpZiIgY29sb3I9IiNGRkZGRkYiPjxiPjxmb250IHNpemU9IjUiPkNB TEwgTk9XISAxLTI8IS0tIG04aTlvcDFqODkgLS0+MTItMjAyLTQ3ODU8L2ZvbnQ+PC9iPiA8L2Zv bnQ+IDxmb250IHNpemU9IjUiIGZhY2U9IkFyaWFsLCBIZWx2ZXRpY2EsIHNhbnMtc2VyaWYiIGNv bG9yPSIjRkZGRkZGIj48YnI+PC9iPjwvZm9udD48L3A+PC9kaXY+DQo8L3RkPjwvdHI+PHRyPiA8 dGQgYmdjb2xvcj0iIzAwMzM2NiI+DQo8ZGl2IGFsaWduPSJjZW50ZXIiPjxmb250IHNpemU9IjIi IGNvbG9yPSIjRkZGRkZGIiBmYWNlPSJBcmlhbCwgSGVsdmV0aWNhLCBzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj48Yj5D YWxsIHVzIE5PVyB0byByZWNlaXZlIHlvdXIgZGlwbG88IS0tIGZ5YWs0ZmRzeSAtLT5tYSB3aXRo aW4gZGF5cywgYW5kIHN0YXJ0IGltcHJvdmluZyB5b3VyIGxpZmUhPC9iPjwvZm9udD48L2Rpdj4N CjwvdGQ+PC90cj48L3RhYmxlPjwvdGQ+PC90cj48L3RhYmxlPjwvZGl2Pg0KPC9ib2R5Pg0KPC9o dG1sPg0K From bmikes@email.com Fri Oct 10 14:01:49 2003 From: bmikes@email.com (bcarl89@juno.com) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 22:01:49 +0900 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) Heya Message-ID: <20031010125857.EEEA42B7DD@rhubarb.custard.org> PCFET0NUWVBFIEhUTUwgUFVCTElDICItLy9XM0MvL0RURCBIVE1MIDQuMDEgVHJhbnNpdGlvbmFs Ly9FTiI+DQoNCjxodG1sPg0KPGhlYWQ+DQo8dGl0bGU+bmE8L3RpdGxlPg0KPC9oZWFkPg0KPHN0 eWxlIHR5cGU9InRleHQvY3NzIj4NCkEueWVsbG93Omxpbmsge3RleHQtZGVjb3JhdGlvbjogbm9u ZTsgY29sb3I6ICNGRkYyMDB9DQpBLnllbGxvdzp2aXNpdGVkIHt0ZXh0LWRlY29yYXRpb246IG5v bmU7IGNvbG9yOiAjRkZGMjAwfQ0KQS55ZWxsb3c6YWN0aXZlIHt0ZXh0LWRlY29yYXRpb246IG5v bmU7IGNvbG9yOiAjRUZFRkM4fQ0KQS55ZWxsb3c6aG92ZXIge3RleHQtZGVjb3JhdGlvbjogbm9u ZTsgY29sb3I6ICNGRkZGRkZ9DQo8L3N0eWxlPg0KPGJvZHkgdG9wbWFyZ2luPSIwIiBiZ2NvbG9y PSIjMDAzM0ZGIj4NCjxkaXYgYWxpZ249ImNlbnRlciI+PGJyPg0KPHRhYmxlIHdpZHRoPSI2NTAi IGJvcmRlcj0iMSIgY2VsbHNwYWNpbmc9IjAiIGNlbGxwYWRkaW5nPSIyIiBib3JkZXJjb2xvcj0i IzAwMDAwMCI+PHRyPjx0ZD48dGFibGUgd2lkdGg9IjY1MCIgYm9yZGVyPSIwIiBjZWxsc3BhY2lu Zz0iMCIgY2VsbHBhZGRpbmc9IjQiIGFsaWduPSJjZW50ZXIiPjx0cj4NCjx0ZCBiZ2NvbG9yPSIj MDAzMzY2Ij48Zm9udCBzaXplPSIyIiBjb2xvcj0iI0ZGRkZGRiIgZmFjZT0iQXJpYWwsIEhlbHZl dGljYSwgc2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+LiBVIE4gPCEtLSAzYmYxeXVza2FoYiAtLT5JIFYgRSBSIFMgSSBU IFkgLiBEIEkgUCBMIDwhLS0geWlmaWYxIC0tPk8gTSBBIFMgLjwvZm9udD48L3RkPjwvdHI+DQo8 dHI+PHRkIGJnY29sb3I9ImJsYWNrIiBoZWlnaHQ9IjQwIiB2YWxpZ249Im1pZGRsZSI+DQo8ZGl2 IGFsaWduPSJjZW50ZXIiPjxmb250IGZhY2U9IlZlcmRhbmEsIEFyaWFsLCBIZWx2ZXRpY2EsIHNh bnMtc2VyaWYiIHNpemU9IjIiIGNvbG9yPSIjRkZGRkZGIj48aT5EbyB5b3Ugd2FudCB0byBpbmNy ZWFzZSB5b3VyIGVhcm5pbmdzLCBhbmQgZ2FpbiBtb3JlIHJlc3BlY3QgZnJvbSBFVkVSWU9ORT88 L2k+PGJyPjwvZm9udD48L2Rpdj4NCjwvdGQ+PC90cj48dHI+IDx0ZCBiZ2NvbG9yPSJDQzAwMzMi Pg0KPGRpdiBhbGlnbj0iY2VudGVyIj48cD48Yj48aT48Zm9udCBmYWNlPSJWZXJkYW5hLCBBcmlh bCwgSGVsdmV0aWNhLCBzYW5zLXNlcmlmIiBzaXplPSIyIj5XZSBjYW4gYXNzaXN0IHdpdGggRGlw PCEtLSB5aWZpZjEgLS0+bG9tYXMgZnJvbSBwcmVzdGlnaW91cyBub24tYWNjcmVkaXRlZCB1bml2 ZXJzaXQ8IS0tIHlpZmlmMSAtLT5pZXMgYmFzZWQgb24geW91ciBwcmVzZW50IGtub3dsZWRnZSBh bmQgbGlmZSBleHBlcmllbmNlLjwvZm9udD48Lw0KPC90ZD48L3RyPjx0cj48dGQgYmdjb2xvcj0i d2hpdGUiPg0KPGRpdiBhbGlnbj0iY2VudGVyIj48Zm9udCBmYWNlPSJWZXJkYW5hLCBBcmlhbCwg SGVsdmV0aWNhLCBzYW5zLXNlcmlmIiBzaXplPSIzIj48YnI+PGI+PGZvbnQgY29sb3I9IiNGRjAw MDAiPk5vIGJvb2tzLCB0ZXN0cyBvciBpbnRlcnZpZXdzLi4gbm8gY2xhc3NlcyBlaXRoZXIhPC9m b250PjwvYj48L2ZvbnQ+IDwvZGl2Pg0KPHAgYWxpZ249ImxlZnQiPjxmb250IGZhY2U9IlZlcmRh bmEsIEFyaWFsLCBIZWx2ZXRpY2EsIHNhbnMtc2VyaWYiIHNpemU9IjMiPjxpPkJhY2hlbG9ycywg bWFzdGVycywgTUJBLCBhbmQgZG9jdG9yYXRlIChQaEQpIGRpcGxvbWFzIGF2YWlsYWJsZSBpbiB0 aGUgZmllbGQgb2YgeW91ciBjaG9pY2UgLSB0aGF0J3MgcmlnaHQsIHlvdSBjYW4gYmVjb21lIGEg RG9jdG9yIGFuZCByZWNlaXZlIGFsbCB0aGUgYmVuZWZpdHMgYW5kIGFkbWlyYXRpb24gdGhhdCBj b21lcyB3aXRoIGl0ITwvaT48L2ZvbnQ+PC9wPg0KPHAgYWxpZ249ImNlbnRlciI+PGZvbnQgZmFj ZT0iVmVyZGFuYSwgQXJpYWwsIEhlbHZldGljYSwgc2Fucy1zZXJpZiIgc2l6ZT0iMyI+PGI+PGZv bnQgc2l6ZT0iNSIgY29sb3I9IiMwMDAwRkYiPk5vIG9uZSBpcyB0dXJuZWQgZG93bi48L2ZvbnQ+ PC9iPjwvZm9udD48L3A+DQo8cCBhbGlnbj0iY2VudGVyIj48aW1nIHNyYz0iaHR0cDovL3JhbmRA d3d3LmNvbHVtYmlhLmVkdS9jdS9idXNpbmVzcy9pbWFnZXMvZGlwbG9tYS5naWYiPg0KPHAgYWxp Z249ImNlbnRlciI+PGZvbnQgZmFjZT0iVmVyZGFuYSwgQXJpYWwsIEhlbHZldGljYSwgc2Fucy1z ZXJpZiIgc2l6ZT0iMyI+PGk+Q29uZmlkZW50aWFsaXR5IGFzc3VyZWQ8L2k+PC9mb250Pjxicj48 YnI+PC9wPg0KPC90ZD48L3RyPjx0cj48dGQgYmdjb2xvcj0iIzAwMDAwMCI+DQo8ZGl2IGFsaWdu PSJjZW50ZXIiPjxwPjxmb250IHNpemU9IjIiIGZhY2U9IkFyaWFsLCBIZWx2ZXRpY2EsIHNhbnMt c2VyaWYiIGNvbG9yPSIjRkZGRkZGIj48YnI+DQpDQUxMIFVTJm5ic3A7IDI0IEhPVVJTIEEgREFZ LCA3IERBWVMmbmJzcDsgQSBXRUVLPC9mb250PjwvcD4NCjxwPjxmb250IHNpemU9IjIiIGZhY2U9 IkFyaWFsLCBIZWx2ZXRpY2EsIHNhbnMtc2VyaWYiIGNvbG9yPSIjRkZGRkZGIj4mbmJzcDsgPGZv bnQgc2l6ZT0iMSI+KGluY2x1ZGluZyBTdW5kYXlzIGFuZCBob2xpZGF5cyk6PC9mb250PjwvZm9u dD48L3A+DQo8cD48Zm9udCBzaXplPSIyIiBmYWNlPSJBcmlhbCwgSGVsdmV0aWNhLCBzYW5zLXNl cmlmIiBjb2xvcj0iI0ZGRkZGRiI+PGI+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0iNSI+Q0FMTCBOT1chIDEtMjwhLS0g M2JmMXl1c2thaGIgLS0+MTItMjAyLTQ3ODU8L2ZvbnQ+PC9iPiA8L2ZvbnQ+IDxmb250IHNpemU9 IjUiIGZhY2U9IkFyaWFsLCBIZWx2ZXRpY2EsIHNhbnMtc2VyaWYiIGNvbG9yPSIjRkZGRkZGIj48 YnI+PC9iPjwvZm9udD48L3A+PC9kaXY+DQo8L3RkPjwvdHI+PHRyPiA8dGQgYmdjb2xvcj0iIzAw MzM2NiI+DQo8ZGl2IGFsaWduPSJjZW50ZXIiPjxmb250IHNpemU9IjIiIGNvbG9yPSIjRkZGRkZG IiBmYWNlPSJBcmlhbCwgSGVsdmV0aWNhLCBzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj48Yj5DYWxsIHVzIE5PVyB0byBy ZWNlaXZlIHlvdXIgZGlwbG88IS0tIHlpZmlmMSAtLT5tYSB3aXRoaW4gZGF5cywgYW5kIHN0YXJ0 IGltcHJvdmluZyB5b3VyIGxpZmUhPC9iPjwvZm9udD48L2Rpdj4NCjwvdGQ+PC90cj48L3RhYmxl PjwvdGQ+PC90cj48L3RhYmxlPjwvZGl2Pg0KPC9ib2R5Pg0KPC9odG1sPg0K From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Oct 10 16:52:51 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 11:52:51 -0400 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031010113829.021552e0@pop.starpower.net> At 06:04 PM 10/9/03, Gordon wrote: >On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > +=+ Now let me understand. Someone from > > 'North America' is advocating control by the > > WBF as the central authority. Right? > >I can see where it might have sounded that way. But I don't think that is >quite what we are advocating. > >We want there to be checks on the power of our regional dictators. > >When I argue for (for instance) L40A to be maintained and L40D weakened, I >am not asking for a "worldwide convention chart" -- I am calling for >recognition of an individual player's rights. Something like the way new >members of the European Union have to sign on to the Human Rights >Declaration - only in this case, the "rights" in question are things like >freedom to choose a system, a guarantee of a consistent and just >resolution to a disputed claim, and an assurance that I will be >compensated if my opponent steals from me using UI. > >Some of the proposed changes (like allowing regulation of all agreements, >not just conventions) would simplify the laws and, on the surface, appear >to give more power to the local groups of players. But this is like making >the U.S. Constitution "simpler and more concise, and allowing more power >to local bodies" by striking out all of the Bill of Rights except the >10th. No thanks, I don't want to allow my state to decide to ban free >speech or get rid of jury trials just because it'd make the federal >government smaller if they did. > >To sum up: the WBF currently serves to restrain the ACBL from some of the >more extreme and harmful proposals they want to implement. (And the ACBLLC >restrains the ACBL BoD in the same way -- refusing to grant permission to >refer to one's own convention card, for instance.) We fear for the future >of our game if the WBF is not there to demand that players be allowed >certain freedoms and forced to adhere to certain responsibilities. Very well stated, and reflects my position as well as Gordon's. In the U.S.A. we have a Constitution that sets forth the fundamental nature of our society, and a tripartite govenment consisting of a legislature that makes the laws, an executive that enforces them, and an independent judiciary that (among other functions) steps in and curtails their powers if and when they attempt to violate the fundamental nature of our society as defined by our Constitution. In the North American community of bridge players, we have a lawbook that sets forth the fundamental nature of our game, an ACBL Board of Directors that functions as our legislature, and an ACBL staff headquartered in Memphis that functions as our executive. But we do not have a judiciary to step in and curtain their powers if and when they attempt to violate the fundamental nature of our game as defined by its laws -- which they are obviously inclined to do, and have done, on regularly and frequently. We are desperate to cast someone in the role of the judiciary lest the fundamental nature of our game be lost to the self-serving concerns of our legislature and our executive, who, unlike his analog in the U.S. government, is not elected independently, but is chosen by the Board of Directors, serves at their will, and is totally beholden to do their bidding. The WBF is the obvious candidate to play that rule, for if not the WBF, then who? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From mikedod@gte.net Fri Oct 10 17:58:11 2003 From: mikedod@gte.net (mike dodson) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 09:58:11 -0700 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information (fwd) References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031010113829.021552e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <002d01c38f4f$b157b750$0100a8c0@cyberxp> Eric wrote: > At 06:04 PM 10/9/03, Gordon wrote: > > >On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > +=+ Now let me understand. Someone from > > > 'North America' is advocating control by the > > > WBF as the central authority. Right? > > > >I can see where it might have sounded that way. But I don't think that is > >quite what we are advocating. > > > >We want there to be checks on the power of our regional dictators. > > > >When I argue for (for instance) L40A to be maintained and L40D weakened, I > >am not asking for a "worldwide convention chart" -- I am calling for > >recognition of an individual player's rights. Something like the way new > >members of the European Union have to sign on to the Human Rights > >Declaration - only in this case, the "rights" in question are things like > >freedom to choose a system, a guarantee of a consistent and just > >resolution to a disputed claim, and an assurance that I will be > >compensated if my opponent steals from me using UI. > > > >Some of the proposed changes (like allowing regulation of all agreements, > >not just conventions) would simplify the laws and, on the surface, appear > >to give more power to the local groups of players. But this is like making > >the U.S. Constitution "simpler and more concise, and allowing more power > >to local bodies" by striking out all of the Bill of Rights except the > >10th. No thanks, I don't want to allow my state to decide to ban free > >speech or get rid of jury trials just because it'd make the federal > >government smaller if they did. > > > >To sum up: the WBF currently serves to restrain the ACBL from some of the > >more extreme and harmful proposals they want to implement. (And the ACBLLC > >restrains the ACBL BoD in the same way -- refusing to grant permission to > >refer to one's own convention card, for instance.) We fear for the future > >of our game if the WBF is not there to demand that players be allowed > >certain freedoms and forced to adhere to certain responsibilities. > > Very well stated, and reflects my position as well as Gordon's. In the > U.S.A. we have a Constitution that sets forth the fundamental nature of > our society, and a tripartite govenment consisting of a legislature > that makes the laws, an executive that enforces them, and an > independent judiciary that (among other functions) steps in and > curtails their powers if and when they attempt to violate the > fundamental nature of our society as defined by our Constitution. > > In the North American community of bridge players, we have a lawbook > that sets forth the fundamental nature of our game, an ACBL Board of > Directors that functions as our legislature, and an ACBL staff > headquartered in Memphis that functions as our executive. But we do > not have a judiciary to step in and curtain their powers if and when > they attempt to violate the fundamental nature of our game as defined > by its laws -- which they are obviously inclined to do, and have done, > on regularly and frequently. We are desperate to cast someone in the > role of the judiciary lest the fundamental nature of our game be lost > to the self-serving concerns of our legislature and our executive, who, > unlike his analog in the U.S. government, is not elected independently, > but is chosen by the Board of Directors, serves at their will, and is > totally beholden to do their bidding. The WBF is the obvious candidate > to play that rule, for if not the WBF, then who? > Eric, Your summary of the situation in the ACBL rings true with me until you get to solutions. It is not realistic to look to the WBF for solutions. The WBF is dependent on the National Authorities for funding and the enforcement of its will. Without the active cooperation of the NA, it is powerless within a country and has little leverage except in regards to international competition (where its rules do hold sway). Unfortunately, most of the foolish and short sighted actions of the ACBL (let me add master point inflation and "Senior" events which serve only to exclude the fading future of bridge in America) are taken as desperate efforts to more effectively market the game. The powers that be think they are saving the game, not killing it. They will not be bound by dictates from above, they can only be brought to reason by their constituants. Only political action from the grassroots will bring change. I share your frustration with current policies but I don't think Gratten, Kojak, and Ton (as much as I appreciate their willingness to listen and discuss) can offer us salvation. Mike Dodson Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > From richard_willey@symantec.com Fri Oct 10 18:03:21 2003 From: richard_willey@symantec.com (Richard Willey) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 10:03:21 -0700 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information (fwd) In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031010113829.021552e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric and Gordon have done a very good job describing a point that I was also trying to make. I do not want an all-powerful WBF any more than I want an all-powerful ACBL. However, I do believe that the existing system is fundamentally unbalanced and would be improved by a more active WBF judiciary. Richard Willey Strategic Marketing Symantec Corporation Office: (408) 517-7740 Interoffice: 6 [408] 7740 Mobile: (408) 410-7112 : Hail Ants From adam@irvine.com Fri Oct 10 22:39:15 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:39:15 -0700 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information (fwd) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 10 Oct 2003 11:52:51 EDT." <5.2.0.9.0.20031010113829.021552e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <200310102139.OAA17350@mailhub.irvine.com> Eric wrote: > Very well stated, and reflects my position as well as Gordon's. In the > U.S.A. we have a Constitution that sets forth the fundamental nature of > our society, and a tripartite govenment consisting of a legislature > that makes the laws, an executive that enforces them, and an > independent judiciary that (among other functions) steps in and > curtails their powers if and when they attempt to violate the > fundamental nature of our society as defined by our Constitution. And, too often, as defined by what the judiciary thinks the Constitution ought to say---and, often, as defined merely by whatever a majority of our judiciary thinks the fundamental nature of our society *should* be, and can come up with some Constitutional language to allow them to pretend they're making decisions based on what the Constitution says. Heck, soon they might not even be pretending that. A couple of Supreme Court justices have spoken recently about looking to international law and internationally accepted norms to base their decisions on. Although the above partly reflects my views about our current political climate, it also applies to our current debate. Before we insist that there has to be a "judiciary" to curb the "self-serving concerns" of certain bridge officials, we need to recognize that the people forming the judiciary will be drawn from the same species (_Homo sapiens_) as the officials we're trying to curb; and those people will have the same human tendencies to be self-serving, or to consider their own opinions superior to everyone else's, or to be short-sighted or inconsiderate of players or whatever, as the ACBL board members are, and indeed as the rest of us are. So what assurance do we have that the decisions of those on the "judiciary" will be based, at their core, on anything more than "I think the game ought to be played one way, others think it ought to be played a different way, but I'm on the judiciary so I win, ha, ha, ha!!"?? > In the North American community of bridge players, we have a lawbook > that sets forth the fundamental nature of our game I don't think this is true. If the fundamental nature of the game is set forth by the lawbook, then any time the Laws change the fundamental nature of the game changes, right? And if you're concerned about the "fundamental nature of our game be[ing] lost", then wouldn't you have to oppose any changes to any Laws, ever? I don't think so. So I think we have to accept that while the Lawbook may set forth the fundamental nature of the game, it also sets forth other things that are not fundamental. So how do we decide which aspects of the game (or which sections of the Laws) are integral to the fundamental nature, and which are not? And who makes this decision? Clearly, if we were to change the rules so that, say, playing a trump on an even-numbered tricks would have no effect on who wins the trick, and only odd-numbered tricks could be trumped, this would be a totally different game that would require totally different strategies for play and defense. (It might be interesting to speculate on what some of those strategies might be.) So I don't think there is anyone who is not insane who would say the fundamental nature of the game has not changed. But suppose we were to ban psychs; would this change the fundamental nature of the game? Could a game played with a no-psych rule still reasonably be called "bridge"? I cannot think of a good way to determine the answer, assuming that simply decreeing one's own preference to be the "fundamental nature of the game" is not a legitimate approach. If we could survey good players whom we could trust to understand the nature of the question they were asked, and not to confuse it with "Do you like to psych" or "Do you think psyching should be allowed", I doubt you would get a consensus. So given that this question is probably not answerable, I can't see how "preserving the fundamental nature of the game" would be any different from "making sure everybody plays by *my* idea of how the game ought to be played", unless we include only non-controversial things in the definition of "fundamental nature of the game", like the rule that you have to follow suit. If someone's opinions about what should and should not be legal are to be imposed on other players (and it appears this is going to be the case no matter what), it makes sense to me that this imposition as small as possible---by letting each ZO decide for itself, hopefully based on the wishes of their members, and hopefully (as Grattan said) letting the ZO's let their smaller sub-organizations make decisions for themselves, down to the club level. The arguments for letting the WBF make this decision for the whole world goes in the wrong direction, since it makes the imposition larger. Analogizing the WBF to a "judiciary" doesn't change the fact that a decision made at this level would still be imposing the preferences of a few players on everybody else---at least until we can come up with an objective process for determining what the fundamental nature of "bridge" is. -- Adam From toddz@att.net Sat Oct 11 00:47:22 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 19:47:22 -0400 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information (fwd) In-Reply-To: <200310102139.OAA17350@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Beneschan > Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 5:39 PM > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: Re: [blml] Psych versus correct information (fwd) > > If the fundamental nature of the game is > set forth by the lawbook, then any time the Laws change the > fundamental nature of the game changes, right? And if you're > concerned about the "fundamental nature of our game > be[ing] lost", > then wouldn't you have to oppose any changes to any Laws, ever? No. The lawbook can set both the fundamental and the specific nature of the game as well as serve as a lovely coffeetable coaster. (being facetious) Yes, the fundamental parts are the ones I agree with, the specific parts are the laws I want changed. Call me a Fundamentalist. > [rant deleted] Of course any judiciary is just as capable of being biased and disagreeing with the opinions of the people it serves. Will it do more harm than good? I also don't like the assertion that the WBF doesn't have exercisable power over the ACBL juggernaut, but I understand if they're loathe to use it. -Todd From cyaxares@lineone.net Sat Oct 11 10:14:37 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 10:14:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information References: <000401c38c55$ac377410$c610e150@endicott> <5.2.0.9.0.20031007080116.020103d0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20031008080806.00a29ba0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20031008173939.020145d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000401c38fd8$7a6baa10$a01de150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 10:50 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Psych versus correct information > > My real fear is that I only have this problem because as of today the > ACBL can only exercise the "ACBL loophole" while the WBF looks the > other way, or, at best, provides a tortured interpretation which > arguably allows them to get away with it. > +=+ The ACBL loophole copied the EBU device which predated it, being introduced when I was chairman of the EBU L&E.+=+ < > If the WBF expands L40D to > allow SOs to regulate any methods they choose, the ACBL will go > hog-wild with the full, unarguable backing and blessing of TFLB, > no loopholes or interpretations required. < +=+ I challenge any thought that we should be deterred, if that is our path, by an alleged unique potential of the ACBL for porcine savagery. In fact I am bound to say that my general impression of the ACBL approach to systems is that it is civilzed; I do think they could improve their CC by creating box space on the front for pre-alertable information - or have they done this since I last looked? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Sat Oct 11 10:29:26 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 10:29:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information References: <102.36ce7fab.2cb41826@aol.com> Message-ID: <002b01c38fda$45461850$a01de150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: ; Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 2:22 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Psych versus correct information > Law 80F was meant to apply to all the laws. > And, oh yes, I'm fully aware of the WBFLC position > over the years. +=+ I do not know what was intended. I do know that before Kojak joined it the WBFLC, Kaplan as a member included, was already acting - Ed Theus chairing us - on the basis of what is the continuing WBF position. And I do know that in Geneva Kojak, as you would confidently expect, maintained that position in his ruling on Kaplan's irregularity. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From karel@esatclear.ie Sat Oct 11 12:43:00 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 12:43:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: <000401c38fd8$7a6baa10$a01de150@endicott> Message-ID: Hi all I was just thinking about the responses to this case. The majority hated the term "Psyche" as it is defined in the laws as a "Gross deviation from .....". It then occured to be that no one has defined a gross deviation. What is gross for one is normal for another. In the context of the hand we were told it showed 4+S's & 4+D's when in fact it had 4S's & 3D's. This was called a minor deviation .... ach sure we're only out 1 card. This view seems reasonable looking at the hand in total. Yet, anyone with a bit of sense will realise that all hands are not equal and all deviations, in the context of the hand, are not equal. Tell me this ... if you went to the shop and were expecting 4 euro back in change and got 3 would you be upset ?? not massively so i imagine. But what if you were expecting 4000 euro back and only got 3 thousand would you now be upset now ? I certainly would. Infact 40 euro and 30 euro would still be an unacceptable deviation. In the context of the diamond suit 3 diamonds as opposed to 4 is a 25% deviation - which IMO is a notable deviation. Further more in the context of the hand as a whole as the played proceeded, that deviation for declarer, became not only substancial but critical. So my question is where have you defined "a major deviation" as IMO it must be defined in terms of the hand involved and not some general statement. K. From hermandw@hdw.be Sat Oct 11 13:04:06 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 14:04:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3F87F1B6.5080004@hdw.be> Karel, I beg to differ. Karel wrote: > Hi all > > > In the context of the diamond suit 3 diamonds as opposed to 4 is a 25% > deviation - which IMO is a notable deviation. I understand that you are saying that even one unit can be a major deviation. But "gross" ? Further more in the context > of the hand as a whole as the played proceeded, that deviation for declarer, > became not only substancial but critical. Yes, but the notion of "critical" has no bearing on whether the "lie" that one player tells his partner is "gross" or not. If I bid 2Sp over 1S-X, and in 4-card majors the opening shows only 4 but I still raise with only 3, I may well be promising 4 cards while having only 3, but I don't consider that a gross "lie". So my question is where have you > defined "a major deviation" as IMO it must be defined in terms of the hand > involved and not some general statement. > Maybe so, but certainly not in terms of the influence on opponents. Then each and every card difference becomes a "gross" deviation and certainly that cannot have been the intention of the lawmakers. > > K. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Oct 11 17:32:53 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 12:32:53 -0400 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: <000401c38fd8$7a6baa10$a01de150@endicott> Message-ID: <8FE7519D-FC08-11D7-9FDE-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Saturday, Oct 11, 2003, at 05:14 US/Eastern, Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ I challenge any thought that we should be deterred, if that > is our path, by an alleged unique potential of the ACBL for > porcine savagery. In fact I am bound to say that my general > impression of the ACBL approach to systems is that it is > civilzed; I do think they could improve their CC by creating > box space on the front for pre-alertable information - or have > they done this since I last looked? They have not. IMO, they ought to move away from the "one side of the paper" approach, get rid of the score card on the back of the CC, and use that space to expand the card. But I have little hope that'll happen. I wouldn't say the "potential of the ACBL for porcine savagery" is unique. However, the actions and attitudes of the ACBL to date don't leave me much faith that there is no such potential. From twm@cix.co.uk Sat Oct 11 20:34:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 20:34 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Karel wrote: > I was just thinking about the responses to this case. The majority > hated the term "Psyche" as it is defined in the laws as a "Gross > deviation from .....". It then occured to be that no one has defined a > gross deviation. What is gross for one is normal for another. > In the context of the hand we were told it showed 4+S's & 4+D's when in > fact it had 4S's & 3D's. This was called a minor deviation .... ach > sure we're only out 1 card. This view seems reasonable looking at the > hand in total. Yet, anyone with a bit of sense will realise that all > hands are not equal and all deviations, in the context of the hand, are > not equal. It also has to be a deliberate deviation (not a system forget or mis-sorted hand). Assuming the player admits to the deviation being deliberate but believes it not to be "gross" it is judgement ruling. Essentially does the TD/AC agree with the player's judgement? I would guess that had the hand been QJxx,xx,AKQ,xxxx there would be near universal acceptance that showing 4+ diamonds was "minor". Had the hand been AKQT,xxx,432,KTxx then I, for one, would consider it a gross deviation (1S showing a 5 card suit would be a minor one). Tim From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Oct 12 08:11:22 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 08:11:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information References: Message-ID: <005501c39091$b717e500$0e31e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2003 8:34 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Psych versus correct information > Karel wrote: > > > I was just thinking about the responses to this > > case. The majority hated the term "Psyche" as > > it is defined in the laws as a "Gross deviation > > from .....". It then occurred to be that no one > > has defined a gross deviation. What is gross > > for one is normal for another. In the context > > of the hand we were told it showed 4+S's & > > 4+D's when in fact it had 4S's & 3D's. This > > was called a minor deviation .... ach sure > > we're only out 1 card. This view seems > > reasonable looking at the hand in total. Yet, > > anyone with a bit of sense will realise that all > > hands are not equal and all deviations, in the > > context of the hand, are not equal. > > Tim replied: > > It also has to be a deliberate deviation (not a > system forget or mis-sorted hand). Assuming > the player admits to the deviation being deliberate > but believes it not to be "gross" it is judgement > ruling. Essentially does the TD/AC agree with the > player's judgement? I would guess that had the > hand been QJxx,xx,AKQ,xxxx there would be > near universal acceptance that showing 4+ > diamonds was "minor". Had the hand been > AKQT,xxx,432,KTxx then I, for one, would > consider it a gross deviation (1S showing a > 5 card suit would be a minor one). > +=+ It is a matter of bridge judgement. It is not the remit of the Laws Committee nor of the Law Book to 'define' matters of bridge judgement. Matters of bridge judgement are within the remit of the appeals committee. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From bstimpy@email.com Sun Oct 12 21:08:21 2003 From: bstimpy@email.com (desiree) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 22:08:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) Your Health is very important! Message-ID: PGh0bWw+DQo8aGVhZD4NCjwvaGVhZD4NCg0KPGJvZHk+DQo8cD48Zm9udCBzaXplPSIyIiBmYWNl PSJBcmlhbCwgSGVsdmV0aWNhLCBzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj5PdXIgaGVhbHRoIGluc3VyYW5jZSBuZXR3 b3JrIHdpbGwgZmluZCB0aGUgYmVzdCBmb3IgeW91ITxicj48YnI+VGhlIE9OTFkgT25saW5lIEhl YWx0aCBJbnN1cmFuY2UgbmV0d29yayE8YnI+PGJyPkJlc3QgUmF0ZXMsIFBlcnNvbmFsIFNlcnZp Y2UsIEltbWVkaWF0ZSBSZXNwb25zZXMuPGJyPjxicj4NCjxmb250IHNpemU9IjEiPn5+fn5+fn5+ fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fjxicj4NCklmIHlvdSBkbyBu b3Qgd2lzaCB0byByZWNlaXZlIHRoZXNlIG9mZmVycyBpbiB0aGUgZnV0dXJlLDxicj4NCjxhIGhy ZWY9Imh0dHA6Ly93d3cxOTkuZ2lhbnR3ZWJzb2Z0d2FyZS5jb20vaGluc3VyYW5jZS9hZC90ZXh0 Ml9yZW1vdmUiPkNsaWNrIEhlcmU8L2E+IHRvIHJlbW92ZSB5b3Vyc2VsZiBub3c8YnI+DQp+fn5+ fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn48L2ZvbnQ+PGJyPg0K PC9mb250PjwvcD4NCjxwPiZuYnNwOzwvcD4NCjwvYm9keT4NCjwvaHRtbD4NCg== From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Oct 13 00:29:04 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 09:29:04 +1000 Subject: [blml] ABF casebook, appeal 9 - Michaels Message-ID: Imps, Dealer West, Vul East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass 1C(1) 3C(2) Pass 3S Pass 4C Pass ? (1) Power 1C (similar to Polish Club), no 5-card suit etc (2) Partnership agreement is Michaels - majors. Another partnership agreement is 2C overcall =3D natural, clubs. You, West, hold: KQ986 KT752 void 874 What are your logical alternatives? Best wishes Richard James 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Oct 13 02:36:49 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 11:36:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] Corporate governance (was Psych etc) Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >>-- and these boots are meant for walking >>:{not mine -- but player-numbers *are* falling): Mike Dodson: >Unfortunately, most of the foolish and short >sighted actions of the ACBL (let me add master >point inflation and "Senior" events which serve >only to exclude the fading future of bridge in >America) are taken as desperate efforts to more >effectively market the game. The powers that be >think they are saving the game, not killing it. Richard James Hills: I am slightly less pessimistic than Nigel and Mike. I agree that restrictive policies in EBU-land and ACBL-land are demographic disasters, increasing the average age of members of those SOs, so that departures outnumber arrivals. But the EBU and the ACBL are not the entire bridge world. The Netherlands and Australia have had long-standing policies of looser restrictions, also with targeted encouragement of youth players. As a result, player numbers in The Netherlands and Australia are increasing. And some youth players are bridge administrators in Australia, compared to the gerontocracy in power on the ACBL Board of Directors. Best wishes Richard James 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Oct 13 04:26:41 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 13:26:41 +1000 Subject: [blml] The Doctor (was Psych etc) Message-ID: Tim West-Meads wrote: >You can't change a regulation after an event and have it >apply retrospectively. RJH waffles: Sure, an SO is only permitted by Law 80B "to make *advance* arrangements for the tournament....." But a TD is not so temporally bound, and may use a TARDIS. Law 81C3 states that a TD can "establish suitable conditions of play" -> Law 81C3 is not limited to "*prior* establishment of suitable conditions of play". Therefore, in an unexpected emergency (for example, missing tiebreak rules), the SO can send for The Doctor, and request the TD to establish a retrospective regulation. Best wishes Richard James 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 grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Oct 13 01:48:08 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 01:48:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] ABF casebook, appeal 9 - Michaels References: Message-ID: <000c01c39154$e3adbb80$a3be193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 12:29 AM Subject: Re: [blml] ABF casebook, appeal 9 - Michaels Imps, Dealer West, Vul East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass 1C(1) 3C(2) Pass 3S Pass 4C Pass ? (1) Power 1C (similar to Polish Club), no 5-card suit etc (2) Partnership agreement is Michaels - majors. Another partnership agreement is 2C overcall = natural, clubs. You, West, hold: KQ986 KT752 void 874 What are your logical alternatives? +=+ Do I have any agreements about forcing responses to Michaels? What do 5C/5D mean? +=+ From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Mon Oct 13 11:08:28 2003 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 11:08:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] ABF casebook, appeal 9 - Michaels Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB118E@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> ABF casebook, appeal 9 - Michaels Imps, Dealer West, Vul East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass 1C(1) 3C(2) Pass 3S Pass 4C Pass ? (1) Power 1C (similar to Polish Club), no 5-card suit etc (2) Partnership agreement is Michaels - majors. Another partnership agreement is 2C overcall =3D natural, clubs. You, West, hold: KQ986 KT752 void 874 What are your logical alternatives? Best wishes Richard James Hills [Frances] As far as I can tell I've already bid 3S on the assumption partner has a = good hand with clubs. So now I imagine I'll bid either 4H or 5C, continuing on = the same lines. If I genuinely thought last round that 3C showed the majors, then I need = to change my drug supplier. From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Oct 13 12:17:09 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:17:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Doctor (was Psych etc) References: Message-ID: <005901c3917c$30e45b30$7246e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 4:26 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The Doctor (was Psych etc) >But a TD is not so temporally bound, and may use a TARDIS. >Law 81C3 states that a TD can "establish suitable conditions >of play" - Law 81C3 is not limited to "*prior* establishment >of suitable conditions of play". >Therefore, in an unexpected emergency (for example, >missing tiebreak rules), the SO can send for The Doctor, >and request the TD to establish a retrospective regulation. < +=+ When a matter is not covered by law or regulation the Director has a duty under Law 82A. In my experience he is then likely to look for a precedent to follow. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Oct 13 12:18:37 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:18:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Corporate governance (was Psych etc) References: Message-ID: <005a01c3917c$31e5c5a0$7246e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 2:36 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Corporate governance (was Psych etc) I am slightly less pessimistic than Nigel and Mike. I agree that restrictive policies in EBU-land and ACBL-land are demographic disasters, increasing the average age of members of those SOs, so that departures outnumber arrivals. But the EBU and the ACBL are not the entire bridge world. The Netherlands and Australia have had long-standing policies of looser restrictions, also with targeted encouragement of youth players. As a result, player numbers in The Netherlands and Australia are increasing. And some youth players are bridge administrators in Australia, compared to the gerontocracy in power on the ACBL Board of Directors. +=+ Are numbers falling in England? I have no sense this is so - the average age may be increasing somewhat but that reflects the demographics of a country where in fifty years time we foresee only 20% of the population being of working age as it is now (so that we are looking to delay payment of pensions at least until the 70th birthday). The EBU has a lively schools policy and a fresh development plan has just been put into place. There is no suggestion that we are in crisis. (We also seem to be attracting some fresh blood from abroad - one of the teams in our English trials comprises four qualified Norwegians). The EBU Board of Directors and the key committees are not overburdened with age. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From bteacher@juno.com Mon Oct 13 14:39:43 2003 From: bteacher@juno.com (bhoss@juno.com) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 22:39:43 +0900 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) herbal pill will actually ENLARGE your penis up to 30% Message-ID: <20031013133626.A34B42C189@rhubarb.custard.org> PCFET0NUWVBFIEhUTUwgUFVCTElDICItLy9XM0MvL0RURCBIVE1MIDQuMDEgVHJhbnNpdGlvbmFs Ly9FTiI+DQoNCjxodG1sPg0KPGhlYWQ+DQo8dGl0bGU+bmE8L3RpdGxlPg0KPC9oZWFkPg0KPGJv ZHkgdG9wbWFyZ2luPSIwIiBiZ2NvbG9yPSIjMDAzMzk5Ij4NCjxkaXYgYWxpZ249ImNlbnRlciI+ PGJyPjxhc2c0ZnM2N2Q+DQo8dGFibGUgd2lkdGg9NTAwcHg+DQo8dHI+DQo8dGQgYmdjb2xvcj0i bmF2eSIgYWxpZ249ImNlbnRlciI+PGZvbnQgZmFjZT0idmVyZGFuYSIgc2l6ZT0yIGNvbG9yPSJ5 ZWxsb3ciPjEwMCUgR3VhcmFudGVlZCBSZXN1bHRzIE9yIFlvdXIgTW9uZXkgQmFjaw0KPC90cj4N Cjx0cj48dGQgYmdjb2xvcj0iYmx1ZSIgYWxpZ249ImNlbnRlciI+PGZvbnQgZmFjZT0idmVyZGFu YSIgc2l6ZT00IGNvbG9yPSJ3aGl0ZSI+PGI+DQo8YnI+DQpMaWtlIGdpcmxzIHdpdGggYmlnIHRp dHM/IEdpcmxzIGxpa2UgYmlnIGNvY2tzIG9uIGd1eXMhPGJyPjxicj4NCjwhLS0gYXNnNGZzNjdk IC0tPg0KbmV2ZXIgYmUgYXNoYW1lZCBpbiB0aGUgbWVucyByb29tIHVyaW5hbHMgYWdhaW4uLiBz aG93IHRoZW0gd2hvJ3MgYm9zcyE8YnI+PGJyPg0KT3VyIHBlbmlzIHBpbGxzIG1ha2UgdXAgZm9y IHdoYXQgbW90aGVyIG5hdHVyZSBmb3Jnb3QhIEdldCBhIG1vbnRocyBzdXBwbHkgYW5kIG5vdGlj ZSB0aGUgZGlmZmVyZW5jZSE8YnI+PGJyPg0KPEEgaHJlZj0iaHR0cDovL2hlaW5sZWluQHd3dy5o ZXJiYWwtdXNhLnVzL3doaXRlbGluZS92cC8iPjxmb250IGNvbG9yPSJ5ZWxsb3ciPlRha2UgYSBs b29rIGF0IGhvdyBpdCB3b3JrczwvYT48YnI+PGJyPg0KPC90ZD48L3RyPg0KPHRyPg0KPHRkIGJn Y29sb3I9Im5hdnkiIGFsaWduPSJjZW50ZXIiPjxmb250IGZhY2U9InZlcmRhbmEiIHNpemU9MiBj b2xvcj0ieWVsbG93Ij5Xb3JsZHMgTW9zdCBFZmZlY3RpdmUgRW5sYXJnZW1lbnQgVGVjaG5pcXVl DQo8L3RyPg0KPC90YWJsZT48ZmZhc2RzZnNkYT4NCjxicj48YnI+PGJyPjxicj48YnI+PGJyPjxi cj48YnI+DQo8Zm9udCBzaXplPSIxcHgiIGZhY2U9InZlcmRhbmEiIGNvbG9yPSIjMDAwMDAiPmZm YXNkc2ZzZGEgYXNnNGZzNjdkIGZmYXNkc2ZzZGE8L2ZvbnQ+DQo8ZmZhc2RzZnNkYT4NCjxhIGhy ZWY9Imh0dHA6Ly9oZWlubGVpbkB3d3cuaGVyYmFsLXVzYS51cy93aGl0ZWxpbmUvb3V0Lmh0bWwi Pjxmb250IGNvbG9yPSJ5ZWxsb3ciIHNpemU9IjIiPnRvIGdldCBvZmY8L2E+DQo8L2JvZHk+DQo8 L2h0bWw+DQo= From adam@tameware.com Mon Oct 13 15:43:49 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 10:43:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] The Philadephia Experiment Message-ID: The ACBL National Appeals Committee casebook from Philadelphia is available online at http://66.147.103.154/casebooks/phlly_spring03.pdf -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From hermy@hdw.be Mon Oct 13 17:05:33 2003 From: hermy@hdw.be (HermY) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 18:05:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] Announcing the seventh SS Finland Message-ID: <3F8ACD4D.6070903@hdw.be> For the seventh time already, bridge clubs around the world are preparing to celebrate the birthday of the sport of Contract Bridge by joining a world-wide simultaneous tournament. Indeed on 31 october 1925, Harold Vanderbilt on board the ss Finland, moored at the Panama Canal, put the final touches to the card game we know today simply as "Bridge". If your club is interested to join us, and play a heat of this tournament, on or around 31 october (29/10 till 3/11 are possible) then contact me for further details. see also the Fifth Friday homepage: http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/ff/ffriday.html -- HermY DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium From fsb@ip-worldcom.ch Mon Oct 13 18:16:08 2003 From: fsb@ip-worldcom.ch (Yvan Calame) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 19:16:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] The Philadephia Experiment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20031013191608.0116c630@ip-worldcom.ch> Thx Adam, I find case 4 very interesting. Dont see anything in the laws that says "If you have to think whether to duck or not, you have to do it at the right time." yvan From adam@tameware.com Mon Oct 13 21:29:18 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 16:29:18 -0400 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia Casebook #4 In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20031013191608.0116c630@ip-worldcom.ch> References: <3.0.6.32.20031013191608.0116c630@ip-worldcom.ch> Message-ID: At 7:16 PM +0200 10/13/03, Yvan Calame wrote: >Dont see anything in the laws that says >"If you have to think whether to duck or not, >you have to do it at the right time." I have little to add beyond my casebook comments, in particular: "I hope the WBFLC will clarify this point in the next set of laws, or that our Laws Commission will do so in the meantime." I'm replying mainly to help the thread get started with a descriptive subject. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From fsb@ip-worldcom.ch Mon Oct 13 22:10:39 2003 From: fsb@ip-worldcom.ch (Yvan Calame) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 23:10:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia Casebook #4 In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.6.32.20031013191608.0116c630@ip-worldcom.ch> <3.0.6.32.20031013191608.0116c630@ip-worldcom.ch> Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20031013231039.0116c630@ip-worldcom.ch> At 16:29 13/10/2003 -0400, Adam wrote: >I'm replying mainly to help the thread get started with a descriptive subject. Here is the case: Philadelphia, Spring 2003 CASE FOUR Subject (Tempo): Declarer=92s Right(? ) To Hesitate Event: NABC Mixed Pairs, 12 Mar 03, First Final Session Bd: 22 Jill Meyers Dlr: East S KQ4 Vul: E/W H 1074 D AKQ1063 C 3 Erez Hendelman Melody Bi S AJ975 S 1083 H QJ H K932 D 875 D J2 C A65 C K1074 Sid Brownstein S 62 H A865 D 94 C QJ982 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass Pass 1S 3NT All Pass The Facts: 3NT made three, +400 for N/S. Prior to the opening lead East asked about the 3NT bid and was told it was undiscussed, but to play. The opening lead was the C4, J, A, 3. West returned the HQ and declarer paused (N/S conceded 10-15 seconds) before playing the 4, 9 (encouraging), A. At trick three declarer led the S2 from dummy; West rose with the ace and played a club. When East showed up with the HK later in the play West called the Director and told him about the pause by declarer at trick two.=20 The Director determined that declarer=92s pause at trick two was not necessarily indicative of her holding the HK and that West had all the information he needed from East=92s encouraging H9 to continue the suit. In addition, three players were given West=92s problem at trick two and all thought the heart return was routine. The Director ruled that Law 73D1 (inadvertent variations) and not Law 73F2 (illegal deceptions) applied and allowed the table result to stand. The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director=92s ruling and were the only players to attend the hearing. E/W said that declarer played fairly quickly from dummy at trick one (perhaps after 5 seconds). When West switched to the [Q she paused for about 15 seconds before playing from her hand, then won the ace in dummy. West claimed to have been misled by declarer=92s hesitation into thinking that she held the [K, and thus wanted to be sure of getting his side=92s club trick. E/W said that when the Director arrived at the table they told him of declarer=92s 15-second hesitation and N/S did not disagree. The Director then said =93That=92s quite a bit of time=94 to which North said it was no more than 5-10 seconds. During declarer=92s pause at trick two she neither asked about the opponent=92s signals nor looked at their CC. The Committee Decision: The laws state that if an innocent player has drawn a false inference from the tempo of an opponent who has no has demonstrable bridge reason for his action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score. When North hesitated at trick two, she was not attempting to determine the opponents=92 signaling methods, in an effort to determine which card would make it most difficult for West to read his partner=92s signal (according to the E/W statements). Apparently she was deciding whether or not to hold up the [A. That card was in the dummy and it was not dummy=92s turn to play. Thus, she had no demonstrable bridge reason for breaking tempo before playing from her hand, and could have known that the BIT might deceive the opponents. The Committee did not believe that declarer deliberately hesitated hoping to deceive the opponents. However, if she chose to pause before playing one of the small cards from her hand, it was her responsibility to tell the opponents that she was thinking about the entire hand (rather than about what she was going to play from her hand to this trick). Thus, the Committee changed the N/S result to 3NT down one, =9650 for N/S. However, the non-offending side is still required to continue to play bridge to the level of their ability in order to receive redress. East=92s play of the [9 at trick two was a very clear signal to West that he should continue hearts. The Committee judged that the primary cause of E/W=92s result was West=92s poor play in ignoring his partner=92s signal of the [9, and therefore E/W were not entitled to be protected from their own clear error. Thus, the table result of 3NT made three, +400 for N/S, was allowed to stand for E/W. Dissenting Opinion (Bart Bramley): The majority asserts that declarer had no demonstrable bridge reason to think before playing from her hand at trick two. I disagree. Declarer is entitled to decide whether to duck or win in dummy before playing from her hand. That is, when declarer has a decision pertaining to the current trick, even if it does not pertain to the first card she plays, then a demonstrable bridge reason exists. In addition, declarer=92s pause, rather than suggesting that she held the [K, strongly implied that she lacked that card . I am no t reluctant to punish both sides when they deserve it, but this was not such an occasion. E/W blew the defense and then asked a D irector and a Committee to give them redress when they had no chance to get it. This deserved an AWMW. N/S should not have been subject to a penalty for an irrelevant hesitation just because their opponents were overly litigious. DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff Committee: Doug Doub (chair), Bart Bramley, Gary Cohler, Ellen Melson, Robert Schwartz From adam@irvine.com Mon Oct 13 22:47:03 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 14:47:03 -0700 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia Casebook #4 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 13 Oct 2003 23:10:39 +0200." <3.0.6.32.20031013231039.0116c630@ip-worldcom.ch> Message-ID: <200310132146.OAA24490@mailhub.irvine.com> Yvan Calame quoted the casebook: (P.S. Thanks for doing this, so that the rest of us don't have to go looking for it.) > At 16:29 13/10/2003 -0400, Adam [Wildavsky] wrote: > >I'm replying mainly to help the thread get started with a descriptive > subject. > > Here is the case: > > Philadelphia, Spring 2003 > CASE FOUR > Subject (Tempo): Declarer’s Right(? ) To Hesitate > Event: NABC Mixed Pairs, 12 Mar 03, First Final Session > > Bd: 22 Jill Meyers > Dlr: East S KQ4 > Vul: E/W H 1074 > D AKQ1063 > C 3 > Erez Hendelman Melody Bi > S AJ975 S 1083 > H QJ H K932 > D 875 D J2 > C A65 C K1074 > Sid Brownstein > S 62 > H A865 > D 94 > C QJ982 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass Pass > 1S 3NT All Pass > > The Facts: 3NT made three, +400 for N/S. Prior to the opening > lead East asked about the 3NT bid and was told it was undiscussed, > but to play. The opening lead was the C4, J, A, 3. West returned > the HQ and declarer paused (N/S conceded 10-15 seconds) before > playing the 4, 9 (encouraging), A. At trick three declarer led the > S2 from dummy; West rose with the ace and played a club. When > East showed up with the HK later in the play West called the > Director and told him about the pause by declarer at trick two. My gut feeling about this is that while there are situations where declarer's hesitation could be misleading, this isn't one of them. West has just broken a new suit, which gives a lot of new information and lots of possibilities for new inferences about the opponents' layout, which declarer needs time to process. I think declarer should be entitled to do so at that time, and shouldn't be forced to play her next card quickly. After all, without some time to try to re-reconstruct the hand, how would she know whether a falsecard from her hand would be necessary? In some of my less sane moments, I've wondered whether it would be a good idea to have mandatory pauses during the play, the way we (in the ACBL) have them during the auction after a skip bid. Certain "interesting" occurrences would force the next player to pause for about ten seconds before playing to the trick. The main examples of "interesting" occurrences I thought of would be leading a suit that had never been led before, and a player (other than dummy) discarding on a suit he had not previously shown out of. This would give players time to process new information while protecting them against charges of transmitting UI or illegal deception. I'm not sure how much merit this idea has; but if it did have some, then declarer would certainly be allowed to pause before playing from her hand at trick two. > However, if she chose to pause before playing one of the small cards > from her hand, it was her responsibility to tell the opponents that > she was thinking about the entire hand (rather than about what she > was going to play from her hand to this trick). I can't buy this, simply because there's nothing in the Laws that requires this sort of announcement. Nor do I believe this to be a "commonly accepted procedure" that everyone should be expected to know about and follow. Basically, the Committee has IMHO invented a new requirement and punished declarer _ex post facto_ for violating it. In the past, I've asked questions on r.g.b regarding what third hand should say on the first trick, if he pauses to study the hand after dummy comes down even if he may not have a problem on that particular trick. I seem to recall that Jeff Goldsmith told me that third hand should ideally not say anything at all. The fact that a good player believes this is at least some evidence that there's no commonly accepted requirement to make an announcement when one is thinking about the entire hand rather than the play to the current trick. -- Adam From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Oct 13 23:49:17 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:49:17 +1000 Subject: [blml] ABF casebook, appeal 9 - Michaels Message-ID: Frances Hinden: >As far as I can tell I've already bid 3S on the >assumption partner has a good hand with clubs. So now I >imagine I'll bid either 4H or 5C, continuing on the same >lines. If I genuinely thought last round that 3C showed >the majors, then I need to change my drug supplier. The complete appeal: Date: 24/01/02 Event: SWPT Round 10 Director: John McIlraith Appeal Panel: B.Neill Chair I.Dahler I.Thomson P.Gue P.Fordham Dlr: W AJ42 E/W vul 86 AQ65 A96 KQ986 5 KT752 Q3 ---- JT8 874 KQJT532 T73 AJ94 K97432 ---- WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass 1C(1) 3C(2) Pass 3S Pass 4C Pass Pass Double Pass Pass Pass (1) Power 1C (similar to Polish Club), no 5-card suit etc (2) described as Michaels - majors Final Contract and result: 4Cx making 10 tricks, 710 to E/W Play if relevant: Tournament Director's Report and decision: Upon enquiry West explained 3C as Michaels (both majors). E/W had had a system discussion prior to the match and decided to play, over this Power 1C, 2C as natural and 3C as Michaels. This being the reverse of their normal system agreement over a natural 1C. The directing staff ruled that no mis- information was present but East was in receipt of unauthorised information via West's explanation (Law 16A). However pass by East was not a logical alternative. Table result stands - N/S poor result due entirely to North's decision to double final contract. The directing staff had no evidence to support N/S contention that West's actions constituted any form of infraction under Law 75C. Appellant's claim: We feel we have been damaged by 1. 3S was suspicious based upon holding as 4S/4H would be standard, besides the fact that West thought that partner had clubs, and was willing to play 4C if partner converted as a pre-emptive bid. 2. 4C would be a cue bid showing both majors. 3. N/S result is inconsequential if N/S has been damaged, as after the 4C bid it is obvious that 4C was natural to all parties at the table, and it was impossible for N/S to accurately disentangle each other's holdings. Responder's reply: Michaels at this level should not be strong. There are many ways of showing strong hands. Consequently 4C couldn't be a cuebid. 3S from West was reasonable opposite a weak Michaels and can always be corrected to 4-level if N/S get back into the auction. East bids after any response from West at East's peril. Appeal Committee decision: The committee accept the auction up to West's 3S, but believe that West should have alerted South to the likelihood of the change of meaning to 3C, when East bid 4C. They are unanimous in believing South has contributed significantly to their bad score by inaction over both 3S, 4C, and 4Cx. The committee assign a score of 280 to E/W, being 1/2 of +710 (the table score), and 1/2 of -150 (4C making 11 tricks for N/S), but the table score of N/S -710 stands for N/S. Law 12C3. RJH question: Did the Appeal Committee make a Reveley ruling? Best wishes Richard James 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Oct 14 00:44:37 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 09:44:37 +1000 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia Casebook #4 Message-ID: Yvan Calame wrote: >>However, if she chose to pause before playing one of >>the small cards from her hand, it was her >>responsibility to tell the opponents that she was >>thinking about the entire hand (rather than about >>what she was going to play from her hand to this >>trick). Adam Beneschan asserted: >I can't buy this, simply because there's nothing in >the Laws that requires this sort of announcement. RJH asks: Nothing??? David Stevenson (Casebook comment) reveals: "The laws do not permit players to mislead opponents by their actions such as tempo variations. They go further and make it clear that players should be careful in tempo-sensitive positions. Note the second sentence of Law 73D1: 'It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful in positions in which variations may work to the benefit of their side.' In this case declarer has not exhibited the care required by Law 73D1 and should not benefit. It is important that players should never gain from such actions since otherwise the players who exhibit more care would be at an unfair disadvantage. Note that I do not suggest in any way that declarer did anything wrong deliberately. However, players must learn to follow Law 73D1 so we can have a fairer game." RJH concludes: There was an earlier thread about Law 73A2, where Sven (and others) argued - similarly to the AC's dissenting opinion - that it was "just bridge" to hesitate in certain positions when having no problem at that particular point in time. I join Yvonne and DWS in stating that that way of playing bridge rewards variations in tempo which may work to the benefit of your side. And, in my humble opinion, there is an iron law, "What gets rewarded is what is done". Best wishes Richard James 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 adam@irvine.com Tue Oct 14 02:06:07 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 18:06:07 -0700 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia Casebook #4 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 14 Oct 2003 09:44:37 +1000." Message-ID: <200310140106.SAA29257@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard Hills wrote: > Yvan Calame wrote: > > >>However, if she chose to pause before playing one of > >>the small cards from her hand, it was her > >>responsibility to tell the opponents that she was > >>thinking about the entire hand (rather than about > >>what she was going to play from her hand to this > >>trick). > > Adam Beneschan asserted: > > >I can't buy this, simply because there's nothing in > >the Laws that requires this sort of announcement. > > RJH asks: > > Nothing??? There's nothing in the Laws that instructs players to make any kind of verbal announcements in this type of situation; nor is there any regulation I'm aware of. Nor is there anything in the snippet from David's argument that deals with verbal announcements. That's what I based my suggestion on, that the Committee was creating a new law when they said Meyers should have told the opponents why she was thinking. Maybe I overreacted on this point. Maybe the responsibility to make a verbal announcement in a case like this is an obvious conclusion one must draw from Law 73D1. I still don't see that this is obvious. I also am not sure such an announcement would be helpful. If it reaches the point that declarer should always make such an announcement before playing from three small, should declarer also say the same thing before playing from king-third? If so, then doesn't the announcement simply become a useless piece of noise? On the other hand, if a declarer starts saying "I'm thinking about the whole hand" regardless of her holding, then when she holds Kxx and really is thinking about whether to play the king, another litigious pair might then claim they were misled by the comment into thinking declarer had three small. So I believe that if we start down this road, we will reach a point where declarer is either required to play quickly throughout the whole hand, or is required to tell the opponents what is in her hand. Neither of these is acceptable, to my mind. I think it's obviously unacceptable to promulgate a set of rules requiring players to disclose information about their hands to their opponents---that ought to be obvious. Also, since bridge is a thinking game, I think it's unacceptable to prevent players from thinking. Illegal deception is a problem, too. All these goals (allowing players to think, not requiring them to reveal their hands, preventing illegal deception) work against each other, so some compromise is necessary. Unfortunately, David's comment, and some of the other comments supporting the Committee decision, focus too much on L73D1, I believe, without recognizing the fact that applying this Law too broadly infringes on other the other goals of the game. That's why I think it may make sense, as a compromise, to stipulate that in certain situations, declarer is entitled (and is likely) to do some thinking ahead at that point if she doesn't already have her whole line of play planned out, and that anyone claiming to being "misled" by a hesitation in such a position will need to be educated to the fact that they drew an erroneous conclusion from the hesitation and are not due redress. (Note also the last five words of L73D1.) I'd submit that breaking a new suit is one such situation. > David Stevenson (Casebook comment) reveals: > > "The laws do not permit players to mislead opponents > by their actions such as tempo variations. They go > further and make it clear that players should be > careful in tempo-sensitive positions. Note the second > sentence of Law 73D1: 'It is desirable, though not > always required, for players to maintain steady tempo > and unvarying manner. However, players should be > particularly careful in positions in which variations > may work to the benefit of their side.' In this case > declarer has not exhibited the care required by Law > 73D1 and should not benefit. It is important that > players should never gain from such actions since > otherwise the players who exhibit more care would be > at an unfair disadvantage. Note that I do not suggest > in any way that declarer did anything wrong > deliberately. However, players must learn to follow > Law 73D1 so we can have a fairer game." > > RJH concludes: > > There was an earlier thread about Law 73A2, where > Sven (and others) argued - similarly to the AC's > dissenting opinion - that it was "just bridge" to > hesitate in certain positions when having no problem > at that particular point in time. > > I join Yvonne and DWS in stating that that way of > playing bridge rewards variations in tempo which > may work to the benefit of your side. I don't know who Yvonne is. If you mean Yvan, note that your quote from Yvan above is not his own, but was a quote from the casebook. His earlier post seems to indicate that he tends to agree with Bramley (and me). -- Adam From svenpran@online.no Tue Oct 14 02:30:30 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 03:30:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia Casebook #4 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c391f2$c1bf03a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au ........... > RJH concludes: >=20 > There was an earlier thread about Law 73A2, where > Sven (and others) argued - similarly to the AC's > dissenting opinion - that it was "just bridge" to > hesitate in certain positions when having no problem > at that particular point in time. >=20 > I join Yvonne and DWS in stating that that way of > playing bridge rewards variations in tempo which > may work to the benefit of your side. And, in my > humble opinion, there is an iron law, "What gets > rewarded is what is done". >=20 > Best wishes >=20 > Richard James Hills Being quoted on this matter I suspect that the quotation might be = slightly out of context: I have (to my knowledge) never argued that a player should (!) = deliberately vary his tempo. However I have at some time pointed out as a fact that any player who inadvertently varies his tempo depending upon how much problem he has in selecting which action to take do indeed pass unauthorized information = about his hand to his partner.=20 One way of avoiding such UI is if he could manage to instead vary his = tempo in a random fashion not in any way correlated to his problems. This is = where some unjustified and random hesitation could enter the scene. I do not believe such a procedure is feasible and I certainly do not advocate it. Incidentally, I believe I at some time told about a Norwegian high class player who many years ago seriously suggested that it should be legal, = and in fact recommended to always spend the same amount of time for each = action (call or play) whether it was needed or not. He was very quickly told = that this would not be "bridge". Logically however his suggestion was sound. Another way of minimizing UI is (when it is true) to "wake up" and say: "Sorry, I had nothing to consider, my apologies for the delay" or = something else to that effect. This procedure is recommended at least here in = Norway. With all this it should be remembered that inadvertently passing UI is = not in itself an irregularity according to the laws. The irregularity occurs when partner makes use of the UI in violation of law 16. Sven From svenpran@online.no Tue Oct 14 02:59:43 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 03:59:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia Casebook #4 In-Reply-To: <200310140106.SAA29257@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <000001c391f6$d63bee20$6900a8c0@WINXP> Adam Beneschan In so many words Adam discusses various cases of hesitations during the = play (and maybe also during the auction?) The routines as we follow them in Norway can be fairly easily summed up = as follows: Whenever there is some hesitation which allegedly can have damaged = opponents we have the Director judge (afterwards) whether there was any bridge = reason for the hesitation as such and whether in his opinion the hesitation = could have misled opponent(s). Some guidelines: Hesitation before the opening lead or before playing any card from dummy = or from RHO to trick one will hardly ever be considered illegal, not even = if the card to be played is a singleton in the suit led. This is the time = we primarily allow for planning the play as a whole by declarer as well as = by the defense. Hesitation before playing a singleton (or similarly forced play) to any later trick in the play followed by a statement to the effect that the player was considering the play of the remaining tricks as a whole = rather than the play of that particular card will never be accepted. The player = is supposed to follow suit or do his obvious play with no undue hesitation = and then make his considerations afterwards. Varying this case by playing his singleton face down on the table and = only turn it face up when he has completed his consideration is also unacceptable. Opponents are entitled to know the identity of the card = played as soon as the player has made his decision. We have had cases where a defender hesitated with two (or three) small = cards and argued that he was considering whether he should give a correct or = an incorrect distribution discard signal. As a consequence declarer = misplaced a key honor card. The statement by the defender as reason for his = hesitation was not accepted. If a player apparently has had a (long) hesitation before leading or = playing to a trick and then apologies with words to the effect that he had no = reason for the delay or in fact was unaware that he was in turn to play this = will usually be accepted, particularly when it is a once in a while = occurrence. =20 Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Oct 14 03:19:56 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 12:19:56 +1000 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia Casebook #4 Message-ID: >I don't know who Yvonne is. If you mean Yvan, note that your quote >from Yvan above is not his own, but was a quote from the casebook. >His earlier post seems to indicate that he tends to agree with >Bramley (and me). -- Adam Apologies to Adam, Yvan and Sven. I wrote far too hastily. Mea culpa Richard James 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Oct 14 05:20:01 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 14:20:01 +1000 Subject: [blml] ABF casebook, appeal 10 - WBF CoP Message-ID: Date: 24/01/02 Event: SWPT round 12 Director: R.Bland Appeal Panel: E.Chadwick Chair M.Scudder M.McManus C.Snashall A.Braithwaite Dlr:E Q43 NS vul K875 JT T654 KT92 75 ---- AT942 Q982 A6543 KQ872 9 AJ86 QJ63 K7 AJ3 SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST 2H(1) Double(2) 2S Pass Pass Double(2) Pass 3C Pass Pass Pass (1) alerted as hearts and another (2) N/S agreement that both doubles takeout Final Contract and result: 3C down 3 tricks, 300 to E/W Play if relevant: Tournament Director's Report and decision: Before making the second double, South asked if East's second suit was spades, and was told yes. E/W seemed to have differing opinions on their system agreements on the 2S by West and the following pass by East. The directing staff concluded that the damage was caused by South choosing to make a take-out double holding four cards in each of E/W's suits. Ruled no adjustment. Appellant's claim: Whatever my decision, and the result, in the current auction is not relevant. The point is that with correct information I would have either have passed 2S or bid 2NT. The double was based on partner having a singleton spade (probably), and at least 8 cards in the minors, quite probably a 5-card suit based on East having 5-5 in the majors. With correct information, it is likely partner will either have spades, but little chance of him having two suits in the minors, as East would have a 5-card minor. If the information given is correct, there is little chance of going more than two off in his minor because of his ruffing values in spades, and my ruffing power in diamonds. Responder's reply: West had proposed a system change that after a double of 2H or 2S, that we would use 2NT as the pass or correct bid. He somehow believed that this was not applicable over a 2H bid. East did not alert because he believed it to be natural. E/W had a system stuff-up and got lucky. Appeal Committee decision: Committee agreed that West's explanation of East's pass of 2S (as showing spades) was an infraction. However, South's decision to move, given East had shown both majors is the cause of N/S's poor score. Therefore N/S's score of -300 will stand. On the other hand, under the new Appeals Committee (WBF) code of practice, E/W are not allowed to benefit from their opponent's wild, gambling, or irrational actions, subsequent to their own infraction. E/W to score -50. RJH question: Did the Appeal Committee misinterpret the WBF Code of Practice? Best wishes Richard James 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Oct 14 06:03:55 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 15:03:55 +1000 Subject: [blml] ABF casebook, appeal 10 - WBF CoP Message-ID: [snip] >Appeal Committee decision: >Committee agreed that West's explanation of East's pass >of 2S (as showing spades) was an infraction. >However, South's decision to move, given East had shown >both majors is the cause of N/S's poor score. Therefore >N/S's score of -300 will stand. >On the other hand, under the new Appeals Committee (WBF) >code of practice, E/W are not allowed to benefit from >their opponent's wild, gambling, or irrational actions, >subsequent to their own infraction. E/W to score -50. > >RJH question: >Did the Appeal Committee misinterpret the WBF Code of >Practice? RJH clarification: The WBF Code of Practice states, inter alia, that, "Damage exists when, in consequence of the infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation in the instant prior to the infraction." The Aussie AC seems to have confused "subsequently" with "consequently". If N/S were not damaged by MI, because it would be irrational to bid on with both the correct and the incorrect explanation, then South's irrational action is *not* a "consequence of the infraction". So, there is no justification in adjusting the E/W score. (Unless you are a believer in Bobby Wolff's illusory infraction of convention disruption). Best wishes Richard James 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Oct 14 06:38:04 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 15:38:04 +1000 Subject: [blml] ABF casebook, appeal 9 - Michaels Message-ID: ABF casebook report: [snip] >Upon enquiry West explained 3C as Michaels (both majors). E/W >had had a system discussion prior to the match and decided to >play, over this Power 1C, 2C as natural and 3C as Michaels. >This being the reverse of their normal system agreement over >a natural 1C. [snip] >The directing staff had no evidence to support N/S contention >that West's actions constituted any form of infraction under >Law 75C. [snip] >Responder's reply: >Michaels at this level should not be strong. There are many >ways of showing strong hands. Consequently 4C couldn't be a >cuebid. [snip] RJH differs: Law 75C: ".....a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement....." West failed to explain *at the time the 3C bid was made* that their normal agreement over a common better-minor/natural 1C opening was to play 2C as Michaels and 3C as a natural preempt. This was a relevant datum which West knew about when selecting West's calls of a mere 3S and a "non-systemic" Pass of 4C. Had South known that 3C had, by partnership agreement, a 60% chance of being Michaels, and a 40% chance of being a natural preempt, then South may have been better placed to do something intelligent before the auction reached the 4-level. A parallel issue was raised in the thread, "Director ruling": >>A recent case was similar. Bidding starts 1NT, x, 2S, pass, 3C. >>Now everybody in real life will think '1NT opener took 2S as a >>transfer'. But there is always someone who wants the 2S bidder >>to interpret 3C as a game try for S (after a penalty double of >>1NT, please....). This kind of lawyering destroys the game, >>imho. >> >>Jaap RJH continues: No, not in my opinion. I play a complex relay system. Every so often, it is obvious to everyone at the table (and to a passing waiter) that partner has made a relay error. But, unless pard's relay response is *mathematically* impossible (example - pard promises that the king of spades is in their hand, but I see a second king of spades in my hand), I assume that pard knows what they are doing. On one occasion my faith in pard was rewarded. At the conclusion of a *very* extended relay auction, pard signed off in 7D when I had a void in the suit. I did not panic into 7NT, and passed 7D. Due to a quirk of the relays, I was declarer in my 7-level void. When dummy appeared I was gratified to see a solid 9-card diamond suit. :-) Best wishes Richard James 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Oct 14 07:02:08 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 16:02:08 +1000 Subject: [blml] ABF casebook, Law 16 Message-ID: Tournament Director's Report and decision: There was unauthorised information. West has an easy 4S bid with 3 spad= es and a doubleton heart. Score adjusted to 4S by West, down 3 tricks, 300 to = N/S Appeal Committee discussion: Questions were asked of E/W and it was discovered that this was their f= irst major tournament together, their partnership being very inexperienced. Appeal Committee decision: Appeal upheld. The committee felt that the E/W partnership, being an inexperienced one, should not be penalised to the fullest. But, we do believe there would be a reasonable expectation of bidding 4= S 50% of the time. Score adjusted to 180 to E/W, being 3NT +2 tricks 50%, and 4S - 3 trick= s 50%. Boggled wishes Richard James 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 Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Tue Oct 14 11:14:55 2003 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 11:14:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] ABF casebook, appeal 10 - WBF CoP Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB11AA@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Subject: Re: [blml] ABF casebook, appeal 10 - WBF CoP Date: 24/01/02 Event: SWPT round 12 Director: R.Bland Appeal Panel: E.Chadwick Chair M.Scudder M.McManus C.Snashall A.Braithwaite Dlr:E Q43 NS vul K875 JT T654 KT92 75 ---- AT942 Q982 A6543 KQ872 9 AJ86 QJ63 K7 AJ3 SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST 2H(1) Double(2) 2S Pass Pass Double(2) Pass 3C Pass Pass Pass (1) alerted as hearts and another (2) N/S agreement that both doubles takeout Final Contract and result: 3C down 3 tricks, 300 to E/W Play if relevant: Tournament Director's Report and decision: Before making the second double, South asked if East's second suit was spades, and was told yes. E/W seemed to have differing opinions on their system agreements on the 2S by West and the following pass by East. The directing staff concluded that the damage was caused by South choosing to make a take-out double holding four cards in each of E/W's suits. Ruled no adjustment. Appellant's claim: Whatever my decision, and the result, in the current auction is not relevant. The point is that with correct information I would have either have passed 2S or bid 2NT. The double was based on partner having a singleton spade (probably), and at least 8 cards in the minors, quite probably a 5-card suit based on East having 5-5 in the majors. With correct information, it is likely partner will either have spades, but little chance of him having two suits in the minors, as East would have a 5-card minor. If the information given is correct, there is little chance of going more than two off in his minor because of his ruffing values in spades, and my ruffing power in diamonds. Responder's reply: West had proposed a system change that after a double of 2H or 2S, that we would use 2NT as the pass or correct bid. He somehow believed that this was not applicable over a 2H bid. East did not alert because he believed it to be natural. E/W had a system stuff-up and got lucky. Appeal Committee decision: Committee agreed that West's explanation of East's pass of 2S (as showing spades) was an infraction. However, South's decision to move, given East had shown both majors is the cause of N/S's poor score. Therefore N/S's score of -300 will stand. On the other hand, under the new Appeals Committee (WBF) code of practice, E/W are not allowed to benefit from their opponent's wild, gambling, or irrational actions, subsequent to their own infraction. E/W to score -50. RJH question: Did the Appeal Committee misinterpret the WBF Code of Practice? [Frances] I can't tell you that, but it seems to me that N/S's actions=20 were not wild, gambling or irrational, they were just bad bridge. E/W seem to have had their good score taken away because they had a system foul-up. At least under current laws, I don't think that is right. p.s. does anyone sensible play the double of 2S as take-out, having made a take-out double of a different suit the previous round? From a.kooijman@minlnv.nl Tue Oct 14 13:13:50 2003 From: a.kooijman@minlnv.nl (Kooijman, A. (Ton)) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 14:13:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] ABF casebook, appeal 10 - WBF CoP Message-ID: [snip] >Appeal Committee decision: >Committee agreed that West's explanation of East's pass >of 2S (as showing spades) was an infraction. >However, South's decision to move, given East had shown >both majors is the cause of N/S's poor score. Therefore >N/S's score of -300 will stand. >On the other hand, under the new Appeals Committee (WBF) >code of practice, E/W are not allowed to benefit from >their opponent's wild, gambling, or irrational actions, >subsequent to their own infraction. E/W to score -50. > >RJH question: >Did the Appeal Committee misinterpret the WBF Code of >Practice? RJH clarification: The WBF Code of Practice states, inter alia, that, "Damage exists when, in consequence of the infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation in the instant prior to the infraction." The Aussie AC seems to have confused "subsequently" with "consequently". If N/S were not damaged by MI, because it would be irrational to bid on with both the correct and the incorrect explanation, then South's irrational action is *not* a "consequence of the infraction". So, there is no justification in adjusting the E/W score. (Unless you are a believer in Bobby Wolff's illusory infraction of convention disruption). Best wishes Richard James Hills I don't understand your 'so, there is no justification....' The LC defined damage, which regards NS in this case. And even when there is no consequent damage for NS, there still might be a consequent advantage for EW, which needs to be taken away. ton From a.kooijman@minlnv.nl Tue Oct 14 13:28:34 2003 From: a.kooijman@minlnv.nl (Kooijman, A. (Ton)) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 14:28:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] ABF casebook, Law 16 Message-ID: Tournament Director's Report and decision: There was unauthorised information. West has an easy 4S bid with 3 spades and a doubleton heart. Score adjusted to 4S by West, down 3 tricks, 300 to N/S Appeal Committee discussion: Questions were asked of E/W and it was discovered that this was their first major tournament together, their partnership being very inexperienced. Appeal Committee decision: Appeal upheld. The committee felt that the E/W partnership, being an inexperienced one, should not be penalised to the fullest. But, we do believe there would be a reasonable expectation of bidding 4S 50% of the time. Score adjusted to 180 to E/W, being 3NT +2 tricks 50%, and 4S - 3 tricks 50%. Boggled wishes Richard James Hills AC's should not touch subjects they don't understand. I have sent messages where this led to the conclusion that AC's shouldn't be involved in decisions at all. But that isn't my conclusion here. Let us be happy the committee knew about the existence of L12C3. This AC should have explained to the TD its appraoch for the adjustment leaving it to the TD to do the calculation. And hopefully the TD then would have calculated the results for both scores seperately (in teams and in pairs) taking the average of both imps or matchpoints afterwards. I know of a small stream of experts that takes this idea a step further saying that the results in vp's should be calculated with both results and then taking the average. ton From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Oct 14 13:51:45 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:51:45 -0400 Subject: [blml] Psych versus correct information (fwd) In-Reply-To: <200310102139.OAA17350@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031014082041.02678180@pop.starpower.net> At 05:39 PM 10/10/03, Adam wrote: >Eric wrote: > > > In the North American community of bridge players, we have a lawbook > > that sets forth the fundamental nature of our game > >I don't think this is true. If the fundamental nature of the game is >set forth by the lawbook, then any time the Laws change the >fundamental nature of the game changes, right? And if you're >concerned about the "fundamental nature of our game be[ing] lost", >then wouldn't you have to oppose any changes to any Laws, ever? Not what I intended to say at all. TFLB includes both our "constitution", setting forth those laws that are fundamental, and our "body of laws" which refine the constitutional skeleton in various ways. In the U.S. system of government, many laws are challenged only to have those challenges rejected by the courts on the grounds that fundamental (i.e. constitutional) issues are not at stake. >I don't think so. So I think we have to accept that while the Lawbook >may set forth the fundamental nature of the game, it also sets forth >other things that are not fundamental. So how do we decide which >aspects of the game (or which sections of the Laws) are integral to >the fundamental nature, and which are not? And who makes this >decision? That, of course, is the question at issue. The desire here is to have two bodies involved -- one which defines the constraints within which the game can be regulated without violating its "fundamental nature", and another which does the actual regulating. As Adam says, both bodies will have agendas, and may well act less than totally selflessly. But at least they will be in a position to check and constrain the effects of one another's actions, leaving no one body with the total and absolute power to decide that the game is whatever they choose it to be. >Clearly, if we were to change the rules so that, say, playing a trump >on an even-numbered tricks would have no effect on who wins the trick, >and only odd-numbered tricks could be trumped, this would be a totally >different game that would require totally different strategies for >play and defense. (It might be interesting to speculate on what some >of those strategies might be.) So I don't think there is anyone who >is not insane who would say the fundamental nature of the game has not >changed. Which is why we are uncomfortable with bodies below the international level being given the explicit authority to make rules like "anyone who trumps an odd-numbered trick on a deal whose board number is a multiple of five may not use Stayman for the remainder of the event". >But suppose we were to ban psychs; would this change the fundamental >nature of the game? Could a game played with a no-psych rule still >reasonably be called "bridge"? I cannot think of a good way to >determine the answer, assuming that simply decreeing one's own >preference to be the "fundamental nature of the game" is not a >legitimate approach. If we could survey good players whom we could >trust to understand the nature of the question they were asked, and >not to confuse it with "Do you like to psych" or "Do you think >psyching should be allowed", I doubt you would get a consensus. I don't know the answer, but I do know that it must be the same for everyone who plays bridge using the same rule book: psychs may or may not be fundamental, but they cannot be fundamental in some zones but not others. The international laws *must* set forth *some* principles that are inviolable and cannot be overriden by lower-level bodies, else we do not have a "book of laws" at all, merely a book of suggestions for various bodies responsible for their own laws. >So given that this question is probably not answerable, I can't see >how "preserving the fundamental nature of the game" would be any >different from "making sure everybody plays by *my* idea of how the >game ought to be played", unless we include only non-controversial >things in the definition of "fundamental nature of the game", like the >rule that you have to follow suit. Quite the opposite. Without constraint, each ZO becomes the "me", and everyone plays by their ZO's idea of how the game ought to be played. Only the WBF is in a position to require those ZOs to get together and agree on some set of constraints which they are mutually bound not to violate. We can argue all we want about what is fundamental to the game and what is not, but we can surely agree that three-handed pinochle is not bridge. 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 Oct 14 14:24:36 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 09:24:36 -0400 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia Casebook #4 In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20031013231039.0116c630@ip-worldcom.ch> References: <3.0.6.32.20031013191608.0116c630@ip-worldcom.ch> <3.0.6.32.20031013191608.0116c630@ip-worldcom.ch> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031014090812.0268dec0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:10 PM 10/13/03, Yvan wrote: >The Committee Decision: The laws state that if an innocent player >has drawn a false inference from the tempo of an opponent who >has no has demonstrable bridge reason for his action, and who >could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could >work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score. > >When North hesitated at trick two, she was not attempting to >determine the opponents=92 signaling methods, in an effort to >determine which card would make it most difficult for West to read >his partner=92s signal (according to the E/W statements). Apparently >she was deciding whether or not to hold up the [A. That card was >in the dummy and it was not dummy=92s turn to play. Thus, she had >no demonstrable bridge reason for breaking tempo before playing >from her hand, and could have known that the BIT might deceive >the opponents. The Committee did not believe that declarer >deliberately hesitated hoping to deceive the opponents. However, >if she chose to pause before playing one of the small cards from >her hand, it was her responsibility to tell the opponents that she >was thinking about the entire hand (rather than about what she was >going to play from her hand to this trick). Thus, the Committee >changed the N/S result to 3NT down one, =AD50 for N/S. It has apparently become an accepted principle of bridge jurisprudence=20 in ACBL-land that the legal ramifications of a break in tempo may be=20 mitigated by an announcement along the lines of "I'm thinking about the=20 whole hand". Now it appears that precedent may be morphing this=20 announcement from a potentially mitigating factor to a=20 "responsibility". I find nothing in TFLB that appears to address such=20 announcements. Can anyone tell me by what controlling law this=20 precedent -- essentially giving players the right to assume that an=20 opponent's break in tempo relates to his immediately pending play=20 unless he explicitly states otherwise -- may be justified? Does anyone=20 have concerns that acceptance of this precedent as a basis for future=20 jurisprudence may have significant unintended consequences? Would we=20 be comfortable writing it into TFLB explicitly? Which law(s) would we=20 need to alter? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618=20 From svenpran@online.no Tue Oct 14 14:40:56 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 15:40:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia Casebook #4 In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031014090812.0268dec0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000001c39258$cb624be0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Eric Landau ......... > >When North hesitated at trick two, she was not attempting to > >determine the opponents' signaling methods, in an effort to > >determine which card would make it most difficult for West to read > >his partner's signal (according to the E/W statements). Apparently > >she was deciding whether or not to hold up the [A. That card was > >in the dummy and it was not dummy's turn to play. Thus, she had > >no demonstrable bridge reason for breaking tempo before playing > >from her hand, and could have known that the BIT might deceive > >the opponents. The Committee did not believe that declarer > >deliberately hesitated hoping to deceive the opponents. However, > >if she chose to pause before playing one of the small cards from > >her hand, it was her responsibility to tell the opponents that she > >was thinking about the entire hand (rather than about what she was > >going to play from her hand to this trick). Thus, the Committee > >changed the N/S result to 3NT down one, -50 for N/S. >=20 > It has apparently become an accepted principle of bridge jurisprudence > in ACBL-land that the legal ramifications of a break in tempo may be > mitigated by an announcement along the lines of "I'm thinking about = the > whole hand". Now it appears that precedent may be morphing this > announcement from a potentially mitigating factor to a > "responsibility". I find nothing in TFLB that appears to address such > announcements. Can anyone tell me by what controlling law this > precedent -- essentially giving players the right to assume that an > opponent's break in tempo relates to his immediately pending play > unless he explicitly states otherwise -- may be justified? Does = anyone > have concerns that acceptance of this precedent as a basis for future > jurisprudence may have significant unintended consequences? Would we > be comfortable writing it into TFLB explicitly? Which law(s) would we > need to alter? As I have already pointed out in another recent post we would in Norway = to my knowledge not normally accept declarer hesitating before playing = second card to a trick from a hand which offers no real alternatives between = which to choose on the sole ground that (s)he was considering whether to hold = up a high card in dummy (last hand playing to that same trick). We would accept declarer immediately stating that there is nothing in = his (her) own hand giving cause for the delay as an attempt to minimize the possible damage for the defense, but we would probably warn declarer not = to make a habit of such behavior. Sven From sphboc@msn.com Tue Oct 14 16:25:13 2003 From: sphboc@msn.com (Steven Haver) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:25:13 -0700 Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement Message-ID: Auction--in a FTF pair event--began 1c by partner, pass, 1d by me, 2d by lho, 3c by partner, pass. At this point, I asked RHO about the 2d, and was told "I don't know". Opponents were both ACBL LM's, and a fairly-frequent partnership. IMO, there are some auctions--including this one--in which any semi-experienced partnership needs to HAVE an agreement; absent same, LHO's 2d runs a major risk of going for a number. How is Director supposed to deal with this type of situation? Most specifically, if Director also judges that this is an auction in which a pair "should have" an agreement, can the BIDDER be required to inform us (but not his partner) of his intentions? _________________________________________________________________ Use custom emotions -- try MSN Messenger 6.0! http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/reach_emoticon From kbensi@tiscali.it Mon Oct 13 16:36:34 2003 From: kbensi@tiscali.it (KathyBensi) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 08:36:34 -0700 Subject: [blml] (no subject) Message-ID: <004501c3919f$c9349580$9e080b3e@jsppj6w1sbms7a4> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0042_01C39165.1BEC20D0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Bridge Laws List Members, I have a question that I hope someone out there can answer. We play private tournament bridge here in Rome, Italy. I would say most = of us are intermediate players and no one seems particularly = knowledgeable re laws and ethics (but we all have our differing = opinions!). =20 The other night, we had a game which caused considerable discussion and = bad feelings from our opponents. We were NS. West opened a strong = 1club, my partner called 2 spades. I was asked by the opponents what = that meant and I said I believed he had an opening bid with at least 5 = spades. East passed, I bid 3 hearts (having 8 pts and 5 hearts), W bid = 4 clubs, everybody passed. =20 My partner held A109873 of spades, x heart, Qxx diamonds and xxx clubs. = Of course, the opponents made game and were furious about my partners = bid. Called it deceptive etc etc. =20 The next day, the leader of the tournament, after having spoken with 2 = directors of professional tournaments, stated that this type of bidding = was considered "psychic" and punishible. =20 I checked my book (Complete Book of Bridge by Terence Reese and Albert = Dormer, 1973) and found the Weak Jump Overcall. The question: Is Weak Jump Overcall no longer acceptable, is it = unethical? Is the fact that I didnt understand my partners bid = punishible? Many thanks to anyone who can shed some light on this situation. Yours sincerely,=20 Kathy Bensi Rome, Italy PS. Also, can anyone recommend a good book on ethics and laws of bridge? ------=_NextPart_000_0042_01C39165.1BEC20D0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Bridge Laws List Members,
 
I have a question that I hope someone out there can=20 answer.
 
We play private tournament bridge here in Rome,=20 Italy.  I would say most of us are intermediate players and no = one=20 seems particularly knowledgeable re laws and ethics (but we all have our = differing opinions!). 
 
The other night, we had a game which caused = considerable=20 discussion and bad feelings from our opponents.  We were NS.  = West=20 opened a strong 1club, my partner called 2 spades.  I was asked by = the=20 opponents what that meant and I said I believed he had an opening bid = with at=20 least 5 spades.  East passed, I bid 3 hearts (having 8 pts and 5 = hearts), W=20 bid 4 clubs, everybody passed. 
 
My partner held A109873 of spades, x heart, Qxx = diamonds and=20 xxx clubs. 
 
Of course, the opponents made game and were furious = about my=20 partners bid.  Called it deceptive etc etc. 
 
The next day, the leader of the tournament, after = having=20 spoken with 2 directors of professional tournaments,  stated that = this type=20 of bidding was considered "psychic" and punishible. 
 
I checked my book (Complete Book of Bridge by = Terence Reese=20 and Albert Dormer, 1973) and found the Weak Jump Overcall.
 
The question:  Is Weak Jump Overcall no longer=20 acceptable, is it unethical?  Is the fact that I didnt understand = my=20 partners bid punishible?
 
 Many thanks to anyone who can shed some light = on this=20 situation.
 
Yours sincerely,
 
Kathy Bensi
Rome, Italy
 
PS.  Also, can anyone recommend a good book on = ethics and=20 laws of bridge?
------=_NextPart_000_0042_01C39165.1BEC20D0-- From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Mon Oct 13 15:03:34 2003 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 16:03:34 +0200 Subject: [blml] Correction of a revoke Message-ID: <000201c391ab$22b30aa0$03053dd4@c6l8v1> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0182_01C391A3.8DCE2520 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This happened in clubs: Contract 3NT. 5 4 3 2 A 8 7 6 K Q J 10 9 Declarer asks the 2 and east plays the diamond 5. Declarer plays the queen and west the ace. At that moment east discovers his revoke. The king is played, declarer does not withdraw his card so the ace = remains played. But what happens when east has A 6 and west K 8 7? Is east forced to play the ace? Law 57A is not applicable nor Law 72B1. Will Law 73C do? Ben ------=_NextPart_000_0182_01C391A3.8DCE2520 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
This happened in clubs:
Contract 3NT.
 
          =    =20 5 4 3 2
 
A 8 7=20 6            =        =20 K
 
          =    =20 Q J 10 9
 
Declarer asks the 2 and east plays the diamond=20 5.
Declarer plays the queen and west the = ace.
At that moment east discovers his = revoke.
The king is played, declarer does not withdraw = his card so=20 the ace remains played.
 
But what happens when east has A 6 and = west K 8=20 7?
Is east forced to play the ace?
Law 57A is not applicable nor Law = 72B1.
Will Law 73C do?
 
Ben
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_0182_01C391A3.8DCE2520-- From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Oct 14 17:18:03 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 09:18:03 -0700 Subject: [blml] ABF casebook, appeal 10 - WBF CoP References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB11AA@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <001e01c3926f$2e6fa640$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Hinden, Frances p.s. does anyone sensible play the double of 2S as take-out, having made a take-out double of a different suit the previous round? [marv] Since it's a major, no, as a counter to psychs over a double. In a minor, yes. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Tue Oct 14 17:24:23 2003 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 12:24:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] (no subject) In-Reply-To: <004501c3919f$c9349580$9e080b3e@jsppj6w1sbms7a4> from "KathyBensi" at Oct 13, 2003 08:36:34 AM Message-ID: <200310141624.h9EGONwO006483@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> KathyBensi writes: > > > Dear Bridge Laws List Members, > > I have a question that I hope someone out there can answer. > > We play private tournament bridge here in Rome, Italy. I would say most > of us are intermediate players and no one seems particularly > knowledgeable re laws and ethics (but we all have our differing > opinions!). > > The other night, we had a game which caused considerable discussion and > bad feelings from our opponents. We were NS. West opened a strong > 1club, my partner called 2 spades. I was asked by the opponents what > that meant and I said I believed he had an opening bid with at least 5 > spades. East passed, I bid 3 hearts (having 8 pts and 5 hearts), W bid > 4 clubs, everybody passed. > > My partner held A109873 of spades, x heart, Qxx diamonds and xxx clubs. > > > Of course, the opponents made game and were furious about my partners > bid. Called it deceptive etc etc. > > The next day, the leader of the tournament, after having spoken with 2 > directors of professional tournaments, stated that this type of bidding > was considered "psychic" and punishible. He's wrong. And he probably din't explain the situation correctly in any case. I understand Italy has (illegal) "no psyching" rules, but they don't apply here. > I checked my book (Complete Book of Bridge by Terence Reese and Albert > Dormer, 1973) and found the Weak Jump Overcall. > > The question: Is Weak Jump Overcall no longer acceptable, is it > unethical? No and no. > Is the fact that I didnt understand my partners bid punishible? Potentially. What in fact were your agreements? (Playing 2S as strong over a weak 2 is theoretially unsound. But it is a legal agreement) You aren't supposed to explain what you think partner has, but rather the agreed meaning of the calls. There doesn't seem to be much doubt that you misinformed them. Your real agreement seems to have been "undiscussed". However, the opponents aren't entitled to a score adjustment unless their poor result is a consequence of the mis-information. And that's the director's job. Had they called the director then and there (as they should have), it's at least possible that they would have received a score adjustment. It's a judgement situation. > Many thanks to anyone who can shed some light on this situation. > > Yours sincerely, > > Kathy Bensi > Rome, Italy > > PS. Also, can anyone recommend a good book on ethics and laws of bridge? Michael Rosenberg's book has a nice section on ethics. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Oct 14 17:28:41 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 09:28:41 -0700 Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement References: Message-ID: <001f01c39270$3c1afd20$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Steven Haver" > Auction--in a FTF pair event--began 1c by partner, pass, 1d by me, 2d by > lho, 3c by partner, pass. > > At this point, I asked RHO about the 2d, and was told "I don't know". > Opponents were both ACBL LM's, and a fairly-frequent partnership. > > IMO, there are some auctions--including this one--in which any > semi-experienced partnership needs to HAVE an agreement; absent same, LHO's > 2d runs a major risk of going for a number. > > How is Director supposed to deal with this type of situation? Most > specifically, if Director also judges that this is an auction in which a > pair "should have" an agreement, can the BIDDER be required to inform us > (but not his partner) of his intentions? > I don't like that solution. Having to explain one's own bid leads to problems, as when one has misbid, made a deliberate non-system bid, or psyched, and must give an explanation that differs from the actual hand. Besides, "intentions" is wrong, it is the partnership agreement, if any, that must be disclosed. After play is over, I would probably rule that this (experienced) pair had an agreement, perhaps forgotten, that accords with the 2D bidder's hand. If failure to disclose that meaning may have caused damage, I adjust the score for both sides. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Oct 14 09:49:01 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 09:49:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia Casebook #4 References: Message-ID: <004c01c3927e$bd130220$3522e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 12:44 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Philadelphia Casebook #4 Yvan Calame wrote: >>However, if she chose to pause before playing one of >>the small cards from her hand, it was her >>responsibility to tell the opponents that she was >>thinking about the entire hand (rather than about >>what she was going to play from her hand to this >>trick). Adam Beneschan asserted: >I can't buy this, simply because there's nothing in >the Laws that requires this sort of announcement. RJH asks: Nothing??? David Stevenson (Casebook comment) reveals: "The laws do not permit players to mislead opponents by their actions such as tempo variations. They go further and make it clear that players should be careful in tempo-sensitive positions. Note the second sentence of Law 73D1: 'It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful in positions in which variations may work to the benefit of their side.' In this case declarer has not exhibited the care required by Law 73D1 and should not benefit. It is important that players should never gain from such actions since otherwise the players who exhibit more care would be at an unfair disadvantage. Note that I do not suggest in any way that declarer did anything wrong deliberately. However, players must learn to follow Law 73D1 so we can have a fairer game." < +=+ DWS has this exactly right. To deliberate before playing the card from the closed hand suggests a choice of play other than merely which card of a number of losing cards to play, Those who say otherwise do the game no favours. In Law 73F2 "demonstrable" intends to raise the standards for the pause that is permissible. It is a position in which, if they hesitate inadvertently, players with a concern for opponents can be expected as a matter of honour to make the position clear. As for the E/W pair the question is whether their misdefence is 'irrational, wild or gambling'. Edgar Kaplan had a worry that ACBL committees were too easily withholding adjustment in such cases. In this case it should depend on the class of player - better players might not get the adjustment, lesser players would. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Oct 14 19:04:45 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 19:04:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] added email address Message-ID: <005001c3927e$c55d0c50$3522e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott Message-ID: <00bf01c39284$27a37cf0$9e080b3e@jsppj6w1sbms7a4> thanks very much. you know, i just joined this mailing list and realize that i'm a beginner in comparison. thanks for your help.....i'll try to get my hands on the rosenberg book. kathy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Johnson" To: Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 9:24 AM Subject: Re: [blml] (no subject) > KathyBensi writes: > > > > > > Dear Bridge Laws List Members, > > > > I have a question that I hope someone out there can answer. > > > > We play private tournament bridge here in Rome, Italy. I would say most > > of us are intermediate players and no one seems particularly > > knowledgeable re laws and ethics (but we all have our differing > > opinions!). > > > > The other night, we had a game which caused considerable discussion and > > bad feelings from our opponents. We were NS. West opened a strong > > 1club, my partner called 2 spades. I was asked by the opponents what > > that meant and I said I believed he had an opening bid with at least 5 > > spades. East passed, I bid 3 hearts (having 8 pts and 5 hearts), W bid > > 4 clubs, everybody passed. > > > > My partner held A109873 of spades, x heart, Qxx diamonds and xxx clubs. > > > > > > Of course, the opponents made game and were furious about my partners > > bid. Called it deceptive etc etc. > > > > The next day, the leader of the tournament, after having spoken with 2 > > directors of professional tournaments, stated that this type of bidding > > was considered "psychic" and punishible. > > He's wrong. And he probably din't explain the situation correctly in any > case. I understand Italy has (illegal) "no psyching" rules, but they > don't apply here. > > > I checked my book (Complete Book of Bridge by Terence Reese and Albert > > Dormer, 1973) and found the Weak Jump Overcall. > > > > The question: Is Weak Jump Overcall no longer acceptable, is it > > unethical? > > No and no. > > > Is the fact that I didnt understand my partners bid punishible? > > Potentially. > > What in fact were your agreements? (Playing 2S as strong over a weak 2 is > theoretially unsound. But it is a legal agreement) You aren't supposed to > explain what you think partner has, but rather the agreed meaning of the > calls. > > There doesn't seem to be much doubt that you misinformed them. Your real > agreement seems to have been "undiscussed". > > However, the opponents aren't entitled to a score adjustment unless their > poor result is a consequence of the mis-information. > > And that's the director's job. Had they called the director then and there > (as they should have), it's at least possible that they would have received > a score adjustment. It's a judgement situation. > > > Many thanks to anyone who can shed some light on this situation. > > > > Yours sincerely, > > > > Kathy Bensi > > Rome, Italy > > > > PS. Also, can anyone recommend a good book on ethics and laws of bridge? > > Michael Rosenberg's book has a nice section on ethics. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Oct 14 23:30:02 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 08:30:02 +1000 Subject: [blml] ABF casebook, Law 16 Message-ID: ABF casebook: >>Tournament Director's Report and decision: >>There was unauthorised information. West has an >>easy 4S bid with 3 spades and a doubleton heart. >>Score adjusted to 4S by West, down 3 tricks, 300 >>to N/S >> >>Appeal Committee discussion: >>Questions were asked of E/W and it was discovered >>that this was their first major tournament together, >>their partnership being very inexperienced. >> >>Appeal Committee decision: >>Appeal upheld. The committee felt that the E/W >>partnership, being an inexperienced one, should not >>be penalised to the fullest. >>But, we do believe there would be a reasonable >>expectation of bidding 4S 50% of the time. >>Score adjusted to 180 to E/W, being 3NT +2 tricks 50%, >>and 4S - 3 tricks 50%. Ton: >AC's should not touch subjects they don't understand. I >have sent messages where this led to the conclusion that >AC's shouldn't be involved in decisions at all. But that >isn't my conclusion here. Let us be happy the committee >knew about the existence of L12C3. > >This AC should have explained to the TD its approach for >the adjustment leaving it to the TD to do the calculation. >And hopefully the TD then would have calculated the >results for both scores seperately (in teams and in pairs) >taking the average of both imps or matchpoints afterwards. >I know of a small stream of experts that takes this idea a >step further saying that the results in vp's should be >calculated with both results and then taking the average. RJH: I agree with Ton that *if* it were legal to use Law 12C3, *then* the AC and/or the TD should have calculated the score differently. But, in my humble opinion, the AC seems to have made an illegal ruling. It seems to me that the AC ruled that Law 16 has only 50% effect when the pair involved are bunnies. What next? Two trick revoke penalties halved to one trick by ACs when bunnies appeal? :-( Best wishes Richard James 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Oct 15 01:36:14 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 10:36:14 +1000 Subject: [blml] "Sensible" takeout doubles (was ABF) Message-ID: Frances Hinden: >>p.s. does anyone sensible play the double of 2S as take-out, >>having made a take-out double of a different suit the >>previous round? Marv: >Since it's a major, no, as a counter to psychs over a double. >In a minor, yes. RJH: Aussie Ron Klinger is one of the best bridge writers in the world (in addition to being a first-class expert). As a result, many Aussies are strongly influenced by Ron Klinger's bidding theories. This is usually beneficial to Ron's acolytes, but Ron does have an idiosyncratic theory that almost all doubles should be for takeout. For example: According to Klinger, both 1NT - (2H) - Double and 1NT - (2H) - Pass - (Pass) - Double are takeout doubles. In an earlier thread, David Burn argued that the standard expert agreement about the distribution of a particular call depended on the context in which the call was made. In my humble opinion, David Burn did not go far enough in stating his case. In my humble opinion, there is no such thing as a "sensible" *universal* expert agreement on any call. It all depends on the idiosycrasy of a particular expert, and the local bridge culture of that particular expert. Is "universalist" Nigel Guthrie listening? :-) Best wishes Richard James 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Oct 15 02:02:06 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 11:02:06 +1000 Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement Message-ID: Steven Haver: >Auction--in a FTF pair event--began 1c by partner, pass, >1d by me, 2d by lho, 3c by partner, pass. > >At this point, I asked RHO about the 2d, and was told "I >don't know". Opponents were both ACBL LM's, and a >fairly-frequent partnership. > >IMO, there are some auctions--including this one--in >which any semi-experienced partnership needs to HAVE an >agreement; absent same, LHO's 2d runs a major risk of >going for a number. RJH ripostes: So? Just because a "fairly-frequent" partnership *need* to have an agreement does not necessarily mean that a "fairly- frequent" partnership *do* have an agreement, or that a "fairly-frequent" partnership *never* goes for a number after a bidding misunderstanding. In this particular situation, there are two differing popular expert ideas - one is that the 2D call is natural, the other is that it shows a 2-suiter in the unbid suits. And, in my humble opinion, a partnership that is merely "fairly-frequent" (instead of being a regular-for-a-decade partnership) may, in fact, have failed to discuss this relatively _in_frequent auction. >How is Director supposed to deal with this type of >situation? [snip] Rule either: (a) No infraction, or (b) Without any evidence at all, rule that RHO is deliberately lying. I know how I would rule as TD in this situation, but no doubt other TDs might rule the other way. Best wishes Richard James 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 dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Oct 15 02:27:58 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 02:27:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Sensible" takeout doubles (was ABF) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: [RJH] Aussie Ron Klinger is one of the best bridge writers in the world (in addition to being a first-class expert). As a result, many Aussies are strongly influenced by Ron Klinger's bidding theories. This is usually beneficial to Ron's acolytes, but Ron does have an idiosyncratic theory that almost all doubles should be for takeout. For example: According to Klinger, both 1NT - (2H) - Double and 1NT - (2H) - Pass - (Pass) - Double are takeout doubles. [DALB] Well, of course they are. It's not "idiosyncratic". It's bridge. But it's a funny thing... Here is a deal on which I was asked for a ruling at midnight yesterday: 96 5 8652 J108742 AJ84 KQ1052 974 AQJ863 Q1097 3 63 9 73 K102 AKJ4 AKQ5 Love all, aggregate scoring, honours counting. dealer North West North East South Pass 1H 1NT (1) 2H Pass 2S Dble (2) Pass 3C 3H Pass Pass Pass (1) Described to me as "16-18, but what can you do?" (2) Not alerted. According to EBU regulations, this double does not require an alert if it is for *takeout*; it does require an alert if it is for penalty. Crede expertum. Well, East and West both asked North about the double, and were told that this was an undiscussed sequence to which there were no helpful analogies in the NS partnership experience (the match, I gathered, was between two teams of expert players, all of whom were more or less aware of their legal responsibilities, except that no one knew that South's double was "unalertably" for takeout, this being a legacy of the late lamented Stevenson). East and West both claimed that they might have taken different views of their hands had they known that they had not been doubled in spades "for penalty". North said that he had no idea what double was, but he was going to take it out anyway with his hand. South was not available for comment. There was no suggestion whatsoever that his double was made in other than completely normal tempo. Over to you. David Burn London, England From ibrahimahmed555@popmail.com Wed Oct 15 10:58:52 2003 From: ibrahimahmed555@popmail.com (IBRAHIM AHMED) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 02:58:52 -0700 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) MUTUAL BENEFIT Message-ID: <20031015015932.D80782BAA7@rhubarb.custard.org> Dear Friend=2C I am IBRAHIM AHMED Attorney I have urgent and very confidential business proposition for you=2EOn June 6=2C 1999=2C an American oil consultant=2Fcontractor with the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation=2C Mr Barry Kelly made a numbered time =28Fixed=29 deposited for twelve calendar months=2C valued at US$41=2C500=2C000=2E00 =28Forty-one Million=2C five hundred Thousand Dollars=29 in my branch upon maturity=2EI sent a routine notification to his forwarding address but got no reply=2E After a month=2C we sent a reminder and finally we discovered from his contract employers=2C Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation that Mr=2E Barry Kelly died from an automobile accident with his family along Benin=2FShagamu Express Way=2E On further investigation=2C I found out that he did not leave a WILL and all attempts to trace his next of kin were fruitless=2E I therefore made further investigation and discovered that Mr=2E Barry Kelly did not declare any next of kin n all his official documents=2C including his Bank Deposit paperwork=2E This sum of US$41=2C500=2C000=2E00 is still sitting in the Bank and the interest is being rolled over with the principal sum at the end of each year=2ENo one will come forward to claim it=2E According to the Nigerian Law=2C at the expiration of 5 =28five=29 years=2C the money will revert to the ownership of the Nigerian Government if nobody applies to claim the funds=2E Consequently=2C my proposal is that I will like you as a foreigner to stand in as the next of kin to mr Barry Kelly so that the fruits of this old man's labor will not get into the hands of some corrupt officials=2E This is simple=2C I will like you to provide me immediately with your full names and address so that the attorney will prepare the necessary documents and affidavits=2C which will put you in place as the next of kin=2E We shall employ the services of two attorneys for drafting and notarization of the WILL and obtain the necessary documents and letter of probate=2Fadministration in your favor the transfer=2E A bank account in any part of the world=2C which you provide=2C will then facilitate the transfer of this money to you as the beneficiary=2Fnext of kin=2E The money will be paid into your account for us to share in the ratio of 60% for me and 40% for you=2E There is no risk at all as all the paperwork for this transaction will be done by the attorney and my position as the Branch Manager guarantees the successful execution of this transaction=2E If you are interested=2C please reply immediately via email=2E Upon your response=2C I shall then provide you with more details and relevant documents that will help you Understand=2E Please observe utmost confidentiality=2Cand rest assured that this transaction would be most profitable for both of us because=2C I shall require your assistance to invest my share in your country=2E Awaiting your urgent reply via email=3A Thanks and regards IBRAHIM AHMED From dalburn@btopenworld.com Wed Oct 15 03:29:15 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 03:29:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Sensible" takeout doubles (was ABF) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >A missing datum - does the EBU require undiscussed doubles to be alerted, or does the EBU require undiscussed doubles not to be alerted, or is the alerting of undiscussed doubles optional, or is there a gap in EBU alert regulations vis-a-vis undiscussed doubles? The EBU says this (Orange Book 5.1.4): Alert any call of your partner which you believe to be alertable even if you cannot explain its meaning. There are no specific regulations distinguishing doubles from any other call. I am aware that the ABF has such regulations; they are, in my humble but considered opinion, insane. This does not matter. If you consider that there is a "missing datum", what information I have appears above. David Burn London, England From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Oct 15 04:38:48 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 13:38:48 +1000 Subject: [blml] Correction of a revoke Message-ID: >This happened in clubs: >Contract 3NT. > >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 5 4 3 2 > >A 8 7 6 > >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Q J 10 9 > >Declarer asks the 2 and east plays the diamond 5. >Declarer plays the queen and west the ace. >At that moment east discovers his revoke. >The king is played, declarer does not withdraw his card so >the ace remains played. > >But what happens when east has=A0A 6 and west=A0K 8 7? >Is east forced to play the ace? >Law 57A is not applicable nor Law 72B1. >Will Law 73C do? > >Ben No, East can play either the Ace or the Six. Law 62B: "To correct a revoke, the offender withdraws the card he played in revoking and follows suit with *any card*." Best wishes Richard James 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Oct 15 04:51:37 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 13:51:37 +1000 Subject: [blml] ABF casebook, appeal 10 - WBF CoP Message-ID: >I don't understand your 'so, there is no justification....' > >The LC defined damage, which regards NS in this case. And >even when there is no consequent damage for NS, there still >might be a consequent advantage for EW, which needs to be >taken away. > >ton RJH: We seem to be arguing from different premises. Is it true that, for the purpose of an AC split-score, there are such actions as "slightly irrational actions" and "totally irrational actions"? If so, and if this is relevant in this particular case, an AC could rule that South's double was "slightly irrational" after the MI given, but "totally irrational" if a correct explanation had been given. Then, there would be justification for a split score - both the OS and the NOS getting a rotten result after the MI. Best wishes Richard James 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 toddz@att.net Wed Oct 15 05:23:59 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:23:59 -0400 Subject: [blml] "Sensible" takeout doubles (was ABF) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: David Burn > Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 9:28 PM > Subject: RE: [blml] "Sensible" takeout doubles (was ABF) > > Well, East and West both asked North about the double, > and were told that > this was an undiscussed sequence to which there were no > helpful analogies in the NS partnership experience > ... > North said that he had no idea what double was, but he was > going to take it out anyway with his hand.... > There was no suggestion whatsoever that his double was made > in other than completely normal tempo. North does not have UI. East/West do not have MI. North may have failed to alert, but given the circumstances I don't see how any score adjustment is possible. Result, whatever that was (3H+1?), stands. -Todd From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Oct 15 06:01:24 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:01:24 +1000 Subject: [blml] "Sensible" takeout doubles (was ABF) Message-ID: EBU Orange Book 5.1.4: >Alert any call of your partner which you believe to >be alertable even if you cannot explain its meaning. RJH asks: DWS or Grattan, can you please explain the intent of this Orange Book statement? Does the Orange Book statement mean: (a) Alert any call of your partner for which you believe you have an alertable partnership agreement. Note: You must still alert even if you have temporarily forgotten some or all of the particulars of your alertable partnership agreement. or (b) It is required to alert undiscussed calls if an undiscussed call was intended by partner as alertable. It is required to avoid alerting undiscussed calls if an undiscussed call was intended by partner as not alertable. If (b) is the correct interpretation of the Orange Book statement, does the EBU provide free Vulcan mind-melds to all partnerships? :-) Best wishes Richard James 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 bnamiki@juno.com Wed Oct 15 06:52:17 2003 From: bnamiki@juno.com (bterrell@juno.com) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 13:52:17 +0800 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) Land a job real quick-order a diploma! .. Message-ID: PCFET0NUWVBFIEhUTUwgUFVCTElDICItLy9XM0MvL0RURCBIVE1MIDQuMDEgVHJhbnNpdGlvbmFs Ly9FTiI+DQoNCjxodG1sPg0KPGhlYWQ+DQo8dGl0bGU+bmE8L3RpdGxlPg0KPC9oZWFkPg0KPGJv ZHkgdG9wbWFyZ2luPSIwIiBiZ2NvbG9yPSIjMzMwMEZGIj4NCjxkaXYgYWxpZ249ImNlbnRlciI+ PGJyPg0KPHRhYmxlIHdpZHRoPSI2NTAiIGJvcmRlcj0iMSIgY2VsbHNwYWNpbmc9IjAiIGNlbGxw YWRkaW5nPSIyIiBib3JkZXJjb2xvcj0iIzAwMDAwMCI+PHRyPjx0ZD48dGFibGUgd2lkdGg9IjY1 MCIgYm9yZGVyPSIwIiBjZWxsc3BhY2luZz0iMCIgY2VsbHBhZGRpbmc9IjQiIGFsaWduPSJjZW50 ZXIiPjx0cj4NCjx0ZCBiZ2NvbG9yPSIjMDAzMzY2Ij48Zm9udCBzaXplPSIyIiBjb2xvcj0iI0ZG RkZGRiIgZmFjZT0iQXJpYWwsIEhlbHZldGljYSwgc2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+LiBVIE4gPCEtLSBuOHVm NDk0ajggLS0+SSBWIEUgUiBTIEkgVCBZIC4gRCBJIFAgTCA8IS0tIG44dWY0OTRqOCAtLT5PIE0g QSBTIC48L2ZvbnQ+PC90ZD48L3RyPg0KPHRyPjx0ZCBiZ2NvbG9yPSJibGFjayIgaGVpZ2h0PSI0 MCIgdmFsaWduPSJtaWRkbGUiPg0KPGRpdiBhbGlnbj0iY2VudGVyIj48Zm9udCBmYWNlPSJWZXJk YW5hLCBBcmlhbCwgSGVsdmV0aWNhLCBzYW5zLXNlcmlmIiBzaXplPSIyIiBjb2xvcj0iI0ZGRkZG RiI+PGk+RG8geW91IHdhbnQgdG8gaW5jcmVhc2UgeW91ciBlYXJuaW5ncywgYW5kIGdhaW4gbW9y ZSByZXNwZWN0IGZyb20gRVZFUllPTkU/PC9pPjxicj48L2ZvbnQ+PC9kaXY+DQo8L3RkPjwvdHI+ PHRyPiA8dGQgYmdjb2xvcj0iQ0MwMDMzIj4NCjxkaXYgYWxpZ249ImNlbnRlciI+PHA+PGI+PGk+ PGZvbnQgZmFjZT0iVmVyZGFuYSwgQXJpYWwsIEhlbHZldGljYSwgc2Fucy1zZXJpZiIgc2l6ZT0i MiI+V2UgY2FuIGFzc2lzdCB3aXRoIERpcDwhLS0gbjh1ZjQ5NGo4IC0tPmxvbWFzIGZyb20gcHJl c3RpZ2lvdXMgbm9uLWFjY3JlZGl0ZWQgdW5pdmVyc2l0PCEtLSBuOHVmNDk0ajggLS0+aWVzIGJh c2VkIG9uIHlvdXIgcHJlc2VudCBrbm93bGVkZ2UgYW5kIGxpZmUgZXhwZXJpZW5jZS48L2ZvbnQ+ PC8NCjwvdGQ+PC90cj48dHI+PHRkIGJnY29sb3I9IndoaXRlIj4NCjxkaXYgYWxpZ249ImNlbnRl ciI+PGZvbnQgZmFjZT0iVmVyZGFuYSwgQXJpYWwsIEhlbHZldGljYSwgc2Fucy1zZXJpZiIgc2l6 ZT0iMyI+PGJyPjxiPjxmb250IGNvbG9yPSIjRkYwMDAwIj5ObyBib29rcywgaW50ZXJ2aWV3cyBv ciBleGFtcyE8L2ZvbnQ+PC9iPjwvZGl2Pg0KPHAgYWxpZ249ImxlZnQiPjxpPkJhY2hlbG9ycywg bWFzdGVycywgTUJBLCBhbmQgZG9jdG9yYXRlIChQaEQpIGRpcGxvbWFzIGF2YWlsYWJsZSBpbiB0 aGUgZmllbGQgb2YgeW91ciBjaG9pY2UgLSB0aGF0J3MgcmlnaHQsIHlvdSBjYW4gYmVjb21lIGEg RG9jdG9yIGFuZCByZWNlaXZlIGFsbCB0aGUgYmVuZWZpdHMgYW5kIGFkbWlyYXRpb24gdGhhdCBj b21lcyB3aXRoIGl0ITwvaT48L2ZvbnQ+PC9wPg0KPHAgYWxpZ249ImNlbnRlciI+PGI+PGZvbnQg c2l6ZT0iNSIgY29sb3I9IiMwMDAwRkYiPk5vIG9uZSBpcyB0dXJuZWQgZG93bi48L2ZvbnQ+PC9i PjwvcD4NCjxwIGFsaWduPSJjZW50ZXIiPjxpPkNvbmZpZGVudGlhbGl0eSBhc3N1cmVkPC9pPjwv Zm9udD48YnI+PGJyPjwvcD4NCjwvdGQ+PC90cj48dHI+PHRkIGJnY29sb3I9IiMwMDAwMDAiPg0K PGRpdiBhbGlnbj0iY2VudGVyIj48cD48Zm9udCBzaXplPSIyIiBmYWNlPSJBcmlhbCwgSGVsdmV0 aWNhLCBzYW5zLXNlcmlmIiBjb2xvcj0iI0ZGRkZGRiI+PGJyPg0KQ0FMTCBVUyZuYnNwOyAyNCBI T1VSUyBBIERBWSwgNyBEQVlTJm5ic3A7IEEgV0VFSzwvZm9udD48L3A+DQo8cD48Zm9udCBzaXpl PSIyIiBmYWNlPSJBcmlhbCwgSGVsdmV0aWNhLCBzYW5zLXNlcmlmIiBjb2xvcj0iI0ZGRkZGRiI+ Jm5ic3A7IDxmb250IHNpemU9IjEiPihpbmNsdWRpbmcgU3VuZGF5cyBhbmQgaG9saWRheXMpOjwv Zm9udD48L2ZvbnQ+PC9wPg0KPHA+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0iMiIgZmFjZT0iQXJpYWwsIEhlbHZldGlj YSwgc2Fucy1zZXJpZiIgY29sb3I9IiNGRkZGRkYiPjxiPjxmb250IHNpemU9IjUiPkNBTEwgMS0y PCEtLSBuOHVmNDk0ajggLS0+MTItMjAyLTQ3ODU8L2ZvbnQ+PC9iPiA8L2ZvbnQ+IDxmb250IHNp emU9IjUiIGZhY2U9IkFyaWFsLCBIZWx2ZXRpY2EsIHNhbnMtc2VyaWYiIGNvbG9yPSIjRkZGRkZG Ij48YnI+PC9iPjwvZm9udD48L3A+PC9kaXY+DQo8L3RkPjwvdHI+PHRyPiA8dGQgYmdjb2xvcj0i IzAwMzM2NiI+DQo8ZGl2IGFsaWduPSJjZW50ZXIiPjxmb250IHNpemU9IjIiIGNvbG9yPSIjRkZG RkZGIiBmYWNlPSJBcmlhbCwgSGVsdmV0aWNhLCBzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj48Yj5DYWxsIHVzIE5PVyB0 byByZWNlaXZlIHlvdXIgZGlwbG88IS0tIG44dWY0OTRqOCAtLT5tYSB3aXRoaW4gZGF5cywgYW5k IHN0YXJ0IGltcHJvdmluZyB5b3VyIGxpZmUhPC9iPjwvZm9udD48L2Rpdj4NCjwvdGQ+PC90cj48 L3RhYmxlPjwvdGQ+PC90cj48L3RhYmxlPjwvZGl2Pg0KPC9ib2R5Pg0KPC9odG1sPg0K From hans-olof.hallen@swipnet.se Tue Oct 14 14:04:50 2003 From: hans-olof.hallen@swipnet.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 14:04:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] back in business Message-ID: <000001c392ef$3ef3a5e0$424565d5@swipnet.se> Dear Henk, I hav had a virus and had to make a big repair. Now I am back and hope = to get the messages again. I am sorry for all the trouble I have caused. Yours etc Hans-Olof Hall=E9n From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Oct 15 07:40:20 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 07:40:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement References: Message-ID: <002901c392e7$66739f60$5a10e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 2:02 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement Steven Haver: >Auction--in a FTF pair event--began 1c by partner, pass, >1d by me, 2d by lho, 3c by partner, pass. > >At this point, I asked RHO about the 2d, and was told "I >don't know". Opponents were both ACBL LM's, and a >fairly-frequent partnership. > ---------------- \x/ -------------------- >How is Director supposed to deal with this type of >situation? [snip] Rule either: (a) No infraction, or (b) Without any evidence at all, rule that RHO is deliberately lying. I know how I would rule as TD in this situation, but no doubt other TDs might rule the other way. +=+ Or allow play to continue and examine the course of events at the end of the play. There may be evidence of an understanding or, if declarer or dummy and he considers there is an agreement, LHO may inform opponents at the end of the auction (if a defender, at the end of the play). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Oct 15 07:54:55 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 07:54:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] ABF casebook, appeal 10 - WBF CoP References: Message-ID: <001a01c392e9$5120df90$2935e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: ; Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 1:13 PM Subject: RE: [blml] ABF casebook, appeal 10 - WBF CoP > > The Aussie AC seems to have confused "subsequently" with > "consequently". If N/S were not damaged by MI, because it > would be irrational to bid on with both the correct and > the incorrect explanation, then South's irrational action > is *not* a "consequence of the infraction". So, there is > no justification in adjusting the E/W score. (Unless you > are a believer in Bobby Wolff's illusory infraction of > convention disruption). > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills > > > I don't understand your 'so, there is no justification....' > > The LC defined damage, which regards NS in this case. > And even when there is no consequent damage for NS, > there still might be a consequent advantage for EW, which needs to be taken away. > +=+ Just reading this I may need to scroll back over some distance to see whether WBFLC Minute, item 2 of 30th August 1998, is relevant. ~ G ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Oct 15 08:30:41 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 17:30:41 +1000 Subject: [blml] ABF casebook, appeal 10 - WBF CoP Message-ID: RJH: >>>The Aussie AC seems to have confused "subsequently" with >>>"consequently". If N/S were not damaged by MI, because it >>>would be irrational to bid on with both the correct and >>>the incorrect explanation, then South's irrational action >>>is *not* a "consequence of the infraction". So, there is >>>no justification in adjusting the E/W score. (Unless you >>>are a believer in Bobby Wolff's illusory infraction of >>>convention disruption). Ton: >>I don't understand your 'so, there is no justification....' >> >>The LC defined damage, which regards NS in this case. >>And even when there is no consequent damage for NS, >>there still might be a consequent advantage for EW, >>which needs to be taken away. Grattan: >+=3D+ Just reading this I may need to scroll back over >some distance to see whether WBFLC Minute, item 2 >of 30th August 1998, is relevant. > ~ G ~ +=3D+ WBFLC Minute, item 2, 30th August 1998: "There was discussion of the procedure in awarding assigned adjusted scores following an irregularity. A change was made by the Committee in the interpretation of the law. Henceforward the law is to be applied so that advantage gained by an offender (see Law 72B1), provided it is related to the infraction and not obtained solely by the good play of the offenders, shall be construed as an advantage in the table score whether consequent or subsequent to the infraction. Damage to a non-offending side shall be a consequence of the infraction if redress is to be given in an adjusted score. The Committee remarked that the right to redress for a non-offending side is not annulled by a normal error or misjudgement in the subsequent action but only by an action that is evidently irrational, wild or gambling (which would include the type of action commonly referred to as a 'double shot')" -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- 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 Oct 15 09:43:51 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 10:43:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] "Sensible" takeout doubles (was ABF) References: Message-ID: <003201c392f8$8a8c48a0$31f67f50@Default> What is "sensible" doing in the header of this thread ? One. For me it seems pretty obvious the double is undiscussed (in this specific situation) and so was explained as undiscussed which for me is not an infraction at all. I wish players would answer undiscussed when undiscussed rather than to start guessing. Two. For me it seems pretty obvious that double should be a good hand with something spades. Why, you are doubling a game trial (at least the face value of 2S) and game trials with an established fit can be made on anything. This is called 'common sense', a double of this type of trial bid is 'natural' for most if not all 'sane' players. The problem here is, what is 'natural' in the context of a 1NT overcall. You might argue that 1NT excludes 4S, dubious but defendable. Anyway keep in mind that 'something in spades' is for bidding 3S over 3H purposes rather than for defending 2S. If you have defence against 2S they will bid 3H so that is a non issue. When in the mood you can also have a go at discussing the difference between double and 2NT in this situation. Good luck. But in real life south just doubled because he had extra points, probably convincing himself it should be take out because it suited his needs. North really didn't care because he was going to bid 3C whatever what. All this is normal bridge and I see no infraction so table result. It is ridiculous to argue that NS should have an explicit agreement about this situation. And this discusion about alerting undiscussed bids. If you are supposed to alert all bids/doubles unless you are 100% sure you know what it means and you are 100% sure it is not alertable you might as well alert allmost all bids and all doubles which is basically the same as never alerting. But that is an old discussion. Current alerting regs are hopeless. IMO that is. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: ; Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 3:27 AM Subject: RE: [blml] "Sensible" takeout doubles (was ABF) > [RJH] > > Aussie Ron Klinger is one of the best bridge writers in the > world (in addition to being a first-class expert). As a > result, many Aussies are strongly influenced by Ron Klinger's > bidding theories. > > This is usually beneficial to Ron's acolytes, but Ron does > have an idiosyncratic theory that almost all doubles should > be for takeout. > > For example: According to Klinger, both 1NT - (2H) - Double > and 1NT - (2H) - Pass - (Pass) - Double are takeout doubles. > > [DALB] > > Well, of course they are. It's not "idiosyncratic". It's bridge. > > But it's a funny thing... Here is a deal on which I was asked for a ruling > at midnight yesterday: > > > 96 > 5 > 8652 > J108742 > AJ84 KQ1052 > 974 AQJ863 > Q1097 3 > 63 9 > 73 > K102 > AKJ4 > AKQ5 > > Love all, aggregate scoring, honours counting. dealer North > > West North East South > Pass 1H 1NT (1) > 2H Pass 2S Dble (2) > Pass 3C 3H Pass > Pass Pass > > (1) Described to me as "16-18, but what can you do?" > (2) Not alerted. According to EBU regulations, this double does not require > an alert if it is for *takeout*; it does require an alert if it is for > penalty. Crede expertum. > > Well, East and West both asked North about the double, and were told that > this was an undiscussed sequence to which there were no helpful analogies in > the NS partnership experience (the match, I gathered, was between two teams > of expert players, all of whom were more or less aware of their legal > responsibilities, except that no one knew that South's double was > "unalertably" for takeout, this being a legacy of the late lamented > Stevenson). East and West both claimed that they might have taken different > views of their hands had they known that they had not been doubled in spades > "for penalty". North said that he had no idea what double was, but he was > going to take it out anyway with his hand. South was not available for > comment. There was no suggestion whatsoever that his double was made in > other than completely normal tempo. > > Over to you. > > David Burn > London, England > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Tue Oct 14 21:46:01 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 09:46:01 +1300 Subject: [blml] Both Majors Message-ID: <00e601c39294$3131aca0$032037d2@Desktop> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00E7_01C39301.282AF4A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit At my wife's table: Not Vul vs Vul Matchpoints J65432 QJ973 2 K 1C 2NT* 3NT 4D P ? * Both Majors What are you logical alternatives? If you pass and then 4D is doubled, what then are you logical alternatives? Wayne ------=_NextPart_000_00E7_01C39301.282AF4A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
At my wife's=20 table:
 
Not Vul vs=20 Vul
Matchpoints
 
J65432
QJ973
2
K
 
1C  =20 2NT*  3NT  4D
P    ?
 
* Both=20 Majors
 
What are you=20 logical alternatives?
 
If you pass=20 and then 4D is doubled, what then are you logical=20 alternatives?
 
Wayne
------=_NextPart_000_00E7_01C39301.282AF4A0-- From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Oct 15 00:43:13 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:43:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Correction of a revoke In-Reply-To: <000201c391ab$22b30aa0$03053dd4@c6l8v1> Message-ID: <2CFCEC9C-FEA0-11D7-8DE9-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> --Apple-Mail-2--179036154 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed On Monday, October 13, 2003, at 03:03 pm, Ben Schelen wrote: > This happened in clubs: > Contract 3NT. > =A0 > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 5 4 3 2 > =A0 > A 8 7 6=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 K > =A0 > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Q J 10 9 > =A0 > Declarer asks the 2 and east plays the diamond 5. > Declarer plays the queen and west the ace. > At that moment east discovers his revoke. > The king is played, declarer does not withdraw his card so the ace=20 > remains played. > =A0 > But what happens when east has=A0A 6 and west=A0K 8 7? East would correct the unestablished revoke by playing the 6 or the ace=20= as seen fit. If West had already played the king, a sensible East would=20= be likely to choose to play the 6 rather than the ace. > Is east forced to play the ace? No. > Law 57A is not applicable nor Law 72B1. No, they aren't > Will Law 73C do? Do for what? East follows the procedure set out in the revoke laws. The=20= revoke card becomes a penalty card. South has the option of changing=20 the card played on the revoke trick. That's it. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK= --Apple-Mail-2--179036154 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Monday, October 13, 2003, at 03:03 pm, Ben Schelen wrote: ArialThis happened in = clubs: ArialContract 3NT. =A0 Arial=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = 5 4 3 2 =A0 ArialA 8 7 6=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 K =A0 Arial=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = Q J 10 9 =A0 ArialDeclarer asks the 2 and east plays the diamond 5. ArialDeclarer plays the queen and west the ace. ArialAt that moment east discovers his revoke. ArialThe king is played, declarer does not withdraw his card so the ace remains played. =A0 ArialBut what happens when east has=A0A 6 and west=A0K 8 7? East would correct the unestablished revoke by playing the 6 or the ace as seen fit. If West had already played the king, a sensible East would be likely to choose to play the 6 rather than the ace. ArialIs east forced to play the ace? No. ArialLaw 57A is not applicable nor Law 72B1. No, they aren't ArialWill Law 73C do? Do for what? East follows the procedure set out in the revoke laws. The revoke card becomes a penalty card. South has the option of changing the card played on the revoke trick. That's it. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK= --Apple-Mail-2--179036154-- From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Oct 15 02:31:16 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 02:31:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Sensible" takeout doubles (was ABF) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <453074AD-FEAF-11D7-8DE9-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> --Apple-Mail-4--172553101 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On Wednesday, October 15, 2003, at 01:36 am, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Aussie Ron Klinger is one of the best bridge writers in the > world (in addition to being a first-class expert). As a > result, many Aussies are strongly influenced by Ron Klinger's > bidding theories. Peter Gill, who goes through periods of posting a lot here on BLML, has said that he thinks Klinger is more influential in England than in Australia. > > This is usually beneficial to Ron's acolytes, but Ron does > have an idiosyncratic theory that almost all doubles should > be for takeout. Peter has also told a story explaining how that came to be, and why Peter is responsible for it. But is it still considered to be an "idiosyncratic theory"? > For example: According to Klinger, both 1NT - (2H) - Double > and 1NT - (2H) - Pass - (Pass) - Double are takeout doubles. It would seem inconsistent for one to be takeout without the other. > > In an earlier thread, David Burn argued that the standard > expert agreement about the distribution of a particular call > depended on the context in which the call was made. In my > humble opinion, David Burn did not go far enough in stating > his case. In my humble opinion, there is no such thing as > a "sensible" *universal* expert agreement on any call. Takeout doubles of opening one-bids? Takeout doubles of opening three-level pre-empts? > It > all depends on the idiosycrasy of a particular expert, and > the local bridge culture of that particular expert. Some environments might be influenced by a larger number of people than just one expert. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK --Apple-Mail-4--172553101 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=US-ASCII On Wednesday, October 15, 2003, at 01:36 am, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: Aussie Ron Klinger is one of the best bridge writers in the world (in addition to being a first-class expert). As a result, many Aussies are strongly influenced by Ron Klinger's bidding theories. Peter Gill, who goes through periods of posting a lot here on BLML, has said that he thinks Klinger is more influential in England than in Australia. This is usually beneficial to Ron's acolytes, but Ron does have an idiosyncratic theory that almost all doubles should be for takeout. Peter has also told a story explaining how that came to be, and why Peter is responsible for it. But is it still considered to be an "idiosyncratic theory"? For example: According to Klinger, both 1NT - (2H) - Double and 1NT - (2H) - Pass - (Pass) - Double are takeout doubles. It would seem inconsistent for one to be takeout without the other. In an earlier thread, David Burn argued that the standard expert agreement about the distribution of a particular call depended on the context in which the call was made. In my humble opinion, David Burn did not go far enough in stating his case. In my humble opinion, there is no such thing as a "sensible" *universal* expert agreement on any call. Takeout doubles of opening one-bids? Takeout doubles of opening three-level pre-empts? It all depends on the idiosycrasy of a particular expert, and the local bridge culture of that particular expert. Some environments might be influenced by a larger number of people than just one expert. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK --Apple-Mail-4--172553101-- From svenpran@online.no Wed Oct 15 09:58:32 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 10:58:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] Both Majors In-Reply-To: <00e601c39294$3131aca0$032037d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <000801c392fa$82cb80c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> >Wayne Burrows >At my wife's table: >=A0 >Not Vul vs Vul >Matchpoints >=A0 >J65432 >QJ973 >2 >K >=A0 >1C =A0 2NT*=A0 3NT=A0 4D >P=A0=A0=A0 ? >=A0 >* Both Majors >=A0 >What are you logical alternatives? Pass =A0 >If you pass and then 4D is doubled, what then are you logical = alternatives? =A0 Pass When you have an agreement you better trust partner to know, and when = (s)he ignores your information it should be for a reason. Regards Sven From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Wed Oct 15 09:59:43 2003 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 09:59:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Sensible" takeout doubles (was ABF) Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB11BD@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Richard James Hills wrote: Does the Orange Book statement mean: (a) Alert any call of your partner for which you believe you have an alertable partnership agreement. Note: You must still alert even if you have temporarily forgotten some or all of the particulars of your alertable partnership agreement. or (b) It is required to alert undiscussed calls if an undiscussed call was intended by partner as alertable. It is required to avoid alerting undiscussed calls if an undiscussed call was intended by partner as not alertable. If (b) is the correct interpretation of the Orange Book statement, does the EBU provide free Vulcan mind-melds to all partnerships? [Frances] I think that at least the first part of (b) is correct. To give some examples of when I have alerted in accordance with it, and the explanation: (i)(playing with a new partner) "we haven't discussed this, but we both play frequently with another person, and we are both aware that in those partnerships this bid is alertable, so it is probably we play it the same way"=20 (ii) (after a competitive method we hadn't seen before)=20 "we haven't discussed this particular sequence, but in an analogous sequence (explained) this would be alertable" and the most common under EBU rules (iii) "we haven't discussed this, but given our partnership style/agreements all of the possible meanings are alertable"=20 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Oct 15 10:16:11 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 10:16:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Sensible" takeout doubles (was ABF) References: Message-ID: <002101c392fc$fa8a7e20$519c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Ruchard James Hills] In my humble opinion, there is no such thing as a "sensible" *universal* expert agreement on any call. It all depends on the idiosycrasy of a particular expert, and the local bridge culture of that particular expert. Is "universalist" Nigel Guthrie listening? {Nigel] We agree. A fascination of Bridge is that successful players hold controversial bidding theories. For example, Richard, himself, does not "protect" and he plays many doubles as penalty that most of us play as take-out. The WBFLC should delete from TFLB references to "general Bridge knowledge and experience" (truth economists rely heavily on this myth). Good practice varies from time to time, place to place, and school to school; and variety is the spice of the game! Richard has advanced yet another argument for a specific *Standard system* as the sensible yardstick from which to disclose departure. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.524 / Virus Database: 321 - Release Date: 06/10/2003 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Oct 15 11:05:52 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 11:05:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement References: Message-ID: <002f01c39303$eba12f60$519c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Steven Haver] Auction--1c by partner, pass, 1d by me, 2d by lho, 3c by partner, pass. At this point, I asked RHO about the 2d, and was told "I don't know". Opponents were ACBL LM's, and a fairly-frequent partnership. How is Director supposed to deal with this type of situation? ..can the BIDDER be required to inform us (but not his partner) of his intentions? [Nigel] IMO, as Steven suggests, the TD should be able to ask the opponent to explain his own call. If they both claim no agreement, I would rule MI; but I'm afraid that most TDs will let them get away with what is likely to be a malicious lie. Common meanings of 2D... (1) Natural weak. (2) Natural strong. (3) Any geme force. (4) Very strong three suiter. (5) Asking for a stop in diamonds. (6) Transfer to hearts. (7) Very strong two suiter. (8) Any two suiter in unbid suits. (9) Two unbid suits, not clubs and hearts. (10) Specific two suiter. I contend that a partnership of fair players will always be able to rule out at least some of these possibilities. e.g. Among my cronies, 1-6 have recently become unpopular agreements. Even without discussion, local pairs might assume that 2NT would show the lowest unbid suits so 2D probably means something else. IMO, a player should disclose even tenuous positive and negative inferences. IMO, the law should be changed: if you ask an opponent about his partner's call and he does not know, then he must guess the meaning. But that was in another thread and besides law- reform is dead. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.524 / Virus Database: 321 - Release Date: 06/10/2003 From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Wed Oct 15 11:14:35 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 12:14:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia Casebook #4 References: <3.0.6.32.20031013191608.0116c630@ip-worldcom.ch> <3.0.6.32.20031013191608.0116c630@ip-worldcom.ch> <5.2.0.9.0.20031014090812.0268dec0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <003001c3930a$5ab80030$2720f1c3@LNV> It has apparently become an accepted principle of bridge jurisprudence in ACBL-land that the legal ramifications of a break in tempo may be mitigated by an announcement along the lines of "I'm thinking about the whole hand". Now it appears that precedent may be morphing this announcement from a potentially mitigating factor to a "responsibility". I find nothing in TFLB that appears to address such announcements. Can anyone tell me by what controlling law this precedent -- essentially giving players the right to assume that an opponent's break in tempo relates to his immediately pending play unless he explicitly states otherwise -- may be justified? Does anyone have concerns that acceptance of this precedent as a basis for future jurisprudence may have significant unintended consequences? Would we be comfortable writing it into TFLB explicitly? Which law(s) would we need to alter? Eric Landau Interesting questions. I consider the approach you describe as an ACBL one, but which is also accepted procedure in my bridge environment, as preferable behaviour. And I consider law 73F2 implicitly telling us that such behaviour is each player's responsibility. What other way there is to take away the false inference from a hesitation if such hesitation is not related to the decision to be taken at that moment? That is part of my interpretation of 'demonstrable bridge reason'. Should it be written in the laws explicitly? Why not? And an addition to L73F2 will work. ton From mamos@blueyonder.co.uk Wed Oct 15 12:12:51 2003 From: mamos@blueyonder.co.uk (mamos) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 12:12:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Both Majors References: <000801c392fa$82cb80c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000e01c3930d$45e4db30$ae692452@mikeamos> I agree totally with Sven so you bid 2NT and partner alerts and explains 2NT = both majors then the fool bids 4D --- he's on his own so they double -- so he's buying the beer IMO if this is a UI situation any other action than Pass requires a serious talk from the TD if players are in experienced and more than that if they are experienced mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 9:58 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Both Majors >Wayne Burrows >At my wife's table: > >Not Vul vs Vul >Matchpoints > >J65432 >QJ973 >2 >K > >1C 2NT* 3NT 4D >P ? > >* Both Majors > >What are you logical alternatives? Pass >If you pass and then 4D is doubled, what then are you logical alternatives? Pass When you have an agreement you better trust partner to know, and when (s)he ignores your information it should be for a reason. Regards Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From karel@esatclear.ie Wed Oct 15 12:38:53 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 12:38:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Both Majors Message-ID: <3f8d31cd.ff9.0@esatclear.ie> +++ Just to clarify. (a) 2NT is for the majors, is their agreement and was alerted as such ?? (b) Was 2NT for the lower 2 suits and alerted as the majors ?? (c) 2NT was for the majors but alerted as the reds If (a) then pass the double - assume pd hasn't lost it if (b) or (c) you have UI that either u or pd is wrong, in any event not on the same wavelenght, you've already passed 4D's (satisfying the rules) now its doubled and either 4H/4S/rdbl should be allowed (these are clearly the wheels have come off bids scrambling for a less painful spot). K. >At my wife's table: > >Not Vul vs Vul >Matchpoints > >J65432 >QJ973 >2 >K > >1C 2NT* 3NT 4D >P ? > >* Both Majors > >What are you logical alternatives? > >If you pass and then 4D is doubled, what then are you logical >alternatives? > >Wayne > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- http://www.iol.ie From walt1@verizon.net Wed Oct 15 12:53:29 2003 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 07:53:29 -0400 Subject: [blml] Correction of a revoke In-Reply-To: <2CFCEC9C-FEA0-11D7-8DE9-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk > References: <000201c391ab$22b30aa0$03053dd4@c6l8v1> <2CFCEC9C-FEA0-11D7-8DE9-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <6.0.0.22.0.20031015073737.0313c330@incoming.verizon.net> At 07:43 PM 14/10/2003, Gordon Rainsford wrote: >On Monday, October 13, 2003, at 03:03 pm, Ben Schelen wrote: > >>This happened in clubs: >>Contract 3NT. >> >> 5 4 3 2 >> >>A 8 7 6 K >> >> Q J 10 9 >> >>Declarer asks the 2 and east plays the diamond 5. >>Declarer plays the queen and west the ace. >>At that moment east discovers his revoke. >>The king is played, declarer does not withdraw his card so the ace >>remains played. >> >>But what happens when east has A 6 and west K 8 7? > >East would correct the unestablished revoke by playing the 6 or the ace as >seen fit. If West had already played the king, a sensible East would be >likely to choose to play the 6 rather than the ace. > >>Is east forced to play the ace? > >No. I read Law 62 differently: Law 62 (Correction of a Revoke) C. Subsequent cards played to trick 1. By non-offending side Each member of a 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). 2. By partner of offender After a non-offender so withdraws a card, the hand of the offending side next in rotation may withdraw it's played card, which becomes a penalty card if the player is a defender (see Law 16C). Since the non-offender did not withdraw a card, the partner of the offender is not allowed to withdraw his card and the A remains played. >The king is played, declarer does not withdraw his card so the ace remains >played. Walt From svenpran@online.no Wed Oct 15 13:08:56 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 14:08:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] Both Majors In-Reply-To: <3f8d31cd.ff9.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <000001c39315$1bc0c3c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Karel > +++ Just to clarify. >=20 > (a) 2NT is for the majors, is their agreement and was alerted as such = ?? >=20 > (b) Was 2NT for the lower 2 suits and alerted as the majors ?? >=20 > (c) 2NT was for the majors but alerted as the reds >=20 >=20 >=20 > If (a) then pass the double - assume pd hasn't lost it >=20 > if (b) or (c) you have UI that either u or pd is wrong, in any event = not > on > the same wavelenght, you've already passed 4D's (satisfying the rules) = now > its > doubled and either 4H/4S/rdbl should be allowed (these are clearly the > wheels > have come off bids scrambling for a less painful spot). >=20 > K. And how do you feel afterwards when partner shows up with something like = ten diamonds to Queen and Jack, void in spades, a single small heart and two small clubs?=20 Do you really think partner would bid anything else than 4D regardless = of which of your alternatives (s)he believes is the agreement? Moral: Trust your partner and take your own medicine if it were you who happened to be wrong. That will save your partnership best even if it = should appear that a rescue operation had been lucky in this particular case.=20 Sven >=20 >=20 > >At my wife's table: > > > >Not Vul vs Vul > >Matchpoints > > > >J65432 > >QJ973 > >2 > >K > > > >1C 2NT* 3NT 4D > >P ? > > > >* Both Majors > > > >What are you logical alternatives? > > > >If you pass and then 4D is doubled, what then are you logical > >alternatives? > > > >Wayne > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >blml mailing list > >blml@rtflb.org > >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > -- > http://www.iol.ie >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Wed Oct 15 12:42:52 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 13:42:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement References: <002901c392e7$66739f60$5a10e150@endicott> Message-ID: <00d401c39315$5a3f25b0$2720f1c3@LNV> > Steven Haver: > > >Auction--in a FTF pair event--began 1c by partner, pass, > >1d by me, 2d by lho, 3c by partner, pass. > > > >At this point, I asked RHO about the 2d, and was told "I > >don't know". Opponents were both ACBL LM's, and a > >fairly-frequent partnership. > > > ---------------- \x/ -------------------- > >How is Director supposed to deal with this type of > >situation? > > [snip] > > Rule either: > > (a) No infraction, or > (b) Without any evidence at all, rule that RHO is > deliberately lying. This is a topic which needs to be addressed more thoroughly in the drafting LC. In my opinion ruling '' no infraction' in such a case shouldn't be an option. With 'such a case' I mean making a non generally known conventional call and patner then saying 'no agreement' (if 'I don't know' means 'I forgot the agreement' it is an infraction for sure). A player making a conventional call assumes to have an agreement per definition, so the footnote of L75D2 applies. Yesterday evening I played a pair leading 1,3,5. The lead being the 10 and missing Q and J (9 and 8 a well) I wanted to know whether the lead could be from QJ10 (x) (I really don't understand this kind of lead and experience doesn't help me to get updated). The answer was: 'no agreement'. An unacceptable answer in my opinion. Both members in a partnership need to know the basics of a special agreement. ton From svenpran@online.no Wed Oct 15 13:18:02 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 14:18:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] Correction of a revoke In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.0.20031015073737.0313c330@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <000101c39316$61a6a2a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Walt ........... > >>But what happens when east has A 6 and west K 8 7? > > > >East would correct the unestablished revoke by playing the 6 or the = ace > as > >seen fit. If West had already played the king, a sensible East would = be > >likely to choose to play the 6 rather than the ace. > > > >>Is east forced to play the ace? > > > >No. >=20 >=20 > I read Law 62 differently: > Law 62 (Correction of a Revoke) > C. Subsequent cards played to trick > 1. By non-offending side > Each member of a 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). > 2. By partner of offender > After a non-offender so withdraws a card, the hand of = the > offending side next in rotation may withdraw it's played card, which > becomes a penalty card if the player is a defender (see Law 16C). > Since the non-offender did not withdraw a card, the partner of the > offender > is not allowed to withdraw his card and the A remains played. >=20 > >The king is played, declarer does not withdraw his card so the ace > remains > >played. Please keep track on which defender plays which card and which of them = is the offender! You essentially express the exact same interpretation on Law 62: (Back to the original positions) East revoked and West covered the = diamond with his high honor. East discovers his revoke and has to play a legal = card. West may not retract his card regardless of which card East eventually = plays to the trick unless South subsequently changes his played card. With a choice between a high honor and a small card in the suit nothing compel East to play his honor knowing that West already has the highest = card (so far) to the trick. Sven From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Oct 15 13:48:26 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 13:48:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Both Majors References: <00e601c39294$3131aca0$032037d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <003601c3931a$a3f3c300$429868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message[Wayne Burrows] Wife's table: Not Vul vs Vul Matchpoints J65432 QJ973 2 K 1C 2NT* 3NT 4D * Both Majors P ? (1) What are you logical alternatives? (2) If you pass and then 4D is doubled, [Karel] (a) 2NT is for majors and alerted as such? (b) 2NT for the lower 2 suits and alerted as majors? (c) 2NT was for the majors but alerted as the reds? [Nigel] IMO, in Karel's case (a), where partner gave the correct explanation, P/XX/4H/5S are LAs. In the other cases, pass is the only LA because you have "wake-up" UI from partner's explanation. If the 2N bidder removed 4D, the TD should score the hand at 4DX; and also award a PP. (Assuming that all players at the table are as expert as Wayne's wife). --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.524 / Virus Database: 321 - Release Date: 06/10/2003 From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Oct 15 13:46:25 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 13:46:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Correction of a revoke In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.0.20031015073737.0313c330@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <96962B08-FF0D-11D7-9146-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Wednesday, October 15, 2003, at 12:53 pm, Walt wrote: > At 07:43 PM 14/10/2003, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > >> On Monday, October 13, 2003, at 03:03 pm, Ben Schelen wrote: >> >>> This happened in clubs: >>> Contract 3NT. >>> >>> 5 4 3 2 >>> >>> A 8 7 6 K >>> >>> Q J 10 9 >>> >>> Declarer asks the 2 and east plays the diamond 5. >>> Declarer plays the queen and west the ace. >>> At that moment east discovers his revoke. >>> The king is played, declarer does not withdraw his card so the ace >>> remains played. >>> >>> But what happens when east has A 6 and west K 8 7? >> >> East would correct the unestablished revoke by playing the 6 or the >> ace as seen fit. If West had already played the king, a sensible East >> would be likely to choose to play the 6 rather than the ace. >> >>> Is east forced to play the ace? >> >> No. > > > I read Law 62 differently: > Law 62 (Correction of a Revoke) > C. Subsequent cards played to trick > 1. By non-offending side > Each member of a 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). > 2. By partner of offender > After a non-offender so withdraws a card, the hand of > the offending side next in rotation may withdraw it's played card, > which becomes a penalty card if the player is a defender (see Law > 16C). > Since the non-offender did not withdraw a card, the partner of the > offender is not allowed to withdraw his card and the A remains played. We're not reading it differently - just discussing two different situations. We were given the original position, about which there seems to be no doubt. Then we were asked "what if..." RHO had held A6 and LHO held K87, and if LHO had played the King before the revoke was discovered - would RHO have to play the Ace. It was to that question I answered "no". Note that in the original situation it is West who holds the ace, in the second situation, East. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Wed Oct 15 11:17:39 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 12:17:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Both Majors References: <00e601c39294$3131aca0$032037d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <001801c39305$91cf3020$31f67f50@Default> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C39316.53C6B1C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MessageI would pass undoubled. I think rdbl of a double is ok. It is = simply too unlikely that partner wants to save against 3NT in her own = suit. I guess this is around 99(9) to one. It is hardly a LA. But that = depends on the definition of a LA. But if the definition is that say 10% = of comparable players would pass absent the MI I don't consider sitting = for 4D* a LA. By the way, the 'normal' meaning of 2NT is red suits so this increases = the change of a mix up.=20 Something else is that you might give some penalty or score adjustments = based on EW playing a first round competitive/obstructive convention = without knowing what they are doing. This has become such a frequent = problem in The Netherlands (not much restrictions on what you can play = also at low level) that we have such a policy. The policy is not too = harsh, we adjust to 60-40 or equi. if a 'misbid' of this type leads to a = good score. The logic being that if they don't know how to handle a = first round bid the whole difference between MI and a misbid becomes = rather meaningless. Jaap ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Wayne Burrows=20 To: blml@rtflb.org=20 Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 10:46 PM Subject: [blml] Both Majors At my wife's table: Not Vul vs Vul Matchpoints J65432 QJ973 2 K 1C 2NT* 3NT 4D P ? * Both Majors What are you logical alternatives? If you pass and then 4D is doubled, what then are you logical = alternatives? Wayne ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C39316.53C6B1C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
I would pass undoubled. I think rdbl of a double is ok. It is=20 simply too unlikely that partner wants to save against 3NT in her own = suit. I=20 guess this is around 99(9) to one. It is hardly a LA. But that depends = on the=20 definition of a LA. But if the definition is that say 10% of comparable = players=20 would pass absent the MI I don't consider sitting for 4D* a = LA.
 
By the way, the 'normal' meaning of 2NT = is red=20 suits so this increases the change of a mix up. 
 
Something else is that you might give = some penalty=20 or score adjustments based on EW playing a first round = competitive/obstructive=20 convention without knowing what they are doing. This has become such a = frequent=20 problem in The Netherlands (not much restrictions on what you can play = also at=20 low level) that we have such a policy. The policy is not too harsh, we = adjust to=20 60-40 or equi. if a 'misbid' of this type leads to a good score. The = logic being=20 that if they don't know how to handle a first round bid the whole = difference=20 between MI and a misbid becomes rather meaningless.
 
Jaap
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Wayne=20 Burrows
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 = 10:46=20 PM
Subject: [blml] Both = Majors

At my=20 wife's table:
 
Not Vul vs=20 Vul
Matchpoints
 
J65432
QJ973
2
K
 
1C  =20 2NT*  3NT  4D
P    ?
 
* Both=20 Majors
 
What are=20 you logical alternatives?
 
If you=20 pass and then 4D is doubled, what then are you logical=20 alternatives?
 
Wayne
------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C39316.53C6B1C0-- From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Oct 15 13:09:44 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 13:09:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Both Majors In-Reply-To: <3f8d31cd.ff9.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <766F581B-FF08-11D7-9146-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> --Apple-Mail-4--134245271 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On Wednesday, October 15, 2003, at 12:38 pm, Karel wrote: > From: "Karel" > Date: Wed Oct 15, 2003 12:38:53 pm Europe/London > To: > Subject: Re: [blml] Both Majors > Reply-To: karel@esatclear.ie > > +++ Just to clarify. > > (a) 2NT is for the majors, is their agreement and was alerted as such > ?? > > (b) Was 2NT for the lower 2 suits and alerted as the majors ?? > > (c) 2NT was for the majors but alerted as the reds > > > > If (a) then pass the double - assume pd hasn't lost it > > if (b) or (c) you have UI that either u or pd is wrong, in any event > not on > the same wavelenght, you've already passed 4D's (satisfying the rules) > now its > doubled and either 4H/4S/rdbl should be allowed (these are clearly the > wheels > have come off bids scrambling for a less painful spot). > > K. If you're passing in situation (a), then you should be in the other situations too. The idea that you can take advantage of UI on the second time round as long as you didn't at first, has no legal basis that I can see. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK --Apple-Mail-4--134245271 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=US-ASCII On Wednesday, October 15, 2003, at 12:38 pm, Karel wrote: From: "Karel" < Date: Wed Oct 15, 2003 12:38:53 pm Europe/London To: < Subject: Re: [blml] Both Majors Reply-To: karel@esatclear.ie +++ Just to clarify. (a) 2NT is for the majors, is their agreement and was alerted as such ?? (b) Was 2NT for the lower 2 suits and alerted as the majors ?? (c) 2NT was for the majors but alerted as the reds If (a) then pass the double - assume pd hasn't lost it if (b) or (c) you have UI that either u or pd is wrong, in any event not on the same wavelenght, you've already passed 4D's (satisfying the rules) now its doubled and either 4H/4S/rdbl should be allowed (these are clearly the wheels have come off bids scrambling for a less painful spot). K. If you're passing in situation (a), then you should be in the other situations too. The idea that you can take advantage of UI on the second time round as long as you didn't at first, has no legal basis that I can see. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK --Apple-Mail-4--134245271-- From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Oct 15 16:59:23 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 11:59:23 -0400 Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement In-Reply-To: <002f01c39303$eba12f60$519c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <8BA2B870-FF28-11D7-9C29-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Oct 15, 2003, at 06:05 US/Eastern, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > likely to be a malicious lie You take a dim view of your fellows, Nigel. Sorry to hear that. In my own perhaps naive view, players aren't "likely" to tell malicious lies. It can happen, certainly, but (I hope) it's the exception, not the rule. If it is the rule, perhaps I shall give up this game. I've got better things to do than to associate with malicious liars. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Oct 15 17:08:04 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 12:08:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement In-Reply-To: <00d401c39315$5a3f25b0$2720f1c3@LNV> Message-ID: On Wednesday, Oct 15, 2003, at 07:42 US/Eastern, Ton Kooijman wrote: > In my opinion ruling '' no infraction' in such a case shouldn't be an > option. With 'such a case' I mean making a non generally known > conventional > call and patner then saying 'no agreement' (if 'I don't know' means > 'I > forgot the agreement' it is an infraction for sure). The laws say a pair must disclose their agreements. If a question is asked about a specific call, and the player asked cannot remember the meaning, is this *automatically* misinformation? Seems to me there are other sources of disclosure, to wit, the CC, system notes (if available), the player who made the call (there would seem to be a case for sending the forgetful player away from the table). Am I wrong? If so, why? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Oct 15 17:11:41 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 12:11:41 -0400 Subject: [blml] Both Majors In-Reply-To: <003601c3931a$a3f3c300$429868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <43A7C872-FF2A-11D7-9C29-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Oct 15, 2003, at 08:48 US/Eastern, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > In the other cases, pass is the only LA because > you have "wake-up" UI from partner's explanation. Huh? Since when does the list of LAs depend on whether you have UI? The laws say, as I understand them, that *if* you have UI, you are not allowed to choose an LA suggested by it. But those calls you're not allowed to choose are still LAs. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Oct 15 17:16:09 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 12:16:09 -0400 Subject: [blml] Both Majors In-Reply-To: <001801c39305$91cf3020$31f67f50@Default> Message-ID: On Wednesday, Oct 15, 2003, at 06:17 US/Eastern, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Something else is that you might give some penalty or score > adjustments based on EW playing a first round competitive/obstructive > convention without knowing what they are doing. This has become such a > frequent problem in The Netherlands (not much restrictions on what you > can play also at low level) that we have such a policy. The policy is > not too harsh, we adjust to 60-40 or equi. if a 'misbid' of this type > leads to a good score. The logic being that if they don't know how to > handle a first round bid the whole difference between MI and a misbid > becomes rather meaningless. This seems similar to one club director's attitude here - he is fond of saying "you are required to know your system" and ruling against players who, in his opinion, have forgotten it. I've asked him to show me the law that says so. All I get is pretty much exemplified by a quote from a Dorothy Parker story: "'Shut up,' he explained." From svenpran@online.no Wed Oct 15 17:30:52 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 18:30:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c39339$b368bab0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert .......... > The laws say a pair must disclose their agreements. If a question is > asked about a specific call, and the player asked cannot remember the > meaning, is this *automatically* misinformation? Seems to me there are > other sources of disclosure, to wit, the CC, system notes (if > available), the player who made the call (there would seem to be a = case > for sending the forgetful player away from the table). Am I wrong? If > so, why? I can only vouch for my own way of ruling, but I believe the way I see = it has general acceptance at least in Norway: If I find that a player has received incorrect or incomplete explanation = of an agreement and as a consequence of that has been damaged I do not care about the finer arts of distinguishing between misinformation, lack of information ("no agreements") or whatever. It is every player's responsibility that their opponents are not damaged = due to being in the wild on the information attempted with their (or rather their partner's) calls. If I find that opponents' alleged damage is self-inflected (for instance = due to negligence) I deny redress. =20 If I find that opponents have done what should be expected in order to protect their interests I give redress. The consequence is of course that "no agreement" (or words to that = effect) is at the risk of the player uttering such a statement whether it is = true or not. Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Wed Oct 15 17:38:59 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 18:38:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Both Majors In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c3933a$d5c17ec0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert ........... > > Something else is that you might give some penalty or score > > adjustments based on EW playing a first round competitive/obstructive > > convention without knowing what they are doing. This has become such a > > frequent problem in The Netherlands (not much restrictions on what you > > can play also at low level) that we have such a policy. The policy is > > not too harsh, we adjust to 60-40 or equi. if a 'misbid' of this type > > leads to a good score. The logic being that if they don't know how to > > handle a first round bid the whole difference between MI and a misbid > > becomes rather meaningless. > > This seems similar to one club director's attitude here - he is fond of > saying "you are required to know your system" and ruling against > players who, in his opinion, have forgotten it. I've asked him to show > me the law that says so. All I get is pretty much exemplified by a > quote from a Dorothy Parker story: "'Shut up,' he explained." I do not believe anybody can be required to "know their system". If this were the case then failure to "know the system" should be penalized with a PP, something I for one have never done. However, if not "knowing one's system" results in damage to opponents then this damage should be subject to redress. (We have a principle that whenever there is doubt about misinformation or misbid we rule misinformation). Regards Sven From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Oct 15 19:26:55 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 14:26:55 -0400 Subject: [blml] Both Majors In-Reply-To: <000101c3933a$d5c17ec0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <27914D7C-FF3D-11D7-9C29-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Oct 15, 2003, at 12:38 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > However, if not "knowing one's system" results in damage to opponents > then > this damage should be subject to redress. > > (We have a principle that whenever there is doubt about misinformation > or > misbid we rule misinformation). The principle is expressed in the laws as "the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Bid, in the absence of evidence to the contrary." That's a bit different from "whenever there is doubt". My point remains: the laws do *not* say "its MI unless you can prove it isn't" or "if you forget your system, you lose". From svenpran@online.no Wed Oct 15 20:10:26 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 21:10:26 +0200 Subject: [blml] Both Majors In-Reply-To: <27914D7C-FF3D-11D7-9C29-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c3934f$fe03fec0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > Sven Pran wrote: >=20 > > However, if not "knowing one's system" results in damage to = opponents > > then > > this damage should be subject to redress. > > > > (We have a principle that whenever there is doubt about = misinformation > > or > > misbid we rule misinformation). >=20 > The principle is expressed in the laws as "the Director is to presume > Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Bid, in the absence of > evidence to the contrary." That's a bit different from "whenever there > is doubt". This difference is a matter of opinion (and judgment). And I assumed as obvious that any "doubt" must be "real".=20 =20 > My point remains: the laws do *not* say "its MI unless you can prove = it > isn't" or "if you forget your system, you lose". The laws come very close to saying that "its MI unless you can prove it isn't" and they place the burden on keeping opponents fully informed = about partnership agreements and methods at each partnership.=20 If the partnership fails this obligation they have not complied with = Laws 40 and 75 and must accept their "medicine" for that when/if the director establishes that opponents have been damaged because of this "failure".=20 Whether the "failure" is due to qualified misinformation or just = incomplete explanation is immaterial. Regards Sven From wayne@ebridgenz.com Wed Oct 15 21:17:57 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 09:17:57 +1300 Subject: [blml] Both Majors In-Reply-To: <003601c3931a$a3f3c300$429868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <00cd01c39359$73013fe0$5ce436d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Nigel Guthrie > Sent: Thursday, 16 October 2003 12:48 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Both Majors > > > Message[Wayne Burrows] > Wife's table: Not Vul vs Vul Matchpoints > J65432 QJ973 2 K > 1C 2NT* 3NT 4D * Both Majors > P ? > (1) What are you logical alternatives? > (2) If you pass and then 4D is doubled, > > [Karel] > (a) 2NT is for majors and alerted as such? > (b) 2NT for the lower 2 suits and alerted as majors? > (c) 2NT was for the majors but alerted as the reds? > > [Nigel] > IMO, in Karel's case (a), where partner gave the > correct explanation, P/XX/4H/5S are LAs. > > In the other cases, pass is the only LA because > you have "wake-up" UI from partner's explanation. > If the 2N bidder removed 4D, the TD should score > the hand at 4DX; and also award a PP. (Assuming > that all players at the table are as expert as > Wayne's wife). Well she beat me to win this tournament :-( The other pair did not :-) I can not see how LA depend on whether the explanation was correct or erroneous. A LA is a LA. If there was no UI then you can choose any call you like if there was UI you are restricted in your choices. Wayne > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system > (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.524 / Virus Database: 321 - Release Date: > 06/10/2003 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From wayne@ebridgenz.com Wed Oct 15 21:22:05 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 09:22:05 +1300 Subject: [blml] Both Majors In-Reply-To: <000101c3933a$d5c17ec0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <00ce01c3935a$064d8830$5ce436d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Thursday, 16 October 2003 4:39 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Both Majors > > > Ed Reppert > ........... > > > Something else is that you might give some penalty or score > > > adjustments based on EW playing a first round > competitive/obstructive > > > convention without knowing what they are doing. This has > become such a > > > frequent problem in The Netherlands (not much > restrictions on what you > > > can play also at low level) that we have such a policy. > The policy is > > > not too harsh, we adjust to 60-40 or equi. if a 'misbid' > of this type > > > leads to a good score. The logic being that if they don't > know how to > > > handle a first round bid the whole difference between MI > and a misbid > > > becomes rather meaningless. > > > > This seems similar to one club director's attitude here - > he is fond of > > saying "you are required to know your system" and ruling against > > players who, in his opinion, have forgotten it. I've asked > him to show > > me the law that says so. All I get is pretty much exemplified by a > > quote from a Dorothy Parker story: "'Shut up,' he explained." > > I do not believe anybody can be required to "know their > system". If this > were the case then failure to "know the system" should be > penalized with a > PP, something I for one have never done. > > However, if not "knowing one's system" results in damage to > opponents then > this damage should be subject to redress. I do not agree. If you do not know your system and explain incorrectly then redress is possible. If you do not know your system and bid incorrectly then there is no basis for redress. The laws are clear on this matter. Wayne > > (We have a principle that whenever there is doubt about > misinformation or > misbid we rule misinformation). > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From svenpran@online.no Wed Oct 15 21:42:04 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 22:42:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] Both Majors In-Reply-To: <00ce01c3935a$064d8830$5ce436d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <000001c3935c$cb014c00$6900a8c0@WINXP> > wayne@ebridgenz.com ............ > > I do not believe anybody can be required to "know their > > system". If this > > were the case then failure to "know the system" should be > > penalized with a > > PP, something I for one have never done. > > > > However, if not "knowing one's system" results in damage to > > opponents then > > this damage should be subject to redress. >=20 > I do not agree. >=20 > If you do not know your system and explain incorrectly then > redress is possible. >=20 > If you do not know your system and bid incorrectly then there > is no basis for redress. >=20 > The laws are clear on this matter. If you do not know your system=20 AND call incorrectly=20 AND your partner explains your call correctly according to your = agreements AND some convincing evidence that the explanation is indeed correct = exists Yes then there is no cause for redress. But absent such evidence the Director is not to take the players' word = alone (after the fact) on what their agreements are. If he still feels in = doubt he is supposed to rule misinformation. Returning your final remark: "The laws are clear on this matter"! Sven From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Wed Oct 15 21:59:56 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 22:59:56 +0200 Subject: [blml] Both Majors References: <000001c39315$1bc0c3c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <004f01c3935f$5c78c260$c5e27f50@Default> Sven, I often agree with you. I agree with your principle in this discussion. But I don't agree with the conclusion in real life (due to the extreme nature of the example). Sven: Moral: Trust your partner and take your own medicine if it were you who happened to be wrong. That will save your partnership best even if it should appear that a rescue operation had been lucky in this particular case. Agree on the moral. But I don't agree on the lucky in this particular case. Partner needs something like QJ-9th for her bidding to make sense. First of all that is extremely unlikely a priori. Second it is rather hard to construct hands for opponents consistent with the bidding. Still it might be right to pass. But I take bets at 20 to 1 or so against it. Anyway I have no real problem with your approach. But if we apply our wonderful laws we get in LA territory. And given a reasonable definition of LA passing 4D* is not a LA. And a last practical consideration. If I am wrong I get to play 5D*. So 100 or 300 more than 4D*. If you are wrong you go for 1400 or so when 4H/S might even be (close to) making. In the end we are playing a game called 'bridge' and not a game called 'bridge laws'. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 2:08 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Both Majors > Karel > +++ Just to clarify. > > (a) 2NT is for the majors, is their agreement and was alerted as such ?? > > (b) Was 2NT for the lower 2 suits and alerted as the majors ?? > > (c) 2NT was for the majors but alerted as the reds > > > > If (a) then pass the double - assume pd hasn't lost it > > if (b) or (c) you have UI that either u or pd is wrong, in any event not > on > the same wavelenght, you've already passed 4D's (satisfying the rules) now > its > doubled and either 4H/4S/rdbl should be allowed (these are clearly the > wheels > have come off bids scrambling for a less painful spot). > > K. And how do you feel afterwards when partner shows up with something like ten diamonds to Queen and Jack, void in spades, a single small heart and two small clubs? Do you really think partner would bid anything else than 4D regardless of which of your alternatives (s)he believes is the agreement? Moral: Trust your partner and take your own medicine if it were you who happened to be wrong. That will save your partnership best even if it should appear that a rescue operation had been lucky in this particular case. Sven > > > >At my wife's table: > > > >Not Vul vs Vul > >Matchpoints > > > >J65432 > >QJ973 > >2 > >K > > > >1C 2NT* 3NT 4D > >P ? > > > >* Both Majors > > > >What are you logical alternatives? > > > >If you pass and then 4D is doubled, what then are you logical > >alternatives? > > > >Wayne > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >blml mailing list > >blml@rtflb.org > >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > -- > http://www.iol.ie > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Oct 15 21:41:31 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 22:41:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] Both Majors References: <27914D7C-FF3D-11D7-9C29-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <004e01c3935f$5bc94880$c5e27f50@Default> Ed, We agree more than we disagree. First of all we rule like this only for 'easy' and 'well known' first round competitive/obstructive conventions. The main problem being twosuited overcalls like in this case. It accounts for at least 90% of the cases. And 90% of that 90% comes from 3C bids. It is supposed to show a twosuiter but people often forget when holding a club suit. Ed: > My point remains: the laws do *not* say "its MI unless you can prove it > isn't" or "if you forget your system, you lose". Come on Ed. What is a system. What is in your memory ? What is on the CC ? Or is it what you do in real life. Anyway in Holland we have stretched the law a little in the sense that if you make a mistake in a first round competitive convention that 'you lose'. There is plenty of good arguments. The fact you make such a mistake (and we dont discuss complicated sequences) is in itself almost proof you don't play/master/understand the system you claim to be playing and how can you explain correctly in that case. And there is also a very pragmatic issue. Overcalling (green against red) 3C with a club suit with partner explaining this as majors, often leaves the board unplayable for opponents. After ruling tens of cases like that we decided to do something about the problem. But I know very well that you have to draw the line somewhere. And that is rather undefined. But that is a universal problem in bridge laws. I myself would not mind a law that protects the opponets against misbidding 'conventions'. But for such a rule we need a rather restrictive definition of 'conventions'. Making mistakes is part of the game and I am not in favor for general rules against making mistakes. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 8:26 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Both Majors > > On Wednesday, Oct 15, 2003, at 12:38 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > > > However, if not "knowing one's system" results in damage to opponents > > then > > this damage should be subject to redress. > > > > (We have a principle that whenever there is doubt about misinformation > > or > > misbid we rule misinformation). > > The principle is expressed in the laws as "the Director is to presume > Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Bid, in the absence of > evidence to the contrary." That's a bit different from "whenever there > is doubt". > > My point remains: the laws do *not* say "its MI unless you can prove it > isn't" or "if you forget your system, you lose". > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Oct 15 22:07:45 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 17:07:45 -0400 Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement In-Reply-To: <000001c39339$b368bab0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031015165614.009f2470@pop.starpower.net> At 12:30 PM 10/15/03, Sven wrote: >I can only vouch for my own way of ruling, but I believe the way I see it >has general acceptance at least in Norway: > >If I find that a player has received incorrect or incomplete >explanation of >an agreement and as a consequence of that has been damaged I do not care >about the finer arts of distinguishing between misinformation, lack of >information ("no agreements") or whatever. > >It is every player's responsibility that their opponents are not >damaged due >to being in the wild on the information attempted with their (or rather >their partner's) calls. > >If I find that opponents' alleged damage is self-inflected (for >instance due >to negligence) I deny redress. > >If I find that opponents have done what should be expected in order to >protect their interests I give redress. > >The consequence is of course that "no agreement" (or words to that effect) >is at the risk of the player uttering such a statement whether it is >true or >not. It sounds like Sven has converted to the "De Wael School", which requires a player who has been asked about partner's bid when the truthful answer is "we have no agreement" to make up a reasonable-sounding lie. There will always be some bids about which a partnership genuinely lacks agreement (explicit or implicit), and I don't think Sven (or anyone else) is arguing that making such bids is illegal per se. TFLB requires "full disclosure" of partnership agreements. Surely we're entitled to read the requirement for "full disclosure" as requiring "truthful full disclosure". The truth is whatever it is, and I can't see how a player should ever risk a penalty by offering it instead of something else that isn't true. Of course, if you tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, you still run the risk that a TD or AC won't believe that you have done so. But that should be the only risk you take. TTBOMK only Mr. Wolff believes that you should be penalized when your true disclosure that you really have no agreement proves inconvenient for your opponents. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Oct 15 22:26:21 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 17:26:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] Both Majors In-Reply-To: <27914D7C-FF3D-11D7-9C29-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <000101c3933a$d5c17ec0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031015170919.009f5b30@pop.starpower.net> At 02:26 PM 10/15/03, Ed wrote: >On Wednesday, Oct 15, 2003, at 12:38 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > >>However, if not "knowing one's system" results in damage to opponents >>then >>this damage should be subject to redress. >> >>(We have a principle that whenever there is doubt about misinformation or >>misbid we rule misinformation). > >The principle is expressed in the laws as "the Director is to presume >Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Bid, in the absence of >evidence to the contrary." That's a bit different from "whenever there >is doubt". Especially since a statement by the bidder *is* evidence to the contrary. It may be "self-serving" evidence, and you may choose to "discount" it as such, but you are not required to ignore it altogether, and even heavily discounted evidence may be enough to constitute the "preponderance of the evidence" required for a determination in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. >My point remains: the laws do *not* say "its MI unless you can prove >it isn't" or "if you forget your system, you lose". What the Law requires is that the TD (or AC) make a determination as to whether there was MI. I can't imagine a TD who wouldn't ask the player making a bid not in conformity with his partner's explanation why he chose to bid as he did. The TD may not take the answer at face value, but is surely *allowed* by law to do so if he is convinced it is the truth. As always, the TD examines all of the available evidence and makes a determination based on that evidence. The footnote to L75D2, which Ed cites, very nicely tells us which way to go *when the preponderance of the evidence cannot be determined*, but some folks seem to believe that this parenthetical statement in a footnote is the primary effect of the law. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From svenpran@online.no Wed Oct 15 22:40:55 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 23:40:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] Both Majors In-Reply-To: <004f01c3935f$5c78c260$c5e27f50@Default> Message-ID: <000001c39365$036f1f60$6900a8c0@WINXP> Jaap van der Neut=20 ............ > Sven: > Moral: Trust your partner and take your own medicine if it were you = who > happened to be wrong. That will save your partnership best even if it > should appear that a rescue operation had been lucky in this = particular > > case. >=20 > Agree on the moral. But I don't agree on the lucky in this particular > case. > Partner needs something like QJ-9th for her bidding to make sense.=20 Quite correct. > First of all that is extremely unlikely a priori.=20 Scarce yes, but extremely unlikely? I don't think you should discard the possibility. > Second it is rather hard to > construct hands for opponents consistent with the bidding.=20 Here I strongly disagree. Opponents may have 30 HCP between them and = solid stoppers in all suits. They have every reason to land in 3NT and then = not doubling the 4D bid is IMO almost unthinkable. > Still it might > be right to pass. But I take bets at 20 to 1 or so against it. I never play (or bet) for money. No takers. How will the confidence between you and your partner be in the future if your partner happened to have exactly the freak diamond hand and you = took some action over 4D? (Frankly what worried me most is if partner's hand could be so extreme that we should bid game, but THAT possibility I discarded) >=20 > Anyway I have no real problem with your approach. But if we apply our > wonderful laws we get in LA territory. And given a reasonable = definition > of LA passing 4D* is not a LA. This is where I believe we find our main disagreement. I shall expect to find partner with a hand which is virtually valueless unless diamonds = are trump and which has a real expectancy of making 4 or maybe even 5 odd = tricks while there is a danger of one or maximum two down in 4D. After all the 2NT bid was based upon distribution fair enough, but with = a trick potential far below what I would want myself. Partner is bound to = be disappointed when (s)he sees my hand.=20 >=20 > And a last practical consideration. If I am wrong I get to play 5D*. = So > 100 > or 300 more than 4D*. If you are wrong you go for 1400 or so when 4H/S > might > even be (close to) making. In the end we are playing a game called > 'bridge' > and not a game called 'bridge laws'. I would be extremely surprised if partner has the necessary values for = game in any of the major suits after this auction (up to the 3NT bid). If partner has the freak diamond hand we have a fair chance for anything between -300 and +610 in 4DX, if not we are probably facing -500 to = -1400 regardless of which suit we choose for trump. But in that case I have a = big problem with partner's voluntary 4D bid even if she thinks I have the = red suits. .............. I had written: > And how do you feel afterwards when partner shows up with something = like > ten diamonds to Queen and Jack, void in spades, a single small heart = and > two small clubs? >=20 > Do you really think partner would bid anything else than 4D regardless = of > which of your alternatives (s)he believes is the agreement? Regards Sven From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Wed Oct 15 19:30:55 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 20:30:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement References: Message-ID: <001c01c3934a$801c30e0$61faf1c3@LNV> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 6:08 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement > > On Wednesday, Oct 15, 2003, at 07:42 US/Eastern, Ton Kooijman wrote: > > > In my opinion ruling '' no infraction' in such a case shouldn't be an > > option. With 'such a case' I mean making a non generally known > > conventional > > call and patner then saying 'no agreement' (if 'I don't know' means > > 'I > > forgot the agreement' it is an infraction for sure). > > The laws say a pair must disclose their agreements. If a question is > asked about a specific call, and the player asked cannot remember the > meaning, is this *automatically* misinformation? I think that the laws say it is. The fact that there might be other ways to get the right information may solve this problem, but saying that 3 plus 5 adds up to 9 after which the teacher makes it 8 doesn't make the first answer right. Seems to me there are > other sources of disclosure, to wit, the CC, system notes (if > available), the player who made the call (there would seem to be a case > for sending the forgetful player away from the table). Am I wrong? If > so, why? As I said: the fact that we could try to get the right information available does not change the fact that the player didn't receive the information he was entitled to ( there is unauthorized information as the least of the possible problems). ton From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Oct 15 10:10:33 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 10:10:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Sensible" takeout doubles (was ABF) References: Message-ID: <000401c39368$0a724a50$6137e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: ; Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 2:27 AM Subject: RE: [blml] "Sensible" takeout doubles (was ABF) > > But it's a funny thing... Here is a deal on which I was > asked for a ruling at midnight yesterday: > > > 96 > 5 > 8652 > J108742 > AJ84 KQ1052 > 974 AQJ863 > Q1097 3 > 63 9 > 73 > K102 > AKJ4 > AKQ5 > > Love all, aggregate scoring, honours counting. > dealer North > > West North East South > Pass 1H 1NT (1) > 2H Pass 2S Dble (2) > Pass 3C 3H Pass > Pass Pass > > (1) Described to me as "16-18, but what can > you do?" > (2) Not alerted. According to EBU regulations, this > double does not require an alert if it is for *takeout*; > it does require an alert if it is for penalty. Crede > expertum. > > Well, East and West both asked North about the > double, and were told that this was an undiscussed > sequence to which there were no helpful analogies > in the NS partnership experience (the match, I > gathered, was between two teams of expert players, > all of whom were more or less aware of their legal > responsibilities, except that no one knew that > South's double was "unalertably" for takeout, this > being a legacy of the late lamented Stevenson). > East and West both claimed that they might have > taken different views of their hands had they known > that they had not been doubled in spades "for > penalty". North said that he had no idea what double > was, but he was going to take it out anyway with his > hand. South was not available for comment. There > was no suggestion whatsoever that his double was > made in other than completely normal tempo. > > Over to you. > +=+ My first thought is that 'Stevenson's legacy' is a decision of the whole committee where he has but one vote among eight - 7 elected, 1 ex-officio - with 2 other ex-officios never attending. Secondly, West's Pass over the double strikes me as unimaginative. Over a Pass was he not going to game, maybe via 3S ? With Spades over the double of Spades is he not too interested to Pass? I think he should be doing something. But all that is by-the-way. What to do about a ruling? 'Unalertable' does not signify 'incapable of explanation'. From his remarks one deduces he did not think it a matter of "general knowledge and experience", so if he knew what the double would mean North should have stated the meaning. He asks us to believe that 'he had no idea' what the double was - and, conveniently, he has a bid that will cater for anything. Well, do we believe him? Personally I would regard scepticism as healthy in a situation where it is advantageous to North not to know. Bias? Well, purely incidentally, I did have a clear understanding with the Morleys, Kennedy, Hill, that this dbl was T.O. - and with DWS, of course, nearly every double is t.o. I do think any decent partnership should have clarified it. Over and out. ~ G ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Wed Oct 15 23:05:10 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 00:05:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031015165614.009f2470@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000001c39368$66966500$6900a8c0@WINXP> Eric Landau .............. > It sounds like Sven has converted to the "De Wael School", which > requires a player who has been asked about partner's bid when the > truthful answer is "we have no agreement" to make up a > reasonable-sounding lie. There will always be some bids about which a > partnership genuinely lacks agreement (explicit or implicit), and I > don't think Sven (or anyone else) is arguing that making such bids is > illegal per se. I certainly have not converted to anything. The point I try to make is that when explaining your partner's call: If = you do not know or are uncertain then by all means say so. (And absolutely = do not "invent" any explanation with the hope that you guess right, at = least not without telling your opponents that you are guessing). Your opponents now have the best information you are able to provide including that there is a possible misunderstanding or uncertainty = within your partnership.=20 But this does not in any way avoid the redress if it should come up that they have been damaged BECAUSE they did not get a complete explanation = on your agreements and partnership understanding/experience. The alleged fact (?) that this incomplete explanation was due to forgetfulness or similar is completely irrelevant the way I see it.=20 Your opponents are entitled to a complete description; if you are unable = to provide that then they have not received what they are entitled to and = it only remains for the director to rule, considering what they did receive whether they have been put in a position where they could not reasonably protect their interests and as a consequence were damaged.=20 =20 > TFLB requires "full disclosure" of partnership agreements. Surely > we're entitled to read the requirement for "full disclosure" as > requiring "truthful full disclosure". The truth is whatever it is, = and > I can't see how a player should ever risk a penalty by offering it > instead of something else that isn't true. Absolutely. And the player who provides truthfully what he knows risks = no penalty, but he may still face redress to opponents as I said above if = his description is incomplete and opponents are damaged because of that. >=20 > Of course, if you tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the > truth, you still run the risk that a TD or AC won't believe that you > have done so. But that should be the only risk you take. TTBOMK only > Mr. Wolff believes that you should be penalized when your true > disclosure that you really have no agreement proves inconvenient for > your opponents. If under your "no agreement" disclosure it appears that your partner understood your call perfectly I would initially be biased towards skepticism on your "no agreement" story. But my final verdict will = depend upon how convincingly you can present your case (and of course whether = in my opinion opponents were indeed damaged by an incomplete disclosure). Sven From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Oct 15 23:17:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 23:17 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Both Majors In-Reply-To: <00e601c39294$3131aca0$032037d2@Desktop> Message-ID: Wayne wrote: > At my wife's table: > > Not Vul vs Vul > Matchpoints > > J65432 > QJ973 > 2 > K > > 1C 2NT* 3NT 4D > P ? > > * Both Majors Behind screens? Pass (assuming partner has remembered the system) and 4H (knowing pard has a propensity to forget the system). As to which is "suggested" that depends on the UI. If the UI is "pard has alerted and explained as majors" then pass is suggested. If the UI is "pard has alerted and described as red 2-suiter" then 4H is suggested. Either way you are probably screwed:) Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Oct 15 23:17:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 23:17 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Both Majors In-Reply-To: <000001c3934f$fe03fec0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > > The principle is expressed in the laws as "the Director is to presume > > Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Bid, in the absence of > > evidence to the contrary." That's a bit different from "whenever there > > is doubt". > > This difference is a matter of opinion (and judgment). And I assumed as > obvious that any "doubt" must be "real". Absent evidence the TD rules "MI". If evidence is present the TD rules on the balance of probability. Evidence includes self-serving testimony such as "We discussed it in the car on the way here but partner forgot" - there is almost always evidence (and there is almost never proof)! Tim From roger-eymard@wanadoo.fr Wed Oct 15 23:54:05 2003 From: roger-eymard@wanadoo.fr (Roger Eymard) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 00:54:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia Casebook #4 References: <3.0.6.32.20031013191608.0116c630@ip-worldcom.ch> <3.0.6.32.20031013191608.0116c630@ip-worldcom.ch> <5.2.0.9.0.20031014090812.0268dec0@pop.starpower.net> <003001c3930a$5ab80030$2720f1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <006801c3936f$3c1fb630$6400a8c0@supersuperbe> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0065_01C3937F.FF7ABF70 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello everybody As (partial) answer to Eric Landau's last question, may I suggest to modify Law 45A : A. Play of Card from a Hand Each player except dummy plays a card by detaching it from his hand and placing it on the table, either face-down (and then facing it up) or directly face-up immediately before him. The face-down play may be withdrawn only upon instruction of the Director after an irregularity ; the withdrawn card must be returned to the player's hand. Comment, or footnote : The card played face-down is faced up by the player after the time he needs to think about the play of the hand. Personal comment : this will forbid and make illegal any delay when there is no bridge reason for such a delay before playing the card. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" ; "Eric Landau" Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 12:14 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Philadelphia Casebook #4 > > It has apparently become an accepted principle of bridge jurisprudence > in ACBL-land that the legal ramifications of a break in tempo may be > mitigated by an announcement along the lines of "I'm thinking about the > whole hand". Now it appears that precedent may be morphing this > announcement from a potentially mitigating factor to a > "responsibility". I find nothing in TFLB that appears to address such > announcements. Can anyone tell me by what controlling law this > precedent -- essentially giving players the right to assume that an > opponent's break in tempo relates to his immediately pending play > unless he explicitly states otherwise -- may be justified? Does anyone > have concerns that acceptance of this precedent as a basis for future > jurisprudence may have significant unintended consequences? Would we > be comfortable writing it into TFLB explicitly? Which law(s) would we > need to alter? > > > Eric Landau > > > Interesting questions. > I consider the approach you describe as an ACBL one, but which is also > accepted procedure in my bridge environment, as preferable behaviour. And I > consider law 73F2 implicitly telling us that such behaviour is each player's > responsibility. What other way there is to take away the false inference > from a hesitation if such hesitation is not related to the decision to be > taken at that moment? That is part of my interpretation of 'demonstrable > bridge reason'. > > Should it be written in the laws explicitly? Why not? And an addition to > L73F2 will work. > > ton > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > ------=_NextPart_000_0065_01C3937F.FF7ABF70 Content-Type: image/gif; name="foot1.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.math.auc.dk/~nwp/bridge/laws/laws97na/foot1.gif R0lGODlhCwALAPAAAP///wAAACH5BAEAAAAALAAAAAALAAsAAAIUhI+pEGsBV4yIsvbwmbpa1Tmi UgAAOw== ------=_NextPart_000_0065_01C3937F.FF7ABF70-- From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Oct 15 23:58:03 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 08:58:03 +1000 Subject: [blml] "Sensible" takeout doubles (was ABF) Message-ID: [snip] Gordon Rainsford: >It would seem inconsistent for one to be takeout without the other. Ralph Waldo Emerson: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Richard James Hills: >>In an earlier thread, David Burn argued that the standard >>expert agreement about the distribution of a particular call >>depended on the context in which the call was made. In my >>humble opinion, David Burn did not go far enough in stating >>his case. In my humble opinion, there is no such thing as >>a "sensible" *universal* expert agreement on any call. Gordon Rainsford: >Takeout doubles of opening one-bids? Takeout doubles of opening >three-level pre-empts? Richard James Hills: It is or was popular in expert rubber bridge games for doubles of three-level pre-empts to be *penalty* doubles. This is because encouraging opponents to make rubbishy pre-empts due to your doubles being takeout cost you real money, not merely evanescent masterpoints. Best wishes RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- 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 Thu Oct 16 00:25:30 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 00:25:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Both Majors References: <00cd01c39359$73013fe0$5ce436d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <004801c39373$a0b2cb60$1d9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Nigel IMO, in Karel's case (a), where partner gave the correct explanation, P/XX/4H/5S are LAs. In the other cases, pass is the only LA because you have "wake-up" UI from partner's explanation. If the 2N bidder removed 4D, the TD should score the hand at 4DX; and also award a PP. (Assuming that all players at the table are as expert as Wayne's wife). [Wayne] Well she beat me to win this tournament :-( I can not see how LA depend on whether the explanation was correct or erroneous. A LA is a LA. If there was no UI then you can choose any call you like if there was UI you are restricted in your choices. [Nigel] Wayne avoided the wooden spoon and yhe better half ran true to form. Well done both of you! Sorry Wayne, you are right about LAs and that is the meaning that I intended. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.524 / Virus Database: 321 - Release Date: 07/10/2003 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Oct 16 01:35:37 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 01:35:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement References: <8BA2B870-FF28-11D7-9C29-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <017001c3937d$6c2401c0$1d9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Nigel Guthrie] > likely to be a malicious lie [Ed Reppert] You take a dim view of your fellows, Nigel. Sorry to hear that. In my own perhaps naive view, players aren't "likely" to tell malicious lies. It can happen, certainly, but (I hope) it's the exception, not the rule. If it is the rule, perhaps I shall give up this game. I've got better things to do than to associate with malicious liars. [Nigel] Ed, we are discussing a regular expert partnership who claim to have no understanding about an auction that comprises a couple of low-level bids: 1D(2D). I carefully specified that even the player who made the bid claimed that there was no agreement. I accept that it is *possible* that.. (a) An expert bid 2D, knowing it was meaningless. (b) No inference as to its meaning was available to the other expert -- not even a negative inference from a related agreement. Surely, however, the combination is *unlikely*? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.524 / Virus Database: 321 - Release Date: 07/10/2003 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Oct 16 02:15:02 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 21:15:02 -0400 Subject: [blml] Both Majors In-Reply-To: <004e01c3935f$5bc94880$c5e27f50@Default> Message-ID: <2B3B1A07-FF76-11D7-B5DB-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Oct 15, 2003, at 16:41 US/Eastern, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > We agree more than we disagree. Maybe. Though I don't think "stretching the laws" in order to get the result you want out of them is legit. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Oct 16 02:04:20 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 11:04:20 +1000 Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement Message-ID: [snip] Ed Reppert: >>The laws say a pair must disclose their agreements. If >>a question is asked about a specific call, and the >>player asked cannot remember the meaning, is this >>*automatically* misinformation? Ton Kooijman: >I think that the laws say it is. The fact that there >might be other ways to get the right information may >solve this problem, but saying that 3 plus 5 adds up to >9 after which the teacher makes it 8 doesn't make the >first answer right. [snip] Richard James Hills: I incline more to Ed's point of view than Ton's point of view. In my opinion, this is the model drama -> Act One, Scene One: RJH, RHO, LHO & CHO are sitting at a table, each holding 13 pasteboards. RHO: What does your CHO's call mean? RJH: Sorry, I have temporarily forgotten due to being as old as the Hills. Director! Enter TD TD: What seems to be the problem? RJH: I have temporarily forgotten our partnership agreement, due to being as old as the Hills. TD: The fact that you have temporarily forgotten your agreement is AI to LHO and RHO, but UI to CHO. Please temporarily leave the table. Exit RJH TD: CHO, please explain the partnership agreement you have with RJH about the meaning of your call. CHO: The partnership agreement I have with RJH is that my call systemically means alpha. I neither confirm nor deny that I have actually psyched beta, neither do I confirm nor deny that I have actually misbid gamma. TD: RJH, return to the table. Enter RJH TD: Could any of the four of you please summon me at the conclusion of the deal if any of the four of consider that the LHO/RHO partnership may have been damaged due to CHO selecting from amongst LAs an LA which was demonstrably suggested over another LA because of the UI provided by RJH to CHO. Curtain -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- 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 Oct 16 02:27:18 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 21:27:18 -0400 Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement In-Reply-To: <001c01c3934a$801c30e0$61faf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: On Wednesday, Oct 15, 2003, at 14:30 US/Eastern, Ton Kooijman wrote: > I think that the laws say it is. The fact that there might be other > ways to > get the right information may solve this problem, but saying that 3 > plus 5 > adds up to 9 after which the teacher makes it 8 doesn't make the first > answer right. Sorry, Ton, but your analogy makes no sense to me. The laws require disclosure in accordance with SO regulations. One of those regulations deals with CCs. If the CC is there, what's on it is information - presumably correct - about the partnership's agreements. You seem to be saying as soon as someone opens his mouth, the CC is irrelevant. I don't buy it. > As I said: the fact that we could try to get the right information > available > does not change the fact that the player didn't receive the > information he > was entitled to ( there is unauthorized information as the least of the > possible problems). UI has nothing to do with the question at hand. And if I tell a player "I can't remember" or "I'm not sure" and "but check our CC, it's on there", and that player refuses to look at the CC, he or she can go hang as far as I'm concerned. I used to have a novice (and a bit nervous) partner. Once, shortly before she quit the game for good, she was becoming increasingly flustered at the badgering she was getting from an opponent. When I suggested that the answer to the opponent's question was on the CC, she superciliously replied "I don't look at convention cards, I ask questions." The TD did *nothing* about this breach of the proprieties. I don't recall now what, if anything, the TD ruled about the MI question, but if that's the way folks want to play the game, it's no wonder a lot of people think bridge is dying. :-( From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Oct 16 02:34:15 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 11:34:15 +1000 Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >I accept that it is *possible* that.. >(a) An expert bid 2D, knowing it was meaningless. >(b) No inference as to its meaning was available to >the other expert -- not even a negative inference >from a related agreement. > >Surely, however, the combination is *unlikely*? Richard James Hills: Nigel is arguing from the wrong premise. What is more likely to happen is that -> (a) An expert bids 2D, *assuming* that pard was on the same wavelength of using the 2D overcall for the preferred particular meaning of the bidding expert. (b) The responding expert was aware of both possible meanings, using either meaning alternatively according to the alternative preferences of alternative partners. The responding expert knew that, in that particular partnership, 2D had no explicit or implicit agreed meaning. Such an auction is very likely. In fact, in one of my "fairly-frequent" expert partnerships, this auction occurred behind screens: LHO CHO RHO RJH 1C Pass 1H 2C My screenmate, RHO, scribbled: "What does your 2C mean?" I scribbled back: "Undiscussed." RHO called the TD, feeling that there must be some sort of rule against me *deliberately* choosing to make an undiscussed call. The TD ruled that *deliberately* confusing both partner and opponents in the auction was not necessarily an infraction. Best wishes RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- 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 Oct 16 03:16:52 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 12:16:52 +1000 Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement Message-ID: [big snip] >The answer was: 'no agreement'. An >unacceptable answer in my opinion. Both >members in a partnership need to >know the basics of a special agreement. > >ton RJH: This issue has been discussed before on blml. I join with Edgar Kaplan in adoring opponents who do not "know the basics" of their special agreement to play Keycard Blackwood. Since most of the time you gain due to the opponents' incompetence in defining their agreements, I am willing to accept the rare "rub of the green" occasions when they enjoy beginner's luck because I also do not know what they are doing. I believe on one occasion Edgar expressed the opinion that players who prefer omniscient knowledge of opponents' intentions, should give up playing bridge, and instead take up playing chess. J'adoube Richard James 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Oct 16 04:22:09 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:22:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] Ozymandias Message-ID: Richard James Hills: An infamous expert died recently. He could have been a truly great player, worthy of a glowing eulogy. Instead, he opted to enhance his results by systematically violating the rudeness prohibition of Law 74A2, and by systematically violating the peeking prohibition of Law 74C5. So I will not even mention his name. Percy Bysshe Shelley: I met a traveller from an antique land Who said: 'Two vast and trunkless legs of stone Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand, Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown, And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command, Tell that its sculptor well those passions read Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things, The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed. And on the pedestal these words appear -- "My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare The lone and level sands stretch far away.' -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- 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 Oct 16 06:20:38 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 15:20:38 +1000 Subject: [blml] ABF casebook, Law 16 Message-ID: [snip] RJH wrote: >But, in my humble opinion, the AC seems to have made an >illegal ruling. It seems to me that the AC ruled that Law >16 has only 50% effect when the pair involved are bunnies. > >What next? Two trick revoke penalties halved to one trick >by ACs when bunnies appeal? RJH continues: A non-blml friend of mine has commented upon my opinion. He wrote: "R. You are correct (of course), but I think the Laws oughta be changed. A set of laws cannot but fail if it attempts to give the best results for tourney-hardened virtuosi and also for novice bunnies. On the other hand, a different set of laws for different standards of players and different combinations of standards would be a nightmare. So, why not classify events into those where the Laws will be applied, full stop; and those (the majority) where the Director is encouraged to use his discretion to protect the relatively less experienced. (Or would that turn into protecting his mates, protecting the inflential; protecting the highest bidders, etc??) Playing in Surfers one year, I did something fully within the Laws, but the Director "ruled" (or mis-ruled) against me as our opponents were inexperienced lols and had acted in good faith. I was aghast at the time, but in retrospect think that may be the best of a bad set of alternatives. Like those least-bad bids I seem to have to make so often." RJH asks: I have a large amount of sympathy for my friend's position. Based on his previous postings to blml, I suspect that Sven might also have some sympathy to the mooted Laws change. What do other blmlers think? Best wishes Richard James 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Oct 16 07:38:24 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 16:38:24 +1000 Subject: [blml] ABF casebook, fielding a misbid Message-ID: Appeal Report 3 Date: Event: VCC Director: R.Geyer Appeal Panel: B.Thompson (Chair) B.Richman M.McManus Dlr:E A87 Bidding: Basic system N/S vul 975 843 S W N E 8654 2C(1) T95432 KQ P 2H(2) P 2NT T6 KQ4 P 3H(3) P 4NT 7 AQJT P 5C P 5H QJT9 AK32 P 5S All pass J6 Noted bids: AJ832 (1) GF K9652 (2) described as semi-pos. with 73 hearts, system card say negative (3) meant as transfer, not alerted Final Contract and result: 5S, 11 tricks, 450 to E/W Play if relevant: Tournament Director's Report and decision: Bids 2 & 3 not alerted. After the auction had finished a description asked for and 2H was described as semi-positive with hearts. I was called to the table and asked to look at the sequence. N/S said that the 5C response by West was out of tempo. After discussion with the directing staff, the table score to stand. Appellant's claim Our opponents have clearly had a serious bidding misunderstanding. West was aware of the problem in that his partner had failed to alert his 2H & 3H bids. He was therefore in possession of unauthorised information. However, we are not suggesting that he illegally made use of the information, because the correction to 5S was appropriate. East, however must have been confused by the exceedingly slow 5C response to his partner's RKC (for hearts) and the significantly easy 5S bid over the 5H sign-off. Perhaps this could be a spade void, but because of the tempo variation, East may have become aware of the possibility of the problem. Had 5C & 5S been made in the same tempo, then perhaps the final contract would have been 6H, or 6S from a correction from 6H. Responder's reply Any possibility that 5S shows a hand with a heart suit and spade suit is absurd. Partner knows we are missing 2 key-cards my sign-off in 5H, impossible to show a void trying for 7. Partner did not bid a second suit over 2NT. Where could a void come from? Partner's slightly slow (not exceedingly) 5C is meaningless. More likely he is trying to remember whether 0314 or 1430. 5S rings a huge bell that I've forgotten the system, a thousand more times likely than any other possibility. Appeal Committee discussion Appeal Committee decision Directors ruling upheld. The slow 5C does not demonstrably suggest one action over another. Passing 5S is a logical alternative - it is indeed most likely that 5S is natural. -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- 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 a.kooijman@minlnv.nl Thu Oct 16 08:35:08 2003 From: a.kooijman@minlnv.nl (Kooijman, A. (Ton)) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 09:35:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement Message-ID: =20 [snip] Ed Reppert: >>The laws say a pair must disclose their agreements. If >>a question is asked about a specific call, and the >>player asked cannot remember the meaning, is this >>*automatically* misinformation? Ton Kooijman: >I think that the laws say it is. The fact that there >might be other ways to get the right information may >solve this problem, but saying that 3 plus 5 adds up to >9 after which the teacher makes it 8 doesn't make the >first answer right. [snip] Richard James Hills: I incline more to Ed's point of view than Ton's point of view. =20 ***In my opinion you don't; your drama below demonstrates that some = problems can be solved, not that having no answer on a question about an agreed meaning of a call is not an infraction. You seem to admit that this infraction creates UI.=20 ton *** In my opinion, this is the model drama -> Act One, Scene One: RJH, RHO, LHO & CHO are sitting at a table, each holding 13 pasteboards. RHO: What does your CHO's call mean? RJH: Sorry, I have temporarily forgotten due to being as old as the Hills. Director! Enter TD TD: What seems to be the problem? RJH: I have temporarily forgotten our partnership agreement, due to being as old as the Hills. TD: The fact that you have temporarily forgotten your agreement is AI to LHO and RHO, but UI to CHO. Please temporarily leave the table. Exit RJH TD: CHO, please explain the partnership agreement you have with RJH about the meaning of your call. CHO: The partnership agreement I have with RJH is that my call systemically means alpha. I neither confirm nor deny that I have actually psyched beta, neither do I confirm nor deny that I have actually misbid gamma. TD: RJH, return to the table. Enter RJH TD: Could any of the four of you please summon me at the conclusion of the deal if any of the four of consider that the LHO/RHO partnership may have been damaged due to CHO selecting from amongst LAs an LA which was demonstrably suggested over another LA because of the UI provided by RJH to CHO. Curtain ------------------------------------------------------------------------= -------------- 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 From a.kooijman@minlnv.nl Thu Oct 16 08:40:01 2003 From: a.kooijman@minlnv.nl (Kooijman, A. (Ton)) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 09:40:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] Both Majors Message-ID: On Wednesday, Oct 15, 2003, at 06:17 US/Eastern, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Something else is that you might give some penalty or score > adjustments based on EW playing a first round competitive/obstructive > convention without knowing what they are doing. This has become such a > frequent problem in The Netherlands (not much restrictions on what you > can play also at low level) that we have such a policy. The policy is > not too harsh, we adjust to 60-40 or equi. if a 'misbid' of this type > leads to a good score. The logic being that if they don't know how to > handle a first round bid the whole difference between MI and a misbid > becomes rather meaningless. This might happen in Jaap's national AC but not in mine. ton From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Oct 16 10:14:44 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:14:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement References: Message-ID: <005601c393c5$f17c4740$5a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Richard James Hills] Such an auction is very likely. In fact, in one of my "fairly-frequent" expert partnerships, this auction occurred behind screens: LHO CHO RHO RJH 1C Pass 1H 2C My screenmate, RHO, scribbled: "What does your 2C mean?" I scribbled back: "Undiscussed." RHO called the TD, feeling that there must be some sort of rule against me *deliberately* choosing to make an undiscussed call. The TD ruled that *deliberately* confusing both partner and opponents in the auction was not necessarily an infraction. [Nigel] If your partner confirmed your explanation then, as a TD, I would rule MI because for most other regular expert partnerships there would be negative inferences available from other agreements or experience of related auctions. I accept that for your partnership 2C was (1) A random overcall -- a completely meaningless cypher. But I would still rule against you to deter secretiveness by other less honest partnerships Please note -- we are discussing a simple short low level auction by a regular expert partnership. With even a casual inexpert club partner, however, I would be confident that 2C was... (2) A pointy two-suiter with (a) Diamonds better than spades or (b) Heart singleton or void (i.e clubs better than hearts) I would go further: even undiscussed, playing with an inexpert Reading Club member for the first time, (2) is the most likely explanation. I contend that this is not "general Bridge knowledge and experience* to anyone less familiar with the general philosophy of the circle in which I play. In other circles, I would expect the most popular interpretation to be... (3) Natural, intermediate, with good clubs. Currently, I feel that the following are less likely... (4) Weak long clubs. (5) Two suiter with spades better than diamonds. (6) Two suiter with first round club control. (7) Request for a club stop for notrumps. (8) Strong pointed single suiter. (9) 4441 or 5440 short in clubs. (10) 4441 or 5440 short in hearts. (11) Transfer to diamonds. (12) Unspecified game force. Had there been only a few likely meanings -- I would expect you and your partner to divulge them. If you assign probabilities to such possibilities, that should satisfy opponents and the TD. BTW, in this country, some partnerships make 2-way bids, *by agreement*. For example David Burn employs some doubles that are *either* penalty *or* takeout. Partner guesses from the auction and his hand. I presume that David's partner will always alert this as an agreement and explain both options. I accept that your disclosure was complete and your TD ruled according to the majority interpretaion of the law; but I still think he was wrong, as the law stands; let alone as I would like to see it amended. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.524 / Virus Database: 321 - Release Date: 06/10/2003 From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Thu Oct 16 11:10:14 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 12:10:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] Both Majors References: <2B3B1A07-FF76-11D7-B5DB-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <001f01c393cd$cdc319c0$8bf77f50@Default> Ed: > Maybe. Though I don't think "stretching the laws" in order to get the > result you want out of them is legit. Well stretching the law is maybe not the right way to put it. And there is no such thing as 'getting the result we want', at least not on a single case basis. In Holland we were/are faced with a frequent problem (mainly) caused by low level players using conventions they hardly can handle. And once again, we use this approach only with first round competitive/obstructive conventions (twosuited overcalls, conventional overcalls over 1NT, etc). Maybe there has been a case based on a second round bid but I cannot remember. Classical case 1. 1H opening 3C overcall. 3C has a C suit but it is explained as majors. Explanation is correct in the sense that they play the convention known in Holland as Ghestem. Probably called precised Micheals in England. Anyway 3C shows S+D. Now very often they forget their system the moment they hold KQJxxxx of clubs (only one of the two players playing Ghestem also happens). So what do you rule. Following the letter of the law you might argue misbid, no adjustment. But this is such a frequent problem that you also might argue that partner should tell that mixup's are likely, frequent, quite possible, pich a word. In that case you might rule incomplete explanation (also a legal stretch). Besides the moment you realise that the real meaning of 3C is C+S but sometimes C it also is an illegal system (multi meaning bid, anchor suit of weak variants unknown). Interesting question, making mistakes is ok but is it also ok to make a mistake wich results in an illegal system violation ? I don't think so. Classical case 2. 1H opening 2NT overcall. Explanation minors (correct of course). But in real life the 2NT had spades and a minor. We ruled that someone who bid 2NT on that hand cannot possible know what they are doing. One approach is to rule ME, but that is quite a legal stretch because the explanation is obviously correct and you cannot really expect them to answer 'minors but we are beginners so we often mix up the suits' if such an explanation is acceptable in the first place. So we rule these kind of things +3-3 or equivalent. Now one can discuss the wisdom of the Dutch Fed to let even real beginners play all conventions they want. This type of problem doesn't exist in environments where there are strict rules about conventions you can play and the way you play them. But for the Dutch national AC that is the reality. One can discuss the wisdom of the Dutch national AC to handle the problem the way we do. Anyone a better idea ? My personal opinion? For me everybody can play any convention he wants. But advantages from misbiding conventions should be adjusted (real mistakes not judgement calls). I know that is not the current rule, but that is what the rule should be imo. Obviously you need a rather restrictive definition of convention for this purpose (not the current one). It also excludes psyching conventions, that is a price I am willing to pay (for some it is a bonus). Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 3:15 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Both Majors > > On Wednesday, Oct 15, 2003, at 16:41 US/Eastern, Jaap van der Neut > wrote: > > > We agree more than we disagree. > > Maybe. Though I don't think "stretching the laws" in order to get the > result you want out of them is legit. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Thu Oct 16 11:10:59 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 12:10:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Both Majors References: Message-ID: <002001c393cd$ce9bc680$8bf77f50@Default> Ton > This might happen in Jaap's national AC but not in mine. I cannot decide the exact context of your reaction. But since the Dutch AC applies this policy for about 5 years you need to explain your reaction. By the way, I know you are also on the Dutch AC and I know you are opposed to the policy. Still for five years you have done nothing about it other than stating you don't like it. So I (and the rest of the AC) assume that you have no better solution yourself. But don't get me wrong, I understand why you don't like the current situation, I don't like it myself (probably for slightly different reasons). Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A. (Ton)" To: "'Ed Reppert '" ; "'blml '" Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 9:40 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Both Majors > > > On Wednesday, Oct 15, 2003, at 06:17 US/Eastern, Jaap van der Neut > wrote: > > > Something else is that you might give some penalty or score > > adjustments based on EW playing a first round competitive/obstructive > > convention without knowing what they are doing. This has become such a > > > frequent problem in The Netherlands (not much restrictions on what you > > > can play also at low level) that we have such a policy. The policy is > > not too harsh, we adjust to 60-40 or equi. if a 'misbid' of this type > > leads to a good score. The logic being that if they don't know how to > > handle a first round bid the whole difference between MI and a misbid > > becomes rather meaningless. > > This might happen in Jaap's national AC but not in mine. > > > ton > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Oct 16 00:43:13 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 00:43:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Sensible" takeout doubles (was ABF) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <576A7AB8-FF69-11D7-92BD-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> --Apple-Mail-6--92636130 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On Wednesday, October 15, 2003, at 11:58 pm, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Richard James Hills: > > It is or was popular in expert rubber bridge games for doubles > of three-level pre-empts to be *penalty* doubles. This is > because encouraging opponents to make rubbishy pre-empts due to > your doubles being takeout cost you real money, not merely > evanescent masterpoints. My understanding from those who play in such circles is that penalty doubles of three-level pre-empts have not been widely used for some considerable time - because they cost too much in missed games and penalty passes. Do I take it then that you have conceded the point about takeout doubles of opening one-bids, Richard? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK --Apple-Mail-6--92636130 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=US-ASCII On Wednesday, October 15, 2003, at 11:58 pm, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: Richard James Hills: It is or was popular in expert rubber bridge games for doubles of three-level pre-empts to be *penalty* doubles. This is because encouraging opponents to make rubbishy pre-empts due to your doubles being takeout cost you real money, not merely evanescent masterpoints. My understanding from those who play in such circles is that penalty doubles of three-level pre-empts have not been widely used for some considerable time - because they cost too much in missed games and penalty passes. Do I take it then that you have conceded the point about takeout doubles of opening one-bids, Richard? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK --Apple-Mail-6--92636130-- From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Oct 16 13:16:38 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 08:16:38 -0400 Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement In-Reply-To: <000001c39368$66966500$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031015165614.009f2470@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031016075953.022ddc10@pop.starpower.net> At 06:05 PM 10/15/03, Sven wrote: >Eric Landau > > > It sounds like Sven has converted to the "De Wael School", which > > requires a player who has been asked about partner's bid when the > > truthful answer is "we have no agreement" to make up a > > reasonable-sounding lie. There will always be some bids about which a > > partnership genuinely lacks agreement (explicit or implicit), and I > > don't think Sven (or anyone else) is arguing that making such bids is > > illegal per se. > >I certainly have not converted to anything. > >The point I try to make is that when explaining your partner's call: >If you >do not know or are uncertain then by all means say so. (And absolutely do >not "invent" any explanation with the hope that you guess right, at least >not without telling your opponents that you are guessing). > >Your opponents now have the best information you are able to provide >including that there is a possible misunderstanding or uncertainty within >your partnership. > >But this does not in any way avoid the redress if it should come up that >they have been damaged BECAUSE they did not get a complete explanation on >your agreements and partnership understanding/experience. > >The alleged fact (?) that this incomplete explanation was due to >forgetfulness or similar is completely irrelevant the way I see it. > >Your opponents are entitled to a complete description; if you are >unable to >provide that then they have not received what they are entitled to and it >only remains for the director to rule, considering what they did receive >whether they have been put in a position where they could not reasonably >protect their interests and as a consequence were damaged. I agree entirely with the above. My concern was with the case where there is no misunderstanding or uncertainty about the partnership agreement, as there genuinely and truthfully isn't one. My argument is that in that case the opponents *have* "received what they are entitled to". They are not entitled to redress for damage caused by their failure to be informed of the meaning of the call actually taken if that meaning isn't the subject of an (explicit or implicit) agreement. The threshhold of MI isn't not knowing the meaning of the call, it is not knowing as much about the meaning of the call as the side making it does, which may be well short of knowing what it means. > > TFLB requires "full disclosure" of partnership agreements. Surely > > we're entitled to read the requirement for "full disclosure" as > > requiring "truthful full disclosure". The truth is whatever it is, and > > I can't see how a player should ever risk a penalty by offering it > > instead of something else that isn't true. > >Absolutely. And the player who provides truthfully what he knows risks no >penalty, but he may still face redress to opponents as I said above if his >description is incomplete and opponents are damaged because of that. Some semantic confusion here. I was using "penalty" in the loose sense of any reduction in score. > > Of course, if you tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the > > truth, you still run the risk that a TD or AC won't believe that you > > have done so. But that should be the only risk you take. TTBOMK only > > Mr. Wolff believes that you should be penalized when your true > > disclosure that you really have no agreement proves inconvenient for > > your opponents. > >If under your "no agreement" disclosure it appears that your partner >understood your call perfectly I would initially be biased towards >skepticism on your "no agreement" story. But my final verdict will depend >upon how convincingly you can present your case (and of course whether >in my >opinion opponents were indeed damaged by an incomplete disclosure). Sure. Sometimes you have evidence on one side from the alleged offender's statement, and evidence on the other side from the facts of the deal, and you determine whether the preponderance of the evidence falls either way, which is likely to depend on how you judge the credibility of the statement. If it's even, you use the footnote. But it's your judgment of the evidence that counts; the "presumption of MI" in the footnote is merely a "tiebreaker". The bottom line is a recognition that "we have no agreement" need not be presumed to be "incomplete disclosure". Whether it is or not is a "finding of fact" in the hands of the TD or AC. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Oct 16 13:29:56 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 08:29:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] Both Majors In-Reply-To: References: <00e601c39294$3131aca0$032037d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031016081940.022e41c0@pop.starpower.net> At 06:17 PM 10/15/03, twm wrote: >Behind screens? Pass (assuming partner has remembered the system) and 4H >(knowing pard has a propensity to forget the system). >As to which is "suggested" that depends on the UI. If the UI is "pard >has >alerted and explained as majors" then pass is suggested. If the UI is >"pard has alerted and described as red 2-suiter" then 4H is suggested. If you make a call in accordance with your partnership agreements, partner's confirming those agreements via the alert procedure cannot be considered UI. It is absurd to suggest that a call that specifically caters to partner's having forgotten your agreement can be considered an LA to a "suggested" call that doesn't. You cannot require a player to bid on the presumption that partner forgot his methods just because he has "UI" that he didn't. As others have expressed it, unauthorized confirmation of AI already held doesn't transform it into UI. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Oct 16 13:42:41 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:42:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031015165614.009f2470@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031015165614.009f2470@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <3F8E9241.2010301@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 12:30 PM 10/15/03, Sven wrote: > >> >> The consequence is of course that "no agreement" (or words to that >> effect) >> is at the risk of the player uttering such a statement whether it is >> true or >> not. > > > It sounds like Sven has converted to the "De Wael School", which > requires a player who has been asked about partner's bid when the > truthful answer is "we have no agreement" to make up a > reasonable-sounding lie. There will always be some bids about which a > partnership genuinely lacks agreement (explicit or implicit), and I > don't think Sven (or anyone else) is arguing that making such bids is > illegal per se. > It sounds as if Eric and Sven have converted to the "De Wael School". I have never said that it is illegal to make bids without agreement, or that it is wrong to then explain them as "no agreement". The onus is on the players, however, to prove that there genuinely is NO agreement, and in the majority of cases there is always something. Which is why I advocate simply stating what you believe to be the agreement, keeping your opponents in the dark about the certainty of your convictions. Yesterday, I was faced with the following problem: second in hand, I held Qx AJxxxx xxxx J. We play Multi and Muiderberg (2M=weak, 5cards, with a 4+minor). I did not fancy any option and passed. third opened 1NT which was passed around to me. Now we have agreed that we play, second over 1NT, the same as openings. But being fourth in hand, I imagined partner must realize I have something I could not open. So I bid 2He. Which she alerted and explained as Muiderberg. And on which she bid 3Cl. Am I allowed to realize that we have no firm agreement on fourth suit, passed hand interventions and do I have enough AI to compensate for the UI of the explanation? I thought so and corrected to 3Di. Which for some reason unknown to me was undoubled, and went four down. > TFLB requires "full disclosure" of partnership agreements. Surely we're > entitled to read the requirement for "full disclosure" as requiring > "truthful full disclosure". The truth is whatever it is, and I can't > see how a player should ever risk a penalty by offering it instead of > something else that isn't true. > > Of course, if you tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the > truth, you still run the risk that a TD or AC won't believe that you > have done so. But that should be the only risk you take. TTBOMK only > Mr. Wolff believes that you should be penalized when your true > disclosure that you really have no agreement proves inconvenient for > your opponents. > I am in total agreement with Eric here. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Thu Oct 16 14:16:20 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 15:16:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement In-Reply-To: <3F8E9241.2010301@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c393e7$b0f4d670$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ........... > > It sounds like Sven has converted to the "De Wael School", which > > requires a player who has been asked about partner's bid when the > > truthful answer is "we have no agreement" to make up a > > reasonable-sounding lie. There will always be some bids about which = a > > partnership genuinely lacks agreement (explicit or implicit), and I > > don't think Sven (or anyone else) is arguing that making such bids = is > > illegal per se. > > >=20 > It sounds as if Eric and Sven have converted to the "De Wael School". I believe neither of us have, as should be evident from later = (follow-up) posts on this thread. =20 > I have never said that it is illegal to make bids without agreement, > or that it is wrong to then explain them as "no agreement". The onus > is on the players, however, to prove that there genuinely is NO > agreement, and in the majority of cases there is always something. There we completely agree. > Which is why I advocate simply stating what you believe to be the > agreement, keeping your opponents in the dark about the certainty of > your convictions. If you honestly believe then say so. If you have no idea then say so but = do not "invent" an explanation in the hope that it will come out correct. >=20 > Yesterday, I was faced with the following problem: >=20 > second in hand, I held Qx AJxxxx xxxx J. > We play Multi and Muiderberg (2M=3Dweak, 5cards, with a 4+minor). > I did not fancy any option and passed. What was wrong with multi 2D on this hand? Seems perfect to me. > third opened 1NT which was passed around to me. > Now we have agreed that we play, second over 1NT, the same as > openings. But being fourth in hand, I imagined partner must realize I > have something I could not open. So I bid 2He. After passing first you have at this time no call available to tell = partner that you could have opened with multi 2D (or for that sake with 2M). As = your partner here I would have felt completely lost. Had I been asked what = you show with your 2H bid I would have answered: "I have no idea. That bid = just does not exist in our system". > Which she alerted and explained as Muiderberg. > And on which she bid 3Cl. Well she was compelled to do something; I disagree with her choice (I = would have passed) but that is far besides the point. > Am I allowed to realize that we have no firm agreement on fourth suit, > passed hand interventions and do I have enough AI to compensate for > the UI of the explanation? In my opinion you have the AI that you made the wrong opening call and = at this time have no way to compensate for that. You have the UI on how = your partner has understood your bid. (And whatever action taken by partner = would convey UI to you). > I thought so and corrected to 3Di. > Which for some reason unknown to me was undoubled, and went four down. Sven From ttqdwclwobvy@msn.com Fri Oct 17 03:01:09 2003 From: ttqdwclwobvy@msn.com (bdcmotors@juno.com) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 11:01:09 +0900 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) join the many Americans enlarging their penises! iop iop qweew Message-ID: PCFET0NUWVBFIEhUTUwgUFVCTElDICItLy9XM0MvL0RURCBIVE1MIDQuMDEgVHJhbnNpdGlvbmFs Ly9FTiI+DQoNCjxodG1sPg0KPGhlYWQ+DQo8dGl0bGU+bmE8L3RpdGxlPg0KPC9oZWFkPg0KPGJv ZHkgdG9wbWFyZ2luPSIwIiBiZ2NvbG9yPSIjMzMwMDk5Ij4NCjxkaXYgYWxpZ249ImNlbnRlciI+ PGJyPjx2ZHM0eWthNzQ+DQo8dGFibGUgd2lkdGg9NTAwcHg+DQo8dHI+DQo8dGQgYmdjb2xvcj0i bmF2eSIgYWxpZ249ImNlbnRlciI+PGZvbnQgZmFjZT0idmVyZGFuYSIgc2l6ZT0yIGNvbG9yPSJ5 ZWxsb3ciPjEwMCUgR3VhcmFudGVlZCBSZXN1bHRzIE9yIFlvdXIgTW9uZXkgQmFjaw0KPC90cj4N Cjx0cj48dGQgYmdjb2xvcj0iYmx1ZSIgYWxpZ249ImNlbnRlciI+PGZvbnQgZmFjZT0idmVyZGFu YSIgc2l6ZT00IGNvbG9yPSJ3aGl0ZSI+PGI+DQo8YnI+DQpUaXJlZCBvZiBiZWluZyBlbWJhcmFz c2VkIGFib3V0IHlvdXIgZGljaz8gd2FudCB0byBkbyBzb21ldGhpbmcgYWJvdXQgaXQ/PGJyPjxi cj4NCjwhLS0gdmRzNHlrYTc0IC0tPg0KSG93IHdvdWxkIHlvdSBmZWVsIGhhdmluZyBhIGZldyBl eHRyYSBpbmNoZXMsIGFuZCBhIGJpZyBhbmQgY29tbWFuZGluZyBwZW5pcz88YnI+PGJyPg0KT3Vy IHBlbmlzIHBpbGxzIGFyZSBHVUFSQU5URUVEIHRvIHdvcmsgYW5kIHlvdSBjb3VsZCBiZSB3YWxr aW5nIGFyb3VuZCBwYWNraW5nIGhlYXQgd2l0aGluIDMgbW9udGhzITxicj48YnI+DQo8QSBocmVm PSJodHRwOi8vcm9tYW5vQHd3dy5oZXJiYWwtdXNhLnVzL3doaXRlbGluZS92cC8iPjxmb250IGNv bG9yPSJ5ZWxsb3ciPlRha2UgYSBsb29rIGF0IGhvdyBpdCB3b3JrczwvYT48YnI+PGJyPg0KPC90 ZD48L3RyPg0KPHRyPg0KPHRkIGJnY29sb3I9Im5hdnkiIGFsaWduPSJjZW50ZXIiPjxmb250IGZh Y2U9InZlcmRhbmEiIHNpemU9MiBjb2xvcj0ieWVsbG93Ij5Xb3JsZHMgTW9zdCBFZmZlY3RpdmUg RW5sYXJnZW1lbnQgVGVjaG5pcXVlDQo8L3RyPg0KPC90YWJsZT48dmRzNHlrYTc0Pg0KPGJyPjxi cj48YnI+PGJyPjxicj48YnI+PGJyPjxicj4NCjxmb250IHNpemU9IjFweCIgZmFjZT0idmVyZGFu YSIgY29sb3I9IiMwMDAwMCI+dmRzNHlrYTc0IHZkczR5a2E3NCB2ZHM0eWthNzQ8L2ZvbnQ+DQo8 dmRzNHlrYTc0Pg0KPGEgaHJlZj0iaHR0cDovL3JvbWFub0B3d3cuaGVyYmFsLXVzYS51cy93aGl0 ZWxpbmUvb3V0Lmh0bWwiPjxmb250IGNvbG9yPSJ5ZWxsb3ciIHNpemU9IjIiPnRvIGdldCBvZmY8 L2E+DQo8L2JvZHk+DQo8L2h0bWw+DQo= From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Oct 16 15:29:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 15:29 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement In-Reply-To: <017001c3937d$6c2401c0$1d9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > [Nigel] > Ed, we are discussing a regular expert partnership > who claim to have no understanding about an auction > that comprises a couple of low-level bids: 1D(2D). The pair were described as "Fairly Frequent partnership of ACBL LMs". Neither expertise nor regularity is guaranteed. The auction was also more complex. > I carefully specified that even the player who made > the bid claimed that there was no agreement. > > I accept that it is *possible* that.. > (a) An expert bid 2D, knowing it was meaningless. Undiscussed is *not* the same as "meaningless". A player may make an undiscussed bid in the hope that, based on local knowledge, partner will understand it. Assuming opponents are also "local experts" then "undiscussed" is a sufficient explanation. If opps are not local they can always ask what the bid is likely to show. > (b) No inference as to its meaning was available to > the other expert -- not even a negative inference > from a related agreement. It is not that "inferences" are unavailable - it is that the "inferences" are based on bridge logic rather than partnership experience. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Oct 16 15:29:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 15:29 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Both Majors In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031016081940.022e41c0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: > At 06:17 PM 10/15/03, twm wrote: > > >Behind screens? Pass (assuming partner has remembered the system) and > 4H (knowing pard has a propensity to forget the system). > >As to which is "suggested" that depends on the UI. If the UI is "pard > >has alerted and explained as majors" then pass is suggested. If the UI > >is "pard has alerted and described as red 2-suiter" then 4H is > > suggested. > > If you make a call in accordance with your partnership agreements, > partner's confirming those agreements via the alert procedure cannot be > considered UI. I think you mean "should not". Under the current laws it *is* considered UI. In most situations it doesn't affect LAs since it is seldom an LA to assume partner has forgotten the system. However, with 2-suited overcalls such as these it is my judgement that, with screens, well over 30% of average players would play for a system forget (Jaap considered a system forget as so obvious that he would allow a pull of 4Dx). > It is absurd to suggest that a call that specifically > caters to partner's having forgotten your agreement can be considered > an LA to a "suggested" call that doesn't. You cannot require a player > to bid on the presumption that partner forgot his methods just because > he has "UI" that he didn't. > > As others have expressed it, unauthorized confirmation of AI already > held doesn't transform it into UI. The UI is not that one holds the majors, it is that partner has confirmed that you hold the majors. If we are happy that players are allowed to use such information then so be it - but that is not what the law currently says. To give another example I was dealt Kxx,xx,AKJTxx,xx the other day third in hand and the bidding went: P-P-1N-P-2D(a)-P-P-2S-3D-ap My partner said something like "I'm glad you alerted 2H, otherwise I would have assumed you had forgotten we were playing transfers". Do you really think my alert wasn't UI? Tim From svenpran@online.no Thu Oct 16 16:14:05 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 17:14:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c393f8$24908790$6900a8c0@WINXP> Tim West-Meads ............. > Undiscussed is *not* the same as "meaningless". A player may make an > undiscussed bid in the hope that, based on local knowledge, partner = will > understand it. Assuming opponents are also "local experts" then > "undiscussed" is a sufficient explanation. If opps are not local they = can > always ask what the bid is likely to show. They have not received a "full disclosure" unless they are in the same position as partner to understand "from general experience" the likely interpretation of the call. And they shall not have to ask follow up questions to receive such full disclosure! >=20 > > (b) No inference as to its meaning was available to > > the other expert -- not even a negative inference > > from a related agreement. >=20 > It is not that "inferences" are unavailable - it is that the = "inferences" > are based on bridge logic rather than partnership experience. "Local experience" is part of "special partnership understanding"! If "everybody" in your club use splinter you will probably not offer = much discussion on that convention with an ad hoc partner; and it could be = argued that "not discussed" is a complete disclosure of a jump to 4C over = partners opening bid in 1S. ("Everybody" will assume Splinter absent any contrary information). Your visitor from the other state will probably be confused by this explanation which is certainly not "complete" to him (nor is it = "complete" as understood in the laws). Sven=20 From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Thu Oct 16 14:57:30 2003 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:57:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Both Majors Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB11CE@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> [Jaap] Anyway in Holland we have stretched the law a little in the sense that if you make a mistake in a first round competitive convention that 'you lose'. There is plenty of good = arguments. The fact you make such a mistake (and we dont discuss complicated = sequences) is in itself almost proof you don't play/master/understand the system = you claim to be playing and how can you explain correctly in that case. And there is also a very pragmatic issue. Overcalling (green against red) 3C with a club suit with partner explaining this as majors, often leaves = the board unplayable for opponents. After ruling tens of cases like that we decided to do something about the problem. But I know very well that you have to draw the line somewhere. And that is rather undefined. But that = is a universal problem in bridge laws. [Frances] I don't believe this approach is in accord with the laws, but I wish it were. You are not allowed to play random overcalls (at least, in = England you aren't). 'Deliberately' not discussing the meaning of some bids or frequently forgetting your agreements is, in effect, playing random overcalls. =20 From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Oct 16 18:07:01 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 19:07:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement In-Reply-To: <000001c393f8$24908790$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c393f8$24908790$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3F8ED035.2080604@hdw.be> Take one step further Sven, and see that you actually agree with me? Sven Pran wrote: > > > They have not received a "full disclosure" unless they are in the same > position as partner to understand "from general experience" the likely > interpretation of the call. And they shall not have to ask follow up > questions to receive such full disclosure! > > > > "Local experience" is part of "special partnership understanding"! > > If "everybody" in your club use splinter you will probably not offer much > discussion on that convention with an ad hoc partner; and it could be argued > that "not discussed" is a complete disclosure of a jump to 4C over partners > opening bid in 1S. ("Everybody" will assume Splinter absent any contrary > information). > > Your visitor from the other state will probably be confused by this > explanation which is certainly not "complete" to him (nor is it "complete" > as understood in the laws). > So if "undiscussed" is equal to "splinter" to the local opponent, while to the visitor it is incomplete, why not simply state "splinter" in both cases? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Oct 16 18:12:06 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:12:06 -0700 Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031015165614.009f2470@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <004801c39408$ccfa22a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Eric Landau" > TFLB requires "full disclosure" of partnership agreements. Surely > we're entitled to read the requirement for "full disclosure" as > requiring "truthful full disclosure". The truth is whatever it is, and > I can't see how a player should ever risk a penalty by offering it > instead of something else that isn't true. > "Full disclosure" can also be read as requiring the disclosure of what the partner assumes a call to mean, constituting an implicit agreement, in the absence of an explicit agreement. I can't see how opponents can be harmed by "disclosing" a meaning upon which a player is going to base further actions when s/he isn't sure of it. If the disclosure accords with the bidder's hand, fine, then there exists a *de facto* agreement as to the meaning, no harm done. If not, then there was MI and a score adjustment may be in order. The contrary policy allows players to claim "no agreement" when they are pretty sure what a call means. How nice. Immune from any MI charge, they can bid on accurately, while their opponents, not knowing what is going on, may take a self-damaging action because of their ignorance. However, if the partner has a hand that obviously can take no further significant action whatever the meaning of the call, then saying "No agreement" (UI to partner), which cannot harm the opposition and may help them, becomes perfectly acceptable. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Oct 16 18:32:24 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 18:32:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement References: Message-ID: <003b01c3940b$7f918460$af9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Tim West-Meads] The pair were described as "Fairly Frequent partnership of ACBL LMs". Neither expertise nor regularity is guaranteed. The auction was also more complex. [Nigel] I accept that the alerted 2D bid was the third rather than the second in the auction. I accept that being an ACBL LM implies no expertise. (I haven't visited America). Also, "frequent" is different from "regular". I am sorry for my carelessess but it does not seem to afffect the gist of my argument. [Tim] Undiscussed is *not* the same as "meaningless". A player may make an undiscussed bid in the hope that, based on local knowledge, partner will understand it. [Nigel] Of course, I realise that a player wouldn't use a bid unless he thought it had a meaning that his partner would be likely to recognize. Obviously I meant "meaningless" in the sense that neither partner was willing to *divulge* that "undiscussed" meaning to the questioner. [Tim] Assuming opponents are also "local experts" then "undiscussed" is a sufficient explanation. [Nigel] I don't know Steven Haver but I am happy to accept that he is an expert; but he did not say that his opponents were local. Anyway, IMO, even if the questioner is a local expert, it is completely unfair to assume that he shares the partnership knowledge of local bidding habits, in any detail. Can the partership insist that "undiscussed" is really a sufficient answer when the questions show ignorance of this specific local agreement? Were this practice less common among successful players -- or if fewer law-makers and enforcers championed it, I would have thought it tantamount to cheating. I would change the law to make it clearly illegal. Looks like another topic, Tim, on which we agree to differ (: --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.524 / Virus Database: 321 - Release Date: 06/10/2003 From svenpran@online.no Thu Oct 16 18:27:46 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 19:27:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement In-Reply-To: <3F8ED035.2080604@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c3940a$d0d41690$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ............ > > "Local experience" is part of "special partnership understanding"! > > > > If "everybody" in your club use splinter you will probably not offer > much > > discussion on that convention with an ad hoc partner; and it could = be > argued > > that "not discussed" is a complete disclosure of a jump to 4C over > partners > > opening bid in 1S. ("Everybody" will assume Splinter absent any = contrary > > information). > > > > Your visitor from the other state will probably be confused by this > > explanation which is certainly not "complete" to him (nor is it > "complete" > > as understood in the laws). > > >=20 > So if "undiscussed" is equal to "splinter" to the local opponent, > while to the visitor it is incomplete, why not simply state "splinter" > in both cases? Exactly, but there has been just too many postings here arguing that = "not discussed" or "no agreement" is the correct answer (and that for = instance "Splinter" is "general knowledge" which need not be disclosed). I have never accepted and will never accept anybody "hiding behind" the "general knowledge" clause in Law 75. It is "general knowledge" that opening bids of one in a suit other than clubs when you play Vienna shows 5 cards in that suit. If you play = Vienna (is it still in use anywhere?) and someone asks specifically about such = an opening bid why not say "at least 5 cards, 12 to 19 HCP"? Opponents have = no obligation to know Vienna. Regards Sven From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Oct 16 18:49:39 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 18:49:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031015165614.009f2470@pop.starpower.net> <004801c39408$ccfa22a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <005e01c3940d$ebca5f60$af9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Marvin French] I can't see how opponents can be harmed by "disclosing" a meaning upon which a player is going to base further actions when s/he isn't sure of it. If the disclosure accords with the bidder's hand, fine, then there exists a *de facto* agreement as to the meaning, no harm done. If not, then there was MI and a score adjustment may be in order. [Nigel] Marvin is right. As far as I know outright guessing is currently illegal, although few players can ever be absolutely *sure* of the meaning of many of their partner's bids. I agree with Marvin that the law should be changed to make a guess *compulsory*. This would prevent rationalisation of nondisclosure as "undiscussed" and "general bridge knowledge and experience" As Marvin points out, the current law allows partnerships 'to claim "no agreement" when they are pretty sure what a call means. How nice. Immune from any MI charge, they can bid on accurately, while their opponents, not knowing what is going on, may take a self-damaging action because of their ignorance'. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.524 / Virus Database: 321 - Release Date: 06/10/2003 From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Thu Oct 16 18:43:09 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 09:43:09 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Kooijman, A. (Ton) wrote: > ***In my opinion you don't; your drama below demonstrates that some problems > can be solved, not that having no answer on a question about an agreed > meaning of a call is not an infraction. You seem to admit that this > infraction creates UI. > > ton *** He admits that UI is created. But last I checked, creation of UI was not, automatically, an infraction, and in fact is unavoidable in a number of common situations. In other words, the fact that UI is created doesn't help us much, one way or the other, in deciding if not knowing the answer to a question is an infraction. GRB From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Oct 16 20:22:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 20:22 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement In-Reply-To: <000001c393f8$24908790$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > And they shall not have to ask follow up > questions to receive such full disclosure! This is twaddle. The facility exists to ask follow-up questions and players are expected (to an extent) to protect themselves. The TD should not be ruling in favour of decent players who deliberately refrain from asking questions in the hope of receiving an adjustment. Nor, I might add, should the TD rule in favour of decent players who try to fob novices off with "undiscussed". Somewhere between these two extremes a balance can be found. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Oct 16 20:22:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 20:22 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement In-Reply-To: <003b01c3940b$7f918460$af9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: > [Tim West-Meads] > The pair were described as "Fairly Frequent > partnership of ACBL LMs". Neither expertise > nor regularity is guaranteed. The auction > was also more complex. > > [Nigel] > I accept that the alerted 2D bid was the third > rather than the second in the auction. I accept > that being an ACBL LM implies no expertise. (I > haven't visited America). Also, "frequent" is > different from "regular". I am sorry for my > carelessess but it does not seem to afffect the > gist of my argument. Frequent and regular are not dissimilar. However "fairly" is somewhat ambiguous. I can think of about 15 people with whom I play on-line (perhaps 5-10 boards a month) where "fairly frequent" would be a reasonable description. With all I play Michaels (site standard, and needs no explicit agreement for use). With none have I discussed what 2D would be in the actual sequence. > [Tim] > Undiscussed is *not* the same as "meaningless". > A player may make an undiscussed bid in the hope > that, based on local knowledge, partner will > understand it. > > [Nigel] > Of course, I realise that a player wouldn't > use a bid unless he thought it had a meaning > that his partner would be likely to recognize. Perhaps more specifically "he hopes his partner will be able to work out which of two possible meanings is most likely based on the contents of his hand/later developments in the auction". > Obviously I meant "meaningless" in the sense > that neither partner was willing to *divulge* > that "undiscussed" meaning to the questioner. I will happily tell opponents "Based on our experience/local knowledge partner will either take it as natural (decent 6 card suit) or Michaels (both majors)". However they are not entitled to know which I intended. That isn't part of my partnership agreements. I expect partner to apply bridge logic based on a) does 1C promise 2/3/4 clubs and b) do opps bid 4 card majors in preference to 1D c) his own holding. > [Tim] > Assuming opponents are also "local experts" then > "undiscussed" is a sufficient explanation. > > [Nigel] > I don't know Steven Haver but I am happy to > accept that he is an expert; but he did not > say that his opponents were local. I don't know him either. I got the impression that his opponents were familiar to him. > Anyway, IMO, even if the questioner is a local > expert, it is completely unfair to assume that he > shares the partnership knowledge of local bidding > habits, in any detail. Simple example (St Johns Wood, regulars over the age of 52 and under 67). 1S-4H "Are you playing that as a splinter?". "Undiscussed". Now *every* player at the table knows it is either natural or a splinter and has the same local knowledge. > Can the partership insist that "undiscussed" is > really a sufficient answer when the questions > show ignorance of this specific local agreement? Of course not. Nobody has suggested that "undiscussed" is always an appropriate answer - only that it *may* be. "Undiscussed, would you like me to tell you the likely options?" is *always* a sufficient first reply and is, IMO, much better than speculative guesses. > Were this practice less common among successful > players -- or if fewer law-makers and enforcers > championed it, I would have thought it tantamount > to cheating. > > I would change the law to make it clearly illegal. Refusing to give relevant information is already illegal. Saying something is an agreement when it isn't is illegal. Forcing a player to state his intentions when all relevant knowledge has already been disclosed is illegal. Tim From wayne@ebridgenz.com Thu Oct 16 20:36:12 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 08:36:12 +1300 Subject: [blml] Both Majors In-Reply-To: <001f01c393cd$cdc319c0$8bf77f50@Default> Message-ID: <00a201c3941c$c82503d0$2b2e37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Jaap van der Neut > Sent: Thursday, 16 October 2003 10:10 p.m. > To: Ed Reppert; blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Both Majors > > > Ed: > > Maybe. Though I don't think "stretching the laws" in order > to get the > > result you want out of them is legit. > > Well stretching the law is maybe not the right way to put it. > And there is > no such thing as 'getting the result we want', at least not > on a single case > basis. In Holland we were/are faced with a frequent problem > (mainly) caused > by low level players using conventions they hardly can > handle. And once > again, we use this approach only with first round > competitive/obstructive > conventions (twosuited overcalls, conventional overcalls over > 1NT, etc). > Maybe there has been a case based on a second round bid but I cannot > remember. Weak players make mistakes. That is what the game is about. So now they make mistakes and get poor scores (in the long run) and on top of that we penalizing them for making mistakes. How fair is that? IMO not fair at all. Penalize them for blatant use UI etc - these things are in the laws. But do not penalize them for making a mistake. That is perverse. Wayne From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Thu Oct 16 19:14:17 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:14:17 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement In-Reply-To: <005601c393c5$f17c4740$5a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Nigel Guthrie wrote: [1C Pass 1H 2C, 2C described as undiscussed] > If your partner confirmed your explanation then, > as a TD, I would rule MI because for most other > regular expert partnerships there would be negative > inferences available from other agreements or > experience of related auctions. > [snip] > With even a casual inexpert club partner, however, > I would be confident that 2C was... > (2) A pointy two-suiter with > (a) Diamonds better than spades or > (b) Heart singleton or void (i.e clubs better than > hearts) > > I would go further: even undiscussed, playing with > an inexpert Reading Club member for the first time, > (2) is the most likely explanation. > > I contend that this is not "general Bridge knowledge > and experience* to anyone less familiar with the > general philosophy of the circle in which I play. > > In other circles, I would expect the most popular > interpretation to be... > (3) Natural, intermediate, with good clubs. Another one for the 'your mileage may vary' file. To my way of thinking, it is general bridge knowledge that there are two common ways to play this 2C bid -- your (2) and (3). If someone says "undiscussed" in this auction, I would assume it means "I hope partner guesses right which of these two common meanings I had in mind since we didn't discuss which one to use." I think it's a real stretch to rule MI against someone who fails to enumerate all of the popular meanings of a bid from which he is going to have to guess. (And all of your (4) to (11) strike me as very rare compared to the two frontrunners.) Contrast that with this auction: 1H Double 3C Here, "undiscussed" is likely to be an incomplete answer. It's not clear to me how much UI-generating information I should volunteer: do I say "undiscussed, but 1H-P-3C means __ and 1H-1S-3C means __" or do I wait to be asked about alternative auctions? I had this sequence come up at the Vancouver 1999 NABC. My partner and I had just switched from 'Bergen on over a double' to using Fit-jumps.. or at least talked about making the switch. So, when partner bid 3C I alerted, and when they asked, I said "it's one of two things, I can't remember which, but it's written on my convention card." I didn't look. Neither did they: they snatched the convention card off the table, hid it under the table, and asked me again what the bid meant. They called the director over. He glanced at the card too and couldn't tell. Or rather, he was too paranoid about holding the card in such a way I couldn't see it (I still wasn't trying to look) that he couldn't do much else. I spelled it out for him: "Under the section marked 'opponents takeout double,' wehave crossed out the row of checkboxes for 'jump shift is...', and either we wrote in Systems On on the line at the bottom, or we wrote Fit next to the crossed out checkboxes." The opps squinted at it again. The director squinted at it again. Then he sent me away from the table, had my partner explain the agreement, then had me come back, stuffed the card under my chair and ordered me not to pick it up until after the hand, then dashed off to tell everyone to move for the next round since we'd wasted five whole minutes on this process. I could have saved time by saying "it's either Bergen or Fit, but I can't remember which" -- but I was trying to avoid UI by getting them to look it up on the CC, where it WAS correctly indicated. In my case I knew there was an agreement which I had forgotten; had there not been an agreement, I would have said "undiscussed, but it's either X or Y", because at least two of the five common meanings (weak, strong, fit, Bergen (6-9), Reverse Bergen (10-12) ) I would be able to eliminate but the opps might not. GRB From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Oct 16 22:03:30 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 17:03:30 -0400 Subject: [blml] Both Majors In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031016081940.022e41c0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031016165039.022efb50@pop.starpower.net> At 10:29 AM 10/16/03, twm wrote: > > It is absurd to suggest that a call that specifically > > caters to partner's having forgotten your agreement can be considered > > an LA to a "suggested" call that doesn't. You cannot require a player > > to bid on the presumption that partner forgot his methods just because > > he has "UI" that he didn't. > > > > As others have expressed it, unauthorized confirmation of AI already > > held doesn't transform it into UI. > >The UI is not that one holds the majors, it is that partner has confirmed >that you hold the majors. If we are happy that players are allowed to >use >such information then so be it - but that is not what the law currently >says. Not so, because the "I" isn't that one holds the majors; it is that the partnership agreement is that the bid shows the majors, whatever the actual holding. If that is information already in the possession of the bidder -- and it was in this case; we know how he intended his call to be (correctly) interpreted -- he can't be required to suddenly stop believing it just because his partner, via the alert procedure, has confirmed it. >To give another example I was dealt Kxx,xx,AKJTxx,xx the other day third >in hand and the bidding went: P-P-1N-P-2D(a)-P-P-2S-3D-ap My partner >said something like "I'm glad you alerted 2H, otherwise I would have >assumed you had forgotten we were playing transfers". Do you really >think >my alert wasn't UI? Of course it wasn't. If it were, the director should have been called, and the score adjusted to the result in some number of hearts. Is anyone suggesting that that is what should have happened? Had you failed to alert, that would contradict partner's presumption about the agreed meaning of the bid, as opposed to reinforcing it, and so would be UI. Your partner's statement doesn't suggest that he used UI, but rather that he would have done so had he had some in a hypothetical alternative situation. Had that actually occurred, we'd agree overwhelmingly that the director should have been called and the score adjusted. That must tell us that there's a legally relevant distinction between those situations. 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 Oct 16 22:56:46 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 22:56:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement References: Message-ID: <008b01c39430$67f5aa00$af9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Tim West-Meads] "Undiscussed, would you like me to tell you the likely options?" is *always* a sufficient first reply and is, IMO, much better than speculative guesses. [Nigel] Good! Then Tim and I agree about the current legal position, after all! --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.524 / Virus Database: 321 - Release Date: 06/10/2003 From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Oct 16 23:13:20 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 23:13:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Both Majors In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031016165039.022efb50@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric wrote: >>Do you really think my alert wasn't UI? >Of course it wasn't. Yes, it was. All alerts, without any possibility of exception, are UI to the alerter's partner. This is close to being axiomatic, and I am most surprised to see Eric - almost invariably a paragon of common sense and legal acumen - hold the contrary view. I would most strenuously urge him to reconsider. David Burn London, England From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Oct 16 08:35:37 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 08:35:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement References: Message-ID: <000201c39439$30169960$f413e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 2:27 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement > > UI has nothing to do with the question at hand. And if I tell a > player "I can't remember" or "I'm not sure" and "but check > our CC, it's on there", and that player refuses to look at the > CC, he or she can go hang as far as I'm concerned. > +=+ If I look at the CC and it says "two lowest suits" can I ask a supplementary "does that mean two lowest unbid suits?" ?? :-) (And are you barred from learning what your methods are from this question?) There is a problem in relying on the cursory information, sometimes just the name of a convention, written on the CC. And, desirable or not, I share ton's view that, as the law stands, 75C does require the answer to be given in responding to a legitimate question - and says something about the content of the answer. Mind you, perhaps "conveyed to him" begs the question when 'he' hasn't a clue what their agreement is. One thing is sure - 'information conveyed' is not described by merely naming a convention. I think it reasonable to refer an opponent to the CC when unsure, but the procedure only works if the opponent is satisfied he finds there what he needs to know. ~ G ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Oct 17 00:22:52 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:22:52 +1000 Subject: [blml] "Sensible" takeout doubles (was ABF) Message-ID: >Do I take it then that you have conceded the point about >takeout doubles of opening one-bids, Richard? > >-- >Gordon Rainsford RJH idiosyncratises: No. Up until five years ago, my regular expert partner and I had this agreement: RHO Me 1D Double =3D not takeout, but any 15+ hcp Rationale: - My partner and I played a strong club relay system, so we wanted to discourage attempts to break our relay methods by an opponent opening light in first seat. (After the 15+ hcp double, if pard held a positive response, we conducted a level-shifted relay auction.) We only abandoned this gimmick because of a culture change by our local opponents - their 1-level openings became somewhat sounder, while instead their preemptive openings became somewhat more wide-ranging. However, we retain this gimmick against the occasional Aussie Forcing Pass opponents who use 8-12 hcp 1-level opening bids. So, I reiterate my original point. While some particular conventional agreements may be *highly popular* amongst experts, there are not any conventional methods which are *universal* amongst experts. Best wishes Richard James 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Oct 17 00:37:19 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:37:19 +1000 Subject: [blml] Both Majors Message-ID: Eric Landau: >If you make a call in accordance with your >partnership agreements, partner's confirming >those agreements via the alert procedure >cannot be considered UI. [snip] RJH asks: What never? Well, hardly ever. Suppose pard is prone to forget a particular partnership agreement. Option (a): Opponents do not ask questions, you take insurance against pard's forgetfulness by bidding to a second-best game, bad breaks defeat the second-best game. Option (b): Opponents ask questions of pard, pard's answers demonstrate that pard has unusually remembered your agreement, you now confidently bid to the best game, the best game is bullet-proof despite the bad breaks. Best wishes Richard James 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Oct 17 01:38:35 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:38:35 +1000 Subject: [blml] "Random" overcalls (was Both Majors) Message-ID: Frances Hinden wrote: >>I don't believe this approach is in accord with >>the laws, but I wish it were. You are not allowed >>to play random overcalls (at least, in England you >>aren't). 'Deliberately' not discussing the meaning >>of some bids or frequently forgetting your >>agreements is, in effect, playing random overcalls. ABF Yellow System (HUM) regulation: >Overcalls may include non-descriptive (or "random") >overcalls, such as, "That bid can mean anything", >"He holds thirteen cards", "We make random overcalls >over a Precision 1C regardless of strength". In such >cases, however, partnership experience must be >disclosed. Richard James Hills writes: Given that "partnership experience must be disclosed", then *random* is a misnomer - an overcall can be, at best, semi-random. WBF Code of Practice: >If the members of a partnership offer differing >explanations, or if a conflicting statement on the >convention card has caused an opponent to be confused, >a procedural penalty for violation of Law 75 may be >applied. As a separate issue, the score will be >adjusted if opponents are damaged and the conditions >for score adjustment are deemed to exist. Richard James Hills continues: Likely, "frequently forgetting your agreements" is also a misnomer: If you frequently forget your *explicit* agreements, Then you actually have *implicit* two-way agreements which must be fully disclosed to the opponents. Best wishes RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- 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 Oct 17 03:40:24 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 12:40:24 +1000 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia appeal #36 Message-ID: How would you rule as TD and as AC? Best wishes Richard James Hills Subject (Disputed Score): The Telltale Convention Card Event: Red Ribbon Pairs, 13 Mar 03, First Qualifying Session Bd: 14 AQT75 Dlr: East Q5 Vul: None K9 A874 98632 J4 K8 JT976432 QJ6 T Q32 T6 K A A875432 KJ95 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 3H 4D Pass 4S Pass 5D Pass Pass Pass The Facts: The opening lead was the HK. N/S approached the Director prior to the start of the second qualifying session to report that the posted score of +400 should have been +420. The Director found the signed ticket that read 5D made five, +400 for N/S, and located the E/W pair after the session had begun and discovered that East's score card showed making five while West's showed making six (-420). East had signed the ticket. E/W were unable or unwilling to recall the play of the hand either then or later during a break. Since E/W could not describe which two tricks they took and since this appeal for a score correction was timely by law and regulation, the Director decided that the likelihood that twelve tricks were taken by N/S was sufficient to change the score to +420 for N/S (Laws 72A2 and 79). The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling. The Reviewer told both pairs that given the apparent disagreement at the time the board was scored, the law and regulations allowed the score to be changed and the Panel would decide the score based on the balance of the evidence. The table Director reported that East in particular resisted trying to recall what had happened. When the Director spoke to E/W at the hospitality break East speculated on which trick E/W might have taken in addition to the diamond. He mentioned first that they might have scored a second diamond and later thought it might have been the CQ. E/W told the Reviewer that they were disturbed at being interrupted twice during the session (they said the interruptions occurred during play while the Director said her conversations with them occurred between rounds). All players agreed to the auction as shown. The Reviewer looked at each player's score card and confirmed that East's and North's cards showed 400s while West's and South's showed 420s (South brought his card to the Reviewer from his room after the hearing). All agreed that the HK was the opening lead. N/S thought that declarer won, played a diamond to the king, a diamond to the ace, and a diamond conceded to West. North said that West returned a heart on which declarer pitched a club (South did not remember the return). N/S were adamant that they did not remember the SK being overtaken or a club finesse being taken. E/W said they did not remember the sequence of plays. East conceded that six was cold on paper but that people make mistakes all the time so there were ways for South to have lost a trick. When asked why he put making five (+400) on the ticket North said he did not know for sure, but at the time he was thinking it was a poor board since they had not bid slam. When asked by the Reviewer if he and his partner had discussed missing slam at the time he said they had. E/W did not recall such a conversation. N/S realized the error when they were discussing hands between sessions. -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- 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 gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Oct 16 15:39:21 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 15:39:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement In-Reply-To: <3F8E9241.2010301@hdw.be> Message-ID: <87E796DF-FFE6-11D7-AC72-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> --Apple-Mail-2--38867688 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On Thursday, October 16, 2003, at 01:42 pm, Herman De Wael wrote: > Yesterday, I was faced with the following problem: > > second in hand, I held Qx AJxxxx xxxx J. > We play Multi and Muiderberg (2M=weak, 5cards, with a 4+minor). > I did not fancy any option and passed. > third opened 1NT which was passed around to me. > Now we have agreed that we play, second over 1NT, the same as > openings. But being fourth in hand, I imagined partner must realize I > have something I could not open. So I bid 2He. > Which she alerted and explained as Muiderberg. > And on which she bid 3Cl. > Am I allowed to realize that we have no firm agreement on fourth suit, > passed hand interventions and do I have enough AI to compensate for > the UI of the explanation? > I thought so and corrected to 3Di. > Which for some reason unknown to me was undoubled, and went four down. Have I understood this correctly? Your partner has made a 3C bid accompanied by the Unauthorised Information that suggests she thinks it is Pass/Convert, while you would otherwise have had no reason to believe it was other than a natural club bid? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK --Apple-Mail-2--38867688 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=US-ASCII On Thursday, October 16, 2003, at 01:42 pm, Herman De Wael wrote: Yesterday, I was faced with the following problem: second in hand, I held Qx AJxxxx xxxx J. We play Multi and Muiderberg (2M=weak, 5cards, with a 4+minor). I did not fancy any option and passed. third opened 1NT which was passed around to me. Now we have agreed that we play, second over 1NT, the same as openings. But being fourth in hand, I imagined partner must realize I have something I could not open. So I bid 2He. Which she alerted and explained as Muiderberg. And on which she bid 3Cl. Am I allowed to realize that we have no firm agreement on fourth suit, passed hand interventions and do I have enough AI to compensate for the UI of the explanation? I thought so and corrected to 3Di. Which for some reason unknown to me was undoubled, and went four down. Have I understood this correctly? Your partner has made a 3C bid accompanied by the Unauthorised Information that suggests she thinks it is Pass/Convert, while you would otherwise have had no reason to believe it was other than a natural club bid? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK --Apple-Mail-2--38867688-- From ken.johnston@btinternet.com Thu Oct 16 23:28:28 2003 From: ken.johnston@btinternet.com (Ken Johnston) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 23:28:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy Message-ID: <00b001c39434$d2706f60$cc2c8051@e8m4u6> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00AD_01C3943D.33EA12C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Declarer East in 4S. South makes opening lead face down and East says it = is not his lead. North now makes face down lead and East starts tabling = hand. Director now called and instructs West to play the hand as dummy = is now exposed. N/S maintain defence would be better if played by East = as a heart lead (bid by N/S) by South gains a trick. Should Director = award an adjusted score and should Director have made East play the hand = initially? Ken ------=_NextPart_000_00AD_01C3943D.33EA12C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Declarer East in 4S. South makes = opening lead=20 face down and East says it is not his lead. North now makes = face down=20 lead and East starts tabling hand. Director now called and instructs = West to=20 play the hand as dummy is now exposed. N/S maintain defence would be = better if=20 played by East as a heart lead (bid by N/S) by South gains a trick. = Should=20 Director award an adjusted score and should Director have made East play = the=20 hand initially?
 
Ken
------=_NextPart_000_00AD_01C3943D.33EA12C0-- From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Oct 17 08:33:23 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:33:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] Both Majors In-Reply-To: <00a201c3941c$c82503d0$2b2e37d2@Desktop> References: <00a201c3941c$c82503d0$2b2e37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <3F8F9B43.6050906@hdw.be> Sorry Wayne, but you have misunderstood. wayne@ebridgenz.com wrote: > > > Weak players make mistakes. That is what the game is about. > > So now they make mistakes and get poor scores (in the long run) and on > top of that we penalizing them for making mistakes. > Not on top of that - in lieu of the sometimes occuring good score after the mistake. Ghestem errors are particularly prone to this. Someone explains a bid as A+B, when it is actually A+C. By chance (and this is a 40% chance) he happens to prefer A over B, so he bids A. Whenever this occurs, you can bet on opponents to have at least a 5-4 fit in B (work it out - the suit has not been opened either). And neither of them can bid it because the suit has been named. So the "infractors" generally end up with a good score. This happened far too frequently in the Netherlands for the authorities to ignore. > How fair is that? > > IMO not fair at all. > > Penalize them for blatant use UI etc - these things are in the laws. > > But do not penalize them for making a mistake. That is perverse. > Not penalize, taking back advantages that stemmed from inability to remember system ("failure to give enough attention"?) > Wayne > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Oct 17 08:40:05 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:40:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia appeal #36 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3F8F9CD5.3010206@hdw.be> North was dummy, East held no cards. Those two thought +400. Those two wrote and signed the ticket. South was declarer, West would have made the second trick, if there was one. Those two thought +420. I'm going with the two who should have known: +420. richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > How would you rule as TD and as AC? > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills > > Subject (Disputed Score): The Telltale Convention Card > Event: Red Ribbon Pairs, 13 Mar 03, First Qualifying Session > > Bd: 14 AQT75 > Dlr: East Q5 > Vul: None K9 > A874 > 98632 J4 > K8 JT976432 > QJ6 T > Q32 T6 > K > A > A875432 > KJ95 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 3H 4D > Pass 4S Pass 5D > Pass Pass Pass > > The Facts: The opening lead was the HK. N/S approached the > Director prior to the start of the second qualifying session > to report that the posted score of +400 should have been +420. > The Director found the signed ticket that read 5D made five, > +400 for N/S, and located the E/W pair after the session had > begun and discovered that East's score card showed making > five while West's showed making six (-420). East had signed > the ticket. E/W were unable or unwilling to recall the play of > the hand either then or later during a break. Since E/W could > not describe which two tricks they took and since this appeal > for a score correction was timely by law and regulation, the > Director decided that the likelihood that twelve tricks were > taken by N/S was sufficient to change the score to +420 for > N/S (Laws 72A2 and 79). > > The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling. The Reviewer > told both pairs that given the apparent disagreement at the > time the board was scored, the law and regulations allowed the > score to be changed and the Panel would decide the score based > on the balance of the evidence. The table Director reported > that East in particular resisted trying to recall what had > happened. When the Director spoke to E/W at the hospitality > break East speculated on which trick E/W might have taken in > addition to the diamond. He mentioned first that they might > have scored a second diamond and later thought it might have > been the CQ. E/W told the Reviewer that they were disturbed at > being interrupted twice during the session (they said the > interruptions occurred during play while the Director said her > conversations with them occurred between rounds). All players > agreed to the auction as shown. The Reviewer looked at each > player's score card and confirmed that East's and North's > cards showed 400s while West's and South's showed 420s (South > brought his card to the Reviewer from his room after the > hearing). All agreed that the HK was the opening lead. N/S > thought that declarer won, played a diamond to the king, a > diamond to the ace, and a diamond conceded to West. North said > that West returned a heart on which declarer pitched a club > (South did not remember the return). N/S were adamant that they > did not remember the SK being overtaken or a club finesse being > taken. E/W said they did not remember the sequence of plays. > East conceded that six was cold on paper but that people make > mistakes all the time so there were ways for South to have lost > a trick. When asked why he put making five (+400) on the ticket > North said he did not know for sure, but at the time he was > thinking it was a poor board since they had not bid slam. When > asked by the Reviewer if he and his partner had discussed > missing slam at the time he said they had. E/W did not recall > such a conversation. N/S realized the error when they were > discussing hands between sessions. > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 Oct 17 08:44:16 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:44:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement In-Reply-To: <87E796DF-FFE6-11D7-AC72-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <87E796DF-FFE6-11D7-AC72-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <3F8F9DD0.10308@hdw.be> Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > > On Thursday, October 16, 2003, at 01:42 pm, Herman De Wael wrote: > > Yesterday, I was faced with the following problem: > > second in hand, I held Qx AJxxxx xxxx J. > We play Multi and Muiderberg (2M=weak, 5cards, with a 4+minor). > I did not fancy any option and passed. > third opened 1NT which was passed around to me. > Now we have agreed that we play, second over 1NT, the same as > openings. But being fourth in hand, I imagined partner must realize > I have something I could not open. So I bid 2He. > Which she alerted and explained as Muiderberg. > And on which she bid 3Cl. > Am I allowed to realize that we have no firm agreement on fourth > suit, passed hand interventions and do I have enough AI to > compensate for the UI of the explanation? > I thought so and corrected to 3Di. > Which for some reason unknown to me was undoubled, and went four down. > > > Have I understood this correctly? Your partner has made a 3C bid > accompanied by the Unauthorised Information that suggests she thinks it > is Pass/Convert, while you would otherwise have had no reason to believe > it was other than a natural club bid? > Yes, you have understood correctly, except for the fact that I did have a reason to believe it was other than a natural club bid. Don't forget that partner passed on 1NT and is unlikely to take out my one-suiter (if that is what our agreement says it is) by another one-suiter. Even on a natural 2He, 3Cl suggests a secondary diamond suit (after all, if she has both blacks, she's going to bid spades first). Combine this with my own uncertainty about the meaning of 2He and I believe I have enough AI to warrant a 3Di bid. > -- > Gordon Rainsford > London UK > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Oct 17 11:54:34 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 11:54:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement In-Reply-To: <3F8F9DD0.10308@hdw.be> Message-ID: <4AFFB3E1-0090-11D8-9117-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Friday, October 17, 2003, at 08:44 am, Herman De Wael wrote: > Gordon Rainsford wrote: > >> On Thursday, October 16, 2003, at 01:42 pm, Herman De Wael wrote: >> Yesterday, I was faced with the following problem: >> second in hand, I held Qx AJxxxx xxxx J. >> We play Multi and Muiderberg (2M=weak, 5cards, with a 4+minor). >> I did not fancy any option and passed. >> third opened 1NT which was passed around to me. >> Now we have agreed that we play, second over 1NT, the same as >> openings. But being fourth in hand, I imagined partner must >> realize >> I have something I could not open. So I bid 2He. >> Which she alerted and explained as Muiderberg. >> And on which she bid 3Cl. >> Am I allowed to realize that we have no firm agreement on fourth >> suit, passed hand interventions and do I have enough AI to >> compensate for the UI of the explanation? >> I thought so and corrected to 3Di. >> Which for some reason unknown to me was undoubled, and went four >> down. >> Have I understood this correctly? Your partner has made a 3C bid >> accompanied by the Unauthorised Information that suggests she thinks >> it is Pass/Convert, while you would otherwise have had no reason to >> believe it was other than a natural club bid? > > Yes, you have understood correctly, except for the fact that I did > have a reason to believe it was other than a natural club bid. > Don't forget that partner passed on 1NT and is unlikely to take out my > one-suiter (if that is what our agreement says it is) by another > one-suiter. Why not? The fact that you passed on the first round means that your heart suit is likely to be poor, whether you have a one-suiter or a two-suiter. And your partner may well have a reasonable club suit that couldn't be bid earlier (2C overcall of 1NT is not natural for you, is it?) > Even on a natural 2He, 3Cl suggests a secondary diamond suit (after > all, if she has both blacks, she's going to bid spades first). Combine > this with my own uncertainty about the meaning of 2He and I believe I > have enough AI to warrant a 3Di bid. I don't think I would have felt comfortable doing that. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Fri Oct 17 12:16:41 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 13:16:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] Both Majors References: <00a201c3941c$c82503d0$2b2e37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <003a01c394a0$3d972660$64e87f50@Default> Wayne, Herman has already come to my defence. Just to add a little something. Wayne: > Weak players make mistakes. That is what the game is about. > > So now they make mistakes and get poor scores (in the long run) and on > top of that we penalizing them for making mistakes. First. Nobody forces weak players to play aggresive obstructive conventions they don't understand very well, resulting in bothering other weak players who have never asked for it. Second. We don't apply penalties, we protect the opponents if they get a bad score resulting from opponents misusing this type of conventions. Third. This type of mistakes often results in de facto illegal system violations. Most SO's can be very harsh on that. Average plus average minus is imho rather gentle. Wayne: > How fair is that? > > IMO not fair at all. Nobody knows what is fair. It probably depends whether you are the guy who cannot apply the convention correctly or whether you are the opponent getting unsolvable problems as a result. Anyway in Holland most people consider the current approach as fairer than 'laissez-faire'. Once again, it is not obligatory to play conventions you don't understand. But nothing is perfect. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "'Jaap van der Neut'" ; "'Ed Reppert'" ; "'blml'" Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 9:36 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Both Majors > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > Behalf Of Jaap van der Neut > > Sent: Thursday, 16 October 2003 10:10 p.m. > > To: Ed Reppert; blml > > Subject: Re: [blml] Both Majors > > > > > > Ed: > > > Maybe. Though I don't think "stretching the laws" in order > > to get the > > > result you want out of them is legit. > > > > Well stretching the law is maybe not the right way to put it. > > And there is > > no such thing as 'getting the result we want', at least not > > on a single case > > basis. In Holland we were/are faced with a frequent problem > > (mainly) caused > > by low level players using conventions they hardly can > > handle. And once > > again, we use this approach only with first round > > competitive/obstructive > > conventions (twosuited overcalls, conventional overcalls over > > 1NT, etc). > > Maybe there has been a case based on a second round bid but I cannot > > remember. > > Weak players make mistakes. That is what the game is about. > > So now they make mistakes and get poor scores (in the long run) and on > top of that we penalizing them for making mistakes. > > How fair is that? > > IMO not fair at all. > > Penalize them for blatant use UI etc - these things are in the laws. > > But do not penalize them for making a mistake. That is perverse. > > Wayne > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Oct 17 13:27:57 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 08:27:57 -0400 Subject: [blml] Both Majors In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031016165039.022efb50@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031017081143.009f6760@pop.starpower.net> At 06:13 PM 10/16/03, David wrote: >Eric wrote: > > >>Do you really think my alert wasn't UI? > > >Of course it wasn't. > >Yes, it was. All alerts, without any possibility of exception, are UI >to the >alerter's partner. This is close to being axiomatic, and I am most >surprised >to see Eric - almost invariably a paragon of common sense and legal >acumen - >hold the contrary view. I would most strenuously urge him to reconsider. This is a semantic quibble. I'd have said that all alerts, without exception, are, or, more precisely, contain, "extraneous information". To me, "unauthorized information" is extraneous information which is not "authorized" for use by the holder. In particular, I argue that EI which conveys the message that information already known is correct does not "unauthorize" the information in question; it may still be used legally. If you know what your agreement was, and bid with that knowledge, you are not only allowed but *required* to continue on the assumption that you were correct regardless of the EI. If the EI confirms it you must bid as suggested by the EI, so it can hardly be "unauthorized" for you to do so. Of course, if the EI contradicts rather than reinforces your prior knowledge, it is UI, and you are under the same obligation to continue on the assumption that you were originally correct. 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 Oct 17 13:34:57 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 14:34:57 +0200 Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement In-Reply-To: <4AFFB3E1-0090-11D8-9117-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <4AFFB3E1-0090-11D8-9117-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <3F8FE1F1.7020505@hdw.be> Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On Friday, October 17, 2003, at 08:44 am, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> >> Yes, you have understood correctly, except for the fact that I did >> have a reason to believe it was other than a natural club bid. >> Don't forget that partner passed on 1NT and is unlikely to take out my >> one-suiter (if that is what our agreement says it is) by another >> one-suiter. > > > Why not? The fact that you passed on the first round means that your > heart suit is likely to be poor, whether you have a one-suiter or a > two-suiter. And your partner may well have a reasonable club suit that > couldn't be bid earlier (2C overcall of 1NT is not natural for you, is it?) > I dod not really think about that. >> Even on a natural 2He, 3Cl suggests a secondary diamond suit (after >> all, if she has both blacks, she's going to bid spades first). Combine >> this with my own uncertainty about the meaning of 2He and I believe I >> have enough AI to warrant a 3Di bid. > > > I don't think I would have felt comfortable doing that. > I did not feel comfortable either. I actually stated "do I really have to be more catholic than the pope?". BTW - is that an english expression as well? > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Oct 17 13:43:56 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 08:43:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] Both Majors In-Reply-To: <003a01c394a0$3d972660$64e87f50@Default> References: <00a201c3941c$c82503d0$2b2e37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031017083927.009f44f0@pop.starpower.net> At 07:16 AM 10/17/03, Jaap wrote: >Once again, it >is not obligatory to play conventions you don't understand. But it is... if you genuinely hope to understand them some day. IMO, experts who argue that the law can be violated by the fact of a player's, or partnerhip's, not knowing what they're doing have forgotten how they became experts. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Fri Oct 17 14:01:10 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:01:10 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB279900A32EA1@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Herman De Wael wrote: Gordon Rainsford wrote: >=20 > On Friday, October 17, 2003, at 08:44 am, Herman De Wael wrote: >=20 >> >> Yes, you have understood correctly, except for the fact that I did=20 >> have a reason to believe it was other than a natural club bid. >> Don't forget that partner passed on 1NT and is unlikely to take out my= >> one-suiter (if that is what our agreement says it is) by another=20 >> one-suiter. >=20 >=20 > Why not? The fact that you passed on the first round means that your=20 > heart suit is likely to be poor, whether you have a one-suiter or a=20 > two-suiter. And your partner may well have a reasonable club suit that=20 > couldn't be bid earlier (2C overcall of 1NT is not natural for you, is it= ?) >=20 I dod not really think about that. >> Even on a natural 2He, 3Cl suggests a secondary diamond suit (after=20 >> all, if she has both blacks, she's going to bid spades first). Combine= >> this with my own uncertainty about the meaning of 2He and I believe I= >> have enough AI to warrant a 3Di bid. >=20 >=20 > I don't think I would have felt comfortable doing that. >=20 I did not feel comfortable either. I actually stated "do I really have to be more catholic than the pope?". BTW - is that an english expression as well? ----- I guess so. It's a norwegian expression to. Regards, Harald ----- >=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 gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Oct 17 14:31:14 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 14:31:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement In-Reply-To: <3F8FE1F1.7020505@hdw.be> Message-ID: <2E53C8EF-00A6-11D8-9117-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Friday, October 17, 2003, at 01:34 pm, Herman De Wael wrote: > Gordon Rainsford wrote: > >> On Friday, October 17, 2003, at 08:44 am, Herman De Wael wrote: >>> >>> Yes, you have understood correctly, except for the fact that I did >>> have a reason to believe it was other than a natural club bid. >>> Don't forget that partner passed on 1NT and is unlikely to take out >>> my one-suiter (if that is what our agreement says it is) by another >>> one-suiter. >> Why not? The fact that you passed on the first round means that your >> heart suit is likely to be poor, whether you have a one-suiter or a >> two-suiter. And your partner may well have a reasonable club suit >> that couldn't be bid earlier (2C overcall of 1NT is not natural for >> you, is it?) > > I dod not really think about that. > >>> Even on a natural 2He, 3Cl suggests a secondary diamond suit (after >>> all, if she has both blacks, she's going to bid spades first). >>> Combine this with my own uncertainty about the meaning of 2He and I >>> believe I have enough AI to warrant a 3Di bid. >> I don't think I would have felt comfortable doing that. > > I did not feel comfortable either. > I actually stated "do I really have to be more catholic than the > pope?". > > BTW - is that an english expression as well? Not that I'm aware of, though it makes perfect sense to me. In this instance though, the level of catholicism you required of yourself seems less like that of the Pope and more on a par with that of a Sicilian mafioso. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From walt1@verizon.net Fri Oct 17 16:42:50 2003 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 11:42:50 -0400 Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement In-Reply-To: <3F8FE1F1.7020505@hdw.be> References: <4AFFB3E1-0090-11D8-9117-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <3F8FE1F1.7020505@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.0.0.22.0.20031017113310.0322b4d0@incoming.verizon.net> At 08:34 AM 17/10/2003, Herman De Wael wrote: >I did not feel comfortable either. >I actually stated "do I really have to be more catholic than the pope?". > >BTW - is that an english expression as well? Herman I (American, non-Catholic) have never heard the expression "Do I really have to be more Catholic than the Pope?" but I easily understand the meaning. Walt From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Oct 17 17:20:10 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 12:20:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] Both Majors In-Reply-To: <3F8F9B43.6050906@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Friday, Oct 17, 2003, at 03:33 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > Not on top of that - in lieu of the sometimes occuring good score > after the mistake. > Ghestem errors are particularly prone to this. > Someone explains a bid as A+B, when it is actually A+C. By chance (and > this is a 40% chance) he happens to prefer A over B, so he bids A. > Whenever this occurs, you can bet on opponents to have at least a 5-4 > fit in B (work it out - the suit has not been opened either). And > neither of them can bid it because the suit has been named. > > So the "infractors" generally end up with a good score. > > This happened far too frequently in the Netherlands for the > authorities to ignore. This is the first time I've ever seen an argument that makes sense to me showing *why* this bid gets handled the way it does. Note that I'm not saying I agree , just that it makes sense. I'll have to think about it. From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Fri Oct 17 11:10:36 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 12:10:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] Both Majors References: <002001c393cd$ce9bc680$8bf77f50@Default> Message-ID: <000a01c39496$f61e4510$21f8f0c3@LNV> > Ton > > This might happen in Jaap's national AC but not in mine. > > I cannot decide the exact context of your reaction. But since the Dutch AC > applies this policy for about 5 years you need to explain your reaction. > > By the way, I know you are also on the Dutch AC and I know you are opposed > to the policy. Still for five years you have done nothing about it other > than stating you don't like it. So I (and the rest of the AC) assume that > you have no better solution yourself. I am reluctant to please blml with our home quarrels, but since I exposed the existence of it myself some reaction is needed. Your memory lacks accuracy. I have done much more than just saying I don't like such approach and described the way it should be done. But I also have admitted that we need some solution for this problem which is not clearly found in the present laws. The approach in the Dutch AC when I am acting as chairman at this moment is that the committee needs to decide whether there was a misbid or a misexplanation and if there is no strong evidence to make it a misbid we deal with it as an infraction. So we follow the laws when I am present. And then we try to find the best adjusted score and only if an assigned score can't be found a 60/40 is considered (which is in accordance with our interpretation of the laws: 12C1: when, owing to an irregularity, no result can be obtained, ...) . How many 60/40 did we give in the last 5 years in this kind of cases? More than 2? Let me tell blml that the Dutch AC deals with 60 to 70 appeals each year. ton > > But don't get me wrong, I understand why you don't like the current > situation, I don't like it myself (probably for slightly different reasons). > > Jaap > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kooijman, A. (Ton)" > To: "'Ed Reppert '" ; "'blml '" > Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 9:40 AM > Subject: RE: [blml] Both Majors > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, Oct 15, 2003, at 06:17 US/Eastern, Jaap van der Neut > > wrote: > > > > > Something else is that you might give some penalty or score > > > adjustments based on EW playing a first round competitive/obstructive > > > convention without knowing what they are doing. This has become such a > > > > > frequent problem in The Netherlands (not much restrictions on what you > > > > > can play also at low level) that we have such a policy. The policy is > > > not too harsh, we adjust to 60-40 or equi. if a 'misbid' of this type > > > leads to a good score. The logic being that if they don't know how to > > > handle a first round bid the whole difference between MI and a misbid > > > becomes rather meaningless. > > > > This might happen in Jaap's national AC but not in mine. > > > > > > ton > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Fri Oct 17 10:42:59 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 11:42:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Both Majors References: Message-ID: <000901c39496$f5d7ed40$21f8f0c3@LNV> > Eric wrote: > > >>Do you really think my alert wasn't UI? > > >Of course it wasn't. > > Yes, it was. All alerts, without any possibility of exception, are UI to the > alerter's partner. This is close to being axiomatic, and I am most surprised > to see Eric - almost invariably a paragon of common sense and legal acumen - > hold the contrary view. I would most strenuously urge him to reconsider. > > David Burn > London, England > It is surprising indeed. Eric must be confused mixing UI which has value because it differs from one's own conception and UI without value since you knew it already. An alert should belong to the second category. ton From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Fri Oct 17 10:27:38 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 11:27:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement References: Message-ID: <000801c39496$f4dd60a0$21f8f0c3@LNV> > > ***In my opinion you don't; your drama below demonstrates that some problems > > can be solved, not that having no answer on a question about an agreed > > meaning of a call is not an infraction. You seem to admit that this > > infraction creates UI. > > > > ton *** > > He admits that UI is created. > > But last I checked, creation of UI was not, automatically, an infraction, > and in fact is unavoidable in a number of common situations. I agree with that statement and didn't want to use the fact that causing UI makes it an infraction automatically, but it does support that possibility. To be honest I don't understand how anybody can be in doubt that since a player is entitled to be informed about the meaning of a call an infraction occurs when opponents are not able to give that information . We are talking about the case where the call has an agreed meaning of course. And by 'translating' this situation as you do below: 'is not knowing the answer to a question an infraction?' you drift away from the essenceof this case. Normal blml practice but still a pity. ton > > In other words, the fact that UI is created doesn't help us much, one way > or the other, in deciding if not knowing the answer to a question is an > infraction. > > GRB > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From adam@irvine.com Fri Oct 17 19:54:24 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 11:54:24 -0700 Subject: [blml] Dummy In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 16 Oct 2003 23:28:28 BST." <00b001c39434$d2706f60$cc2c8051@e8m4u6> Message-ID: <200310171854.LAA08560@mailhub.irvine.com> Ken Johnston wrote: > Declarer East in 4S. South makes opening lead face down and East says it = > is not his lead. North now makes face down lead and East starts tabling = > hand. Director now called and instructs West to play the hand as dummy = > is now exposed. N/S maintain defence would be better if played by East = > as a heart lead (bid by N/S) by South gains a trick. Should Director = > award an adjusted score and should Director have made East play the hand = > initially? The Director should have made East play the hand since East was the declarer. Since North hasn't yet faced his lead, technically we're still in the auction period, so Law 24 applies; this has ramficiations only if, before the opening lead is faced, it's discovered that there was a misexplanation or something and N/S exercise their right to change a call (Law 21). Assuming this doesn't happen, South faces his opening lead; and since declarer never has penalty cards, East puts the exposed cards back in his hand and plays the hand. N/S of course get to benefit from having seen some of declarer's cards. Once Director has made an incorrect ruling, the only basis for an adjustment is Law 82C (Director's Error). East needs to have it explained to him that it's improper to start tabling the dummy before the opening lead has been faced. -- Adam From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Fri Oct 17 10:09:36 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 11:09:36 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Dummy Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB279900A32E9A@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3948E.635C4AF9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ken Johnston wrote:=20 =20 Declarer East in 4S. South makes opening lead face down and East says it is= not his lead. North now makes face down lead and East starts tabling hand.= Director now called and instructs West to play the hand as dummy is now ex= posed. N/S maintain defence would be better if played by East as a heart le= ad (bid by N/S) by South gains a trick. Should Director award an adjusted s= core and should Director have made East play the hand initially?=20 ----- Law 47D2a say: An opening lead may not be retracted after dummy has faced a= ny card. As it happened, declarer started facing his hand, not dummy. I'm not sure w= ho the TD should have made play the hand initially, but I suppose he should= have made East play the hand. Anyhow, with west playing the hand, he should award an ajusted score afterw= ards (law 47D2b --> law 40C. =20 Regards Harald Skj=E6ran, Oslo ----- =20 Ken ********************************************************************** 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 ************************************************************************** ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3948E.635C4AF9 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Ken Johnston wrote: 
 
Declarer East in 4S. South mak= es=20 opening lead face down and East says it is not his lead. North no= w=20 makes face down lead and East starts tabling hand. Director now called and= instructs West to play the hand as dummy is now exposed. N/S maintain defe= nce=20 would be better if played by East as a heart lead (bid by N/S) by South gai= ns a=20 trick. Should Director award an adjusted score and should Director have mad= e=20 East play the hand initially? 
-----
Law 47D2a say: An opening lead may not be retracted afte= r dummy=20 has faced any card.
As it happened, declarer started facing h= is hand,=20 not dummy. I'm not sure who the TD should have made play the hand=20 initially, but I suppose he should have made East play the=20 hand.
Anyhow, with west playing the hand, = he should=20 award an ajusted score afterwards (law 47D2b --> law=20 40C.
 
Regards
Harald Skj=E6ran, Oslo
-----
 
Ken


********************************************************= **************
This=20 footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweepe= r for=20 the presence of computer viruses.

Norwegian Olympic Committee and= Confederation of=20 Sports
***************************************************************= *******


**************************************************************************<= BR> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
they are addressed. If you have received this email in error
please notify NIF at postmaster@nif.idrett.no.

Abuse can be reported to abuse@nif.idrett.no

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been
swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.

Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports
**************************************************************************<= BR> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3948E.635C4AF9-- From mfrench1@san.rr.com Fri Oct 17 21:17:16 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 13:17:16 -0700 Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement References: <000801c39496$f4dd60a0$21f8f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <001201c394eb$ac2f1ce0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Ton Kooijman" > To be honest I don't understand how anybody can be in doubt that since a > player is entitled to be informed about the meaning of a call an infraction > occurs when opponents are not able to give that information . We are talking > about the case where the call has an agreed meaning of course. Looking at L75C2's last sentence, I believe the following response is sometimes adequate: "We have agreed only on the meaning that our mutual "general knowledge and experience" ascribes to this call, nothing more. It is the meaning that we would have assumed without any discussion. Since that is not a "special" partnership agreement, not 'special information,' I am not required to disclose its meaning." The conversation: "Is it pretty standard that a non-competitive jump takeout response to a major opening by a passed hand shows not only the suit bid but also guarantees good support for opener's suit?" "Yes, as explained by Reese long ago. I have never heard of a different non-conventional meaning to this response, so we are agreed on that. It's common knowledge, nothing special." Not disclosable, per L75C2. And why not disclose, even if it's not required? Because that is UI to partner, who may have misbid. I don't like creating UI when it isn't required that I do so. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Oct 17 22:47:19 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 17:47:19 -0400 Subject: [blml] Dummy In-Reply-To: <00b001c39434$d2706f60$cc2c8051@e8m4u6> Message-ID: <7B6F8F70-00EB-11D8-BDF8-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Oct 16, 2003, at 18:28 US/Eastern, Ken Johnston wrote: > Declarer East in 4S.=A0South makes opening lead face down and East = says=20 > it is not=A0his lead.=A0North now makes face down lead and East starts=20= > tabling hand. Director now called and instructs West to play the hand=20= > as dummy is now exposed. N/S maintain defence would be better if=20 > played by East as a heart lead (bid by N/S) by South gains a trick.=20 > Should Director award an adjusted score and should Director have made=20= > East play the hand initially? Been a couple answers to this already, but... either I'm confused, or=20 the others missed something. If East is declarer, then he misinformed=20 South when he told him it wasn't his lead. I thought about a ruling=20 that East's tabling his hand constitutes a claim (Law 68A) but I=20 suppose he demonstrably did not intend that. So we have a bunch of=20 cards exposed during the auction, and two face down opening leads, one=20= of which ain't right. Since neither lead was faced, Law 54 doesn't=20 apply. I would tell North to pick up his face down "lead", East to pick=20= up his hand, play to proceed from there. I would warn West that=20 knowledge of specific cards in East's hand is UI to him. If South's=20 lead is a heart, good for him. :) If Ken mistyped, and *West* is the putative declarer, then it's a=20 slightly different problem. In this case, I agree with the original=20 TD's ruling. If the original scenario is correct, then I think telling West to play=20= the hand is TD error. Given that, and *if* South's original lead was a=20= heart (hard to be certain after the fact, I know) I would give NS their=20= additional trick. If I don't know whether South originally lead a heart=20= or not, then unless South says he didn't, I'd still give 'em the trick.=20= Law 82C and 12C2 would govern here. Hm. Might give NS the trick on=20 their side of the score, but not on the EW side (both sides=20 non-offending, per 82C). From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Oct 17 22:57:54 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 17:57:54 -0400 Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement In-Reply-To: <001201c394eb$ac2f1ce0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: On Friday, Oct 17, 2003, at 16:17 US/Eastern, Marvin French wrote: > The conversation: > > "Is it pretty standard that a non-competitive jump takeout response to > a > major opening by a passed hand shows not only the suit bid but also > guarantees good support for opener's suit?" > > "Yes, as explained by Reese long ago. I have never heard of a different > non-conventional meaning to this response, so we are agreed on that. > It's > common knowledge, nothing special." > > Not disclosable, per L75C2. Hm. I have a partner who, well, doesn't like to add "new things" to our system. To her, this would be a "new thing". Does that fact make it "special" and thus disclosable? Aside from that, a fit jump would seem to be alertable according to the ACBL reg. If it is, how do you reconcile the dichotomy? From adam@irvine.com Fri Oct 17 23:10:24 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:10:24 -0700 Subject: [blml] Dummy In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 17 Oct 2003 17:47:19 EDT." <7B6F8F70-00EB-11D8-BDF8-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <200310172210.PAA14144@mailhub.irvine.com> Ed wrote: > On Thursday, Oct 16, 2003, at 18:28 US/Eastern, Ken Johnston wrote: > > > Declarer East in 4S. South makes opening lead face down and East says > > it is not his lead. North now makes face down lead and East starts > > tabling hand. Director now called and instructs West to play the hand > > as dummy is now exposed. N/S maintain defence would be better if > > played by East as a heart lead (bid by N/S) by South gains a trick. > > Should Director award an adjusted score and should Director have made > > East play the hand initially? > > Been a couple answers to this already, but... either I'm confused, or > the others missed something. If East is declarer, then he misinformed > South when he told him it wasn't his lead. I didn't miss that; however, since both South and North made face-down leads, the fact that they were misinformed doesn't seem to have any effect. (Law 47E1 says that a lead out of turn may be retracted without penalty if the leader was misinformed by an opponent that it was his turn to lead; but since a face-down lead out of turn can be retracted anyway, this law doesn't have any impact here.) > I thought about a ruling > that East's tabling his hand constitutes a claim (Law 68A) but I > suppose he demonstrably did not intend that. So we have a bunch of > cards exposed during the auction, and two face down opening leads, one > of which ain't right. Since neither lead was faced, Law 54 doesn't > apply. I would tell North to pick up his face down "lead", East to pick > up his hand, play to proceed from there. I would warn West that > knowledge of specific cards in East's hand is UI to him. That's important . . . if, during the play, West has a decision to make about whether to play the card his partner called from dummy or to play the card his partner called from dummy, he may not use this UI in making his decision. :) :) -- Adam From juuso@jldata.fi Sat Oct 18 00:58:11 2003 From: juuso@jldata.fi (Juuso Leikola) Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 02:58:11 +0300 Subject: [blml] Dummy In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB279900A32E9A@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <000501c3950a$852c2420$c64dee88@Helwlapjuuso> Tuus Meaning Law 47ED2a But when we have face-down lead, this card has not payed, so we can = Director can force South to make the opening lead. 82C (Directors error) don't apply( both sides non-offending), if we can determine what happens, if when South leads. Juuso -----Original Message----- C=20 From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Skjaran, Harald Sent: 17. lokakuuta 2003 12:10 To: BLML Subject: SV: [blml] Dummy Ken Johnston wrote:=20 =20 Declarer East in 4S. South makes opening lead face down and East says it = is not his lead. North now makes face down lead and East starts tabling = hand. Director now called and instructs West to play the hand as dummy is now exposed. N/S maintain defence would be better if played by East as a = heart lead (bid by N/S) by South gains a trick. Should Director award an = adjusted score and should Director have made East play the hand initially?=20 ----- Law 47D2a say: An opening lead may not be retracted after dummy has = faced any card. As it happened, declarer started facing his hand, not dummy. I'm not = sure who the TD should have made play the hand initially, but I suppose he = should have made East play the hand. Anyhow, with west playing the hand, he should award an ajusted score afterwards (law 47D2b --> law 40C. Regards Harald Skj=E6ran, Oslo ----- Ken ********************************************************************** 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 walt1@verizon.net Sat Oct 18 07:55:09 2003 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 02:55:09 -0400 Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement In-Reply-To: References: <001201c394eb$ac2f1ce0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.0.0.22.0.20031018024200.03453cb0@incoming.verizon.net> >The conversation: > >"Is it pretty standard that a non-competitive jump takeout response to a >major opening by a passed hand shows not only the suit bid but also >guarantees good support for opener's suit?" > >"Yes, as explained by Reese long ago. I have never heard of a different >non-conventional meaning to this response, so we are agreed on that. It's >common knowledge, nothing special." Switching scenes to the first Thursday of the Summer Nationals in Chicago in 1998 ... I am watching the opening round of the Strat A Grand National Teams. It is early in the first round. The auction goes: P - (P) - 1H - (P) 2S ... next bidder looks questioningly at Jeff Meckstroth "Weak Jump Shift" is the answer ... all pass. Making five ... it was a Bergen Fit Bid. After the hand Jeff says quietly to Bobby Levin: "Don't throw me any curves." Granted it's not unusual at high levels but "I have never heard of a different non-conventional meaning to this response."? Walt From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sat Oct 18 08:41:01 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:41:01 -0700 Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement References: Message-ID: <001001c3954b$2f28e180$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Ed Reppert" < > > On Friday, Oct 17, 2003, at 16:17 US/Eastern, Marvin French wrote: > > > The conversation: > > > > "Is it pretty standard that a non-competitive jump takeout response to > > a > > major opening by a passed hand shows not only the suit bid but also > > guarantees good support for opener's suit?" > > > > "Yes, as explained by Reese long ago. I have never heard of a different > > non-conventional meaning to this response, so we are agreed on that. > > It's > > common knowledge, nothing special." > > > > Not disclosable, per L75C2. > > Hm. I have a partner who, well, doesn't like to add "new things" to our > system. To her, this would be a "new thing". Does that fact make it > "special" and thus disclosable? No. Takeout doubles are "special" to some. > > Aside from that, a fit jump would seem to be alertable according to the > ACBL reg. If it is, how do you reconcile the dichotomy? > "would seem to be Alertable"? To whom? Not to me. Can you quote something in the ACBL Alert regs that says this? The jump is a natural bid. That it requires good support for partner's major is a treatment, not a convention. If my opening 2H bid denies four spades, that's not Alertable because it's a common treatment, not a convention. Please do not point to the 1997 Laws' definition of convention, which the ACBL has refused to adopt. Some fit jumps are Alertable, but not this one. It is not "highly unusual or unexpected," which are the criteria for making a treatment Alertable. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sat Oct 18 08:58:41 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:58:41 -0700 Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement References: <001201c394eb$ac2f1ce0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <6.0.0.22.0.20031018024200.03453cb0@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <001901c3954d$a68d3bc0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Walt" > >The conversation: > > > >"Is it pretty standard that a non-competitive jump takeout response to a > >major opening by a passed hand shows not only the suit bid but also > >guarantees good support for opener's suit?" > > > >"Yes, as explained by Reese long ago. I have never heard of a different > >non-conventional meaning to this response, so we are agreed on that. It's > >common knowledge, nothing special." > > > Switching scenes to the first Thursday of the Summer Nationals in Chicago > in 1998 ... I am watching the opening round of the Strat A Grand National > Teams. It is early in the first round. > > The auction goes: > > P - (P) - 1H - (P) > 2S ... next bidder looks questioningly at Jeff Meckstroth "Weak Jump Shift" > is the answer ... all pass. > > Making five ... it was a Bergen Fit Bid. After the hand Jeff says quietly > to Bobby Levin: "Don't throw me any curves." > Granted it's not unusual at high levels but "I have never heard of a > different non-conventional meaning to this response."? > I guess my example was not a good one. Just trying to get across a principle. Weak jump shift not in competition is definitely Alertable, and Jeff was unwise to assume one if that treatment was not on their convention card. Since it is Alertable, a "curve" would be a non-competitive WJS in the absence of an agreement. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Oct 18 09:25:39 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 04:25:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement In-Reply-To: <001001c3954b$2f28e180$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: On Saturday, Oct 18, 2003, at 03:41 US/Eastern, Marvin French wrote: > "would seem to be Alertable"? To whom? Not to me. Can you quote > something in > the ACBL Alert regs that says this? > The jump is a natural bid. That it requires good support for partner's > major > is a treatment, not a convention. If my opening 2H bid denies four > spades, > that's not Alertable because it's a common treatment, not a convention. > Please do not point to the 1997 Laws' definition of convention, which > the > ACBL has refused to adopt. > > Some fit jumps are Alertable, but not this one. It is not "highly > unusual or > unexpected," which are the criteria for making a treatment Alertable. ACBL Alert Regs, Part II: Conventions: "A convention is defined as any call which, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning not necessarily related to the denomination named or, in the case of a pass, double or redouble, the last denomination named." I haven't compared this to the Laws definition, because that definition is irrelevant. *This* is the ACBL's definition. From Part 1: Natural Calls, of the Regs: "As to length, ACBL accepts as NATURAL any offer to play in a suit for the first time that shows: [criteria snipped]" and "A treatment is a natural call that carries a specific message about the suit bid or the general strength of the hand." This bid (fit jump) carries the additional meaning that the bidder has a fit for opener's suit. It sure as Hell looks to me like a convention. And when opener's suit is a major, at least, I would say a fit jump is *not* an offer to play in responder's suit. Personally, I think the ACBL has been incredibly stupid not to address 3rd and 4th seat openings, passed hand bidding, balancing, and probably a couple other situations I can't think of at the moment in their regulations. But that's another can of worms. :-) From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Sat Oct 18 09:38:49 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 10:38:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB279900A32EA1@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <003801c39553$4353dea0$39e57f50@Default> Herman: > I actually stated "do I really have to be more catholic than the pope?". > BTW - is that an english expression as well? It is a Dutch expression. I don't think it is an English expression. Ask the Britsh for an equivalent. There should be some. The French equi is funny: 'plus royaliste que le roi' Jaap From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Sat Oct 18 09:28:51 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 10:28:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] Both Majors References: <002001c393cd$ce9bc680$8bf77f50@Default> <000a01c39496$f61e4510$21f8f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <003701c39553$423687c0$39e57f50@Default> Ton: > I am reluctant to please blml with our home quarrels, but since I exposed > the existence of it myself some reaction is needed. Your memory lacks > accuracy. Agree with reservations about home quarrels. But then why start another fight? Disagree with 'my memory lacks accuracy'. But what about yours ? > How many 60/40 did we give in the last 5 years in this kind of cases? More > than 2? Let me tell blml that the Dutch AC deals with 60 to 70 appeals each > year. This is ridiculous. Of course 60/40 = av+/av- = +3/-3 = ... (even if this is not obvious I stated in all posts 'or equivalent'). In my estimate we have ruled like that at least a big minority of relevant cases like that if not half of them. Your 2 in 5 years is so ridiculous that it is another example of Mr Ton Kooijman having a special personal way of presenting 'facts'. You would do me a big favor if you would become 'a bit more reasonable' in that department. My estimate is 25 over five years. But I will check on it. I have at least two sources who can give the exact answer if only because by now we even have a 'name' for this type of ruling. > The approach in the Dutch AC when I am acting as chairman at this moment is > that the committee needs to decide whether there was a misbid or a > misexplanation and if there is no strong evidence to make it a misbid we > deal with it as an infraction. So we follow the laws when I am present........ Nice statement. Are you suggesting we don't follow the laws when you are not present ? Anyway you present the procedure the way you want it to be and the way you see the laws. It is not what we do in reality although it depends on who is present. That is the main reason I am not very happy with the current situation. Another fundamental issue is that this is not about infraction the way you use the word. Of course if there is real ME we rule ME which often leads to much more severe adjustments than 60/40 or equi. The problem is cases were the explanation seems to be correct (at least to a certain extent). Of course we can easily use legal tricks and smart arguments to turn any explanation into ME (come on guys lets hang them), instead we prefer to rule 60/40 when there is no 'hard' infraction but still something has happened to opps that 'requires' protection. And don't tell me the legal people have not come up with some legal justification given the current laws (I have forgotten how they did it, probably insufficient attention to the game, or incomplete explanation). If it was really 'illegal' I am sure you would have done something about it by now. But how can it be illegal in Holland if the Dutch national authority has taken a view on the matter. Even if it's chairman doesn't agree on it. The fundamental problem remains the concept of the current laws about MI/ME. In Ton's view (and others) there either is an infraction (which in this type of cases often leads to extreme rulings like top/zero) or there is no infraction. In real life there are real infractions and outrageous infractions but also small even tiny ones. You will never be able to explain to the average player that we play bridge with a law system that often leaves the TD/AC with no other choice than the death penalty or complete aquital. Everybody always complains about the French approach (lots of 60/40 type of rulings) but it is very practical and they have to avoid making their (paying!) clients too unhappy. But also because of their naotional legal culture which is fundamental different from even most other European countries let alone the USA. Ton: > This might happen in Jaap's national AC but not in mine. Weird language. Might I remind you that neither you nor I have a national AC. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Jaap van der Neut" ; "Kooijman, A. (Ton)" ; "'Ed Reppert '" ; "'blml '" Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 12:10 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Both Majors > > > > Ton > > > This might happen in Jaap's national AC but not in mine. > > > > I cannot decide the exact context of your reaction. But since the Dutch AC > > applies this policy for about 5 years you need to explain your reaction. > > > > By the way, I know you are also on the Dutch AC and I know you are opposed > > to the policy. Still for five years you have done nothing about it other > > than stating you don't like it. So I (and the rest of the AC) assume that > > you have no better solution yourself. > > I am reluctant to please blml with our home quarrels, but since I exposed > the existence of it myself some reaction is needed. Your memory lacks > accuracy. > I have done much more than just saying I don't like such approach and > described the way it should be done. But I also have admitted that we need > some solution for this problem which is not clearly found in the present > laws. > The approach in the Dutch AC when I am acting as chairman at this moment is > that the committee needs to decide whether there was a misbid or a > misexplanation and if there is no strong evidence to make it a misbid we > deal with it as an infraction. So we follow the laws when I am present. And > then > we try to find the best adjusted score and only if an assigned score can't > be found a 60/40 is considered (which is in accordance with our > interpretation of the laws: 12C1: when, owing to an irregularity, no result > can be obtained, ...) . > > How many 60/40 did we give in the last 5 years in this kind of cases? More > than 2? Let me tell blml that the Dutch AC deals with 60 to 70 appeals each > year. > > ton > > > > But don't get me wrong, I understand why you don't like the current > > situation, I don't like it myself (probably for slightly different > reasons). > > > > Jaap > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Kooijman, A. (Ton)" > > To: "'Ed Reppert '" ; "'blml '" > > > Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 9:40 AM > > Subject: RE: [blml] Both Majors > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, Oct 15, 2003, at 06:17 US/Eastern, Jaap van der Neut > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Something else is that you might give some penalty or score > > > > adjustments based on EW playing a first round competitive/obstructive > > > > convention without knowing what they are doing. This has become such a > > > > > > > frequent problem in The Netherlands (not much restrictions on what you > > > > > > > can play also at low level) that we have such a policy. The policy is > > > > not too harsh, we adjust to 60-40 or equi. if a 'misbid' of this type > > > > leads to a good score. The logic being that if they don't know how to > > > > handle a first round bid the whole difference between MI and a misbid > > > > becomes rather meaningless. > > > > > > This might happen in Jaap's national AC but not in mine. > > > > > > > > > ton > From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Oct 18 10:00:48 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 05:00:48 -0400 Subject: [blml] Both Majors In-Reply-To: <003701c39553$423687c0$39e57f50@Default> Message-ID: <910EDA7F-0149-11D8-984C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> How did I get dragged into the middle of this? On Saturday, Oct 18, 2003, at 04:28 US/Eastern, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Agree with reservations about home quarrels. But then why start another > fight? Disagree with 'my memory lacks accuracy'. But what about yours ? MOM! Jaap and Ton are fighting again! Make them stop! From wayne@ebridgenz.com Sun Oct 19 03:57:11 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 15:57:11 +1300 Subject: [blml] "Random" overcalls (was Both Majors) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <03d001c395ec$bcfd1930$d09637d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: Friday, 17 October 2003 12:39 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: RE: [blml] "Random" overcalls (was Both Majors) > > Richard James Hills writes: > > Given that "partnership experience must be disclosed", > then *random* is a misnomer - an overcall can be, at > best, semi-random. Random is not synonymous with "every hand is equally likely" Wayne From wayne@ebridgenz.com Sun Oct 19 04:03:46 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 16:03:46 +1300 Subject: [blml] Both Majors In-Reply-To: <3F8F9B43.6050906@hdw.be> Message-ID: <03d101c395ed$a7cd8e40$d09637d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Friday, 17 October 2003 7:33 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Both Majors > > > Sorry Wayne, but you have misunderstood. > > wayne@ebridgenz.com wrote: > > > > > > Weak players make mistakes. That is what the game is about. > > > > So now they make mistakes and get poor scores (in the long > run) and on > > top of that we penalizing them for making mistakes. > > > > Not on top of that - in lieu of the sometimes occuring good score > after the mistake. > Ghestem errors are particularly prone to this. > Someone explains a bid as A+B, when it is actually A+C. By > chance (and > this is a 40% chance) he happens to prefer A over B, so he bids A. > Whenever this occurs, you can bet on opponents to have at least a 5-4 > fit in B (work it out - the suit has not been opened either). And > neither of them can bid it because the suit has been named. That is at least in part because of the methods that they play. And anyway so what? > > So the "infractors" generally end up with a good score. > > This happened far too frequently in the Netherlands for the > authorities to ignore. Why? > > > How fair is that? > > > > IMO not fair at all. > > > > Penalize them for blatant use UI etc - these things are in the laws. > > > > But do not penalize them for making a mistake. That is perverse. > > > > Not penalize, taking back advantages that stemmed from inability to > remember system ("failure to give enough attention"?) Under which law? If one gains an advantage and you take it away that sure sounds like a penalty to me. But maybe you are right... If you are going to penalize misbids what about misplays? On Friday night my opponent dropped my offside stiff King with a nine-card fit with no clear information to do so. She gained this advantage by her inattention to the proper mechanics and probabilities. I think I should get back the trick which I would have scored with my King if she had remembered the correct probabilities. I can't see the difference between this type of mistake and a mistake in the bidding. Perhaps you would care to explain. Wayne > > > Wayne > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From wayne@ebridgenz.com Sun Oct 19 04:08:08 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 16:08:08 +1300 Subject: [blml] Both Majors In-Reply-To: <003a01c394a0$3d972660$64e87f50@Default> Message-ID: <03d301c395ee$3ec2ba50$d09637d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: Jaap van der Neut [mailto:jaapvdn@zonnet.nl] > Sent: Friday, 17 October 2003 11:17 p.m. > To: wayne@ebridgenz.com; 'Ed Reppert'; 'blml' > Subject: Re: [blml] Both Majors > > > Wayne, > > Herman has already come to my defence. Just to add a little something. > > Wayne: > > Weak players make mistakes. That is what the game is about. > > > > So now they make mistakes and get poor scores (in the long > run) and on > > top of that we penalizing them for making mistakes. > > First. Nobody forces weak players to play aggresive > obstructive conventions > they don't understand very well, resulting in bothering other > weak players > who have never asked for it. But if there is no provision for prohibiting them then how will they get experience except by playing them. > > Second. We don't apply penalties, we protect the opponents if > they get a bad > score resulting from opponents misusing this type of conventions. Under what law? > > Third. This type of mistakes often results in de facto illegal system > violations. Most SO's can be very harsh on that. Average plus > average minus > is imho rather gentle. I have no problem with you being harsh I illegal agreements but I think you should make sure that is what you are doing and not punishing just a lucky result that we all get from time to time. > > Wayne: > > How fair is that? > > > > IMO not fair at all. > > Nobody knows what is fair. It probably depends whether you > are the guy who > cannot apply the convention correctly or whether you are the opponent > getting unsolvable problems as a result. Anyway in Holland most people > consider the current approach as fairer than 'laissez-faire'. > Once again, it > is not obligatory to play conventions you don't understand. And more importantly IMO it is not prohibited and there is no provision in the laws for penalties simply because you do not understand your methods. If there were we would soon have no learners as that sure as hell would drive them away. Wayne > From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Oct 19 08:40:03 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 08:40:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB279900A32EA1@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> <003801c39553$4353dea0$39e57f50@Default> Message-ID: <003a01c39614$69444520$a86187d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Skjaran, Harald" ; "Herman De Wael" ; "blml" Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2003 9:38 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement > Herman: > > I actually stated "do I really have to be more > >catholic than the pope?". > > BTW - is that an english expression as well? > > It is a Dutch expression. I don't think it is an English > expression. Ask the Britsh for an equivalent. There > should be some. > > The French equi is funny: 'plus royaliste que le roi' > > +=+ "The King is now bowed and weary, and stoutly republican". +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Oct 19 08:43:56 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 08:43:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement References: <4AFFB3E1-0090-11D8-9117-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <3F8FE1F1.7020505@hdw.be> <6.0.0.22.0.20031017113310.0322b4d0@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <000401c39614$dc67d350$4310e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Herman De Wael" ; "blml" Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 4:42 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement > At 08:34 AM 17/10/2003, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >I did not feel comfortable either. > >I actually stated "do I really have to be more > >catholic than the pope?". > > > >BTW - is that an english expression as well? > > > Herman > > I (American, non-Catholic) have never heard > the expression "Do I really have to be more > Catholic than the Pope?" but I easily understand > the meaning. > > Walt > +=+ In the days when I used to read good books rather than blml I came across the expression in English writings. It is a long time since I have heard it, but it is known to the English. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Oct 19 09:03:17 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 09:03:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Both Majors References: <00a201c3941c$c82503d0$2b2e37d2@Desktop> <003a01c394a0$3d972660$64e87f50@Default> Message-ID: <000801c39619$b338f8b0$ed31e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: ; "'Ed Reppert'" ; "'blml'" Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 12:16 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Both Majors > > Nobody knows what is fair. It probably depends > whether you are the guy who cannot apply the > convention correctly or whether you are the > opponent getting unsolvable problems as a result. > Anyway in Holland most people consider the > current approach as fairer than 'laissez-faire'. Once > again, it is not obligatory to play conventions you > don't understand. > +=+ I am left to puzzle how the player will be aware that he does not understand the convention. More, I am inclined to think that for the player in question his partnership agreement is whatever he understands the convention to be. His problem may be whether his partner agrees the understanding. It strikes me as arrogant to insist that there can be only one way to interpret a device incorporated in a partnership's methods.We have, of course, the infamous debate on 'convention disruption' but this refers not to some bookish definition of the method but to a failure of partners to understand the same thing of their announced 'agreement'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Sun Oct 19 11:13:54 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:13:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] Both Majors References: <00a201c3941c$c82503d0$2b2e37d2@Desktop> <003a01c394a0$3d972660$64e87f50@Default> <000801c39619$b338f8b0$ed31e150@endicott> Message-ID: <001801c3962c$45579140$2af57f50@Default> Grattan, In a way it is part of the 'convention disruption' debate. I don't know the ins and outs of that one. But you do have a problem when you have to rule a dozen times a year cases similar to someone overcalling 3C with a club suit explained as majors or the other way around. I never claimed the 'Dutch solution' (giving av+/av- when there is no hard infraction) is perfect. I was not the one to push it although I voted in favor for it. It seems to me a reasonable way of handling the problem. The Dutch (with some exceptions) seem to agree because nowadays 'everybody' knows the policy and TD's tend to follow it meaning that similar cases tend to be ruled in a similar way. Before we established this policy it was the well known free for all, TD's and AC's ruling every which way imaginable. Once again keep in mind that in Holland there are hardly restrictions on what you can play so we are faced with other problems than in say France, GB, USA where regs and culture create a different reality. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "'blml'" Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 10:03 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Both Majors > > Grattan Endicott (alternatively grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk) > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > The 'gester' address has re-emerged as > gesta@tiscali.co.uk > and may be added to the above. > ================================== > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > To: ; > "'Ed Reppert'" ; > "'blml'" > Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 12:16 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Both Majors > > > > > > Nobody knows what is fair. It probably depends > > whether you are the guy who cannot apply the > > convention correctly or whether you are the > > opponent getting unsolvable problems as a result. > > Anyway in Holland most people consider the > > current approach as fairer than 'laissez-faire'. Once > > again, it is not obligatory to play conventions you > > don't understand. > > > +=+ I am left to puzzle how the player will be aware > that he does not understand the convention. More, > I am inclined to think that for the player in question > his partnership agreement is whatever he understands > the convention to be. His problem may be whether his > partner agrees the understanding. > It strikes me as arrogant to insist that there can be > only one way to interpret a device incorporated in a > partnership's methods.We have, of course, the > infamous debate on 'convention disruption' but this > refers not to some bookish definition of the method > but to a failure of partners to understand the same > thing of their announced 'agreement'. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Sun Oct 19 11:31:40 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:31:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] Both Majors References: <03d301c395ee$3ec2ba50$d09637d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <001901c3962c$471cc0e0$2af57f50@Default> Wayne, You have a point. The hardliners (ACBL etc) have a point. In some world you have to choose between black and white. This Dutch policy about a typical Dutch problem tries to be 'fair' for both sides. Fair in the sense that the NO have some protection and that the people mixing up their twosuited overcalls etc. get Av- rather than much worse rulings in other jurisdictions. One alternative (Wayne) is to accept these type of mixup's. The other alternative (hardliners) is to rule convention disruption (or ME anyway there is always an argument) or whatever to give them the equivalent of a zero plus some PP. Forget all kind of smart legal arguments. For most people it is perfectly normal to state 'you can play twosuited overcalls but mistakes will be ruled against'. They do accept that. We might have said that we always consider it ME (which is much worse for the offenders). Instead we have choosen to do something more reasonable. And our local legal specialist tells me it is not illegal what we are doing. And yes, part of the issue is avoiding crazy rulings at low level which nobody but the legal experts can understand. That is not the way to promote our game. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "'Jaap van der Neut'" ; "'Ed Reppert'" ; "'blml'" Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 5:08 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Both Majors > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jaap van der Neut [mailto:jaapvdn@zonnet.nl] > > Sent: Friday, 17 October 2003 11:17 p.m. > > To: wayne@ebridgenz.com; 'Ed Reppert'; 'blml' > > Subject: Re: [blml] Both Majors > > > > > > Wayne, > > > > Herman has already come to my defence. Just to add a little something. > > > > Wayne: > > > Weak players make mistakes. That is what the game is about. > > > > > > So now they make mistakes and get poor scores (in the long > > run) and on > > > top of that we penalizing them for making mistakes. > > > > First. Nobody forces weak players to play aggresive > > obstructive conventions > > they don't understand very well, resulting in bothering other > > weak players > > who have never asked for it. > > But if there is no provision for prohibiting them then how will they > get experience except by playing them. > > > > > Second. We don't apply penalties, we protect the opponents if > > they get a bad > > score resulting from opponents misusing this type of conventions. > > Under what law? > > > > > Third. This type of mistakes often results in de facto illegal system > > violations. Most SO's can be very harsh on that. Average plus > > average minus > > is imho rather gentle. > > I have no problem with you being harsh I illegal agreements but I think > you should make sure that is what you are doing and not punishing just > a lucky result that we all get from time to time. > > > > > Wayne: > > > How fair is that? > > > > > > IMO not fair at all. > > > > Nobody knows what is fair. It probably depends whether you > > are the guy who > > cannot apply the convention correctly or whether you are the opponent > > getting unsolvable problems as a result. Anyway in Holland most people > > consider the current approach as fairer than 'laissez-faire'. > > Once again, it > > is not obligatory to play conventions you don't understand. > > And more importantly IMO it is not prohibited and there is no provision > in the laws for penalties simply because you do not understand your > methods. > > If there were we would soon have no learners as that sure as hell would > drive them away. > > Wayne > > > > From wayne@ebridgenz.com Sun Oct 19 11:58:36 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 23:58:36 +1300 Subject: [blml] Both Majors In-Reply-To: <001901c3962c$471cc0e0$2af57f50@Default> Message-ID: <005101c3962f$f841ff90$dc4236d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: Jaap van der Neut [mailto:jaapvdn@zonnet.nl] > Sent: Sunday, 19 October 2003 10:32 p.m. > To: wayne@ebridgenz.com; 'Ed Reppert'; 'blml' > Subject: Re: [blml] Both Majors > > > Wayne, > > You have a point. The hardliners (ACBL etc) have a point. > > In some world you have to choose between black and white. > This Dutch policy > about a typical Dutch problem tries to be 'fair' for both > sides. Fair in the > sense that the NO have some protection and that the people > mixing up their > twosuited overcalls etc. get Av- rather than much worse > rulings in other > jurisdictions. One alternative (Wayne) is to accept these > type of mixup's. > The other alternative (hardliners) is to rule convention > disruption (or ME > anyway there is always an argument) or whatever to give them > the equivalent > of a zero plus some PP. > > Forget all kind of smart legal arguments. For most people it > is perfectly > normal to state 'you can play twosuited overcalls but > mistakes will be ruled > against'. They do accept that. We might have said that we > always consider it > ME (which is much worse for the offenders). Instead we have > choosen to do > something more reasonable. And our local legal specialist > tells me it is not > illegal what we are doing. If there has been no infraction then there can be no basis for making any ruling other than score stands. This is not a smart legal argument it is plain common sense. As a player I would not even call the director if the opponents had a misunderstanding and fell on their feet and my side got fixed. However if they used UI to get out of gaol then I would call the sheriff. I agree with other posters that a score adjustment should be almost automatic in such cases and a very good reason would be required not to issue a procedural penalty against players who blatantly make use of UI. Actually I think it would be tantamount to gamesmanship to call the director when you know that there has been no infraction. Of course many times you do not know. I am swift to call the director but there are many times where having confirmed the opponent's agreement with the system card or a question I simply move on to the next board in spite of any damage that has been caused. The prerequisites for any redress has been broken at the first link... Has there been an infraction? NO! Wayne From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Sun Oct 19 13:17:24 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 14:17:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] Both Majors References: <005101c3962f$f841ff90$dc4236d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <000601c3963a$fa5bdde0$83e17f50@Default> Wayne: Has there been an infraction? NO! Of course we judge there is an infraction before we adjust the score. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "'Jaap van der Neut'" ; "'blml'" Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 12:58 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Both Majors > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jaap van der Neut [mailto:jaapvdn@zonnet.nl] > > Sent: Sunday, 19 October 2003 10:32 p.m. > > To: wayne@ebridgenz.com; 'Ed Reppert'; 'blml' > > Subject: Re: [blml] Both Majors > > > > > > Wayne, > > > > You have a point. The hardliners (ACBL etc) have a point. > > > > In some world you have to choose between black and white. > > This Dutch policy > > about a typical Dutch problem tries to be 'fair' for both > > sides. Fair in the > > sense that the NO have some protection and that the people > > mixing up their > > twosuited overcalls etc. get Av- rather than much worse > > rulings in other > > jurisdictions. One alternative (Wayne) is to accept these > > type of mixup's. > > The other alternative (hardliners) is to rule convention > > disruption (or ME > > anyway there is always an argument) or whatever to give them > > the equivalent > > of a zero plus some PP. > > > > Forget all kind of smart legal arguments. For most people it > > is perfectly > > normal to state 'you can play twosuited overcalls but > > mistakes will be ruled > > against'. They do accept that. We might have said that we > > always consider it > > ME (which is much worse for the offenders). Instead we have > > choosen to do > > something more reasonable. And our local legal specialist > > tells me it is not > > illegal what we are doing. > > If there has been no infraction then there can be no basis for > making any ruling other than score stands. This is not a smart > legal argument it is plain common sense. > > As a player I would not even call the director if the opponents > had a misunderstanding and fell on their feet and my side got > fixed. > > However if they used UI to get out of gaol then I would call the > sheriff. > > I agree with other posters that a score adjustment should be > almost automatic in such cases and a very good reason would be > required not to issue a procedural penalty against players who > blatantly make use of UI. > > Actually I think it would be tantamount to gamesmanship to call > the director when you know that there has been no infraction. > Of course many times you do not know. > > I am swift to call the director but there are many times where > having confirmed the opponent's agreement with the system card > or a question I simply move on to the next board in spite of any > damage that has been caused. The prerequisites for any redress > has been broken at the first link... > > Has there been an infraction? NO! > > Wayne > > > > From juuso@jldata.fi Sat Oct 18 00:22:37 2003 From: juuso@jldata.fi (Juuso Leikola) Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 02:22:37 +0300 Subject: [blml] Dummy In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB279900A32E9A@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <001001c39505$8d6b9940$c64dee88@Helwlapjuuso> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C3951E.B2B8D140 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Tuus Meaning Law 47ED2a But when we have face-down lead, this card has not payed, so we can = Director can force South to make the opening lead. 82C (Directors error) don't apply( both sides non-offending), if we can determine what happens, if when South leads. Juuso -----Original Message----- C=20 From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Skjaran, Harald Sent: 17. lokakuuta 2003 12:10 To: BLML Subject: SV: [blml] Dummy Ken Johnston wrote:=20 =20 Declarer East in 4S. South makes opening lead face down and East says it = is not his lead. North now makes face down lead and East starts tabling = hand. Director now called and instructs West to play the hand as dummy is now exposed. N/S maintain defence would be better if played by East as a = heart lead (bid by N/S) by South gains a trick. Should Director award an = adjusted score and should Director have made East play the hand initially?=20 ----- Law 47D2a say: An opening lead may not be retracted after dummy has = faced any card. As it happened, declarer started facing his hand, not dummy. I'm not = sure who the TD should have made play the hand initially, but I suppose he = should have made East play the hand. Anyhow, with west playing the hand, he should award an ajusted score afterwards (law 47D2b --> law 40C. =20 Regards Harald Skj=E6ran, Oslo ----- =20 Ken ********************************************************************** 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 *************************************************************************= * ------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C3951E.B2B8D140 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
Tuus
Meaning Law 47ED2a
But=20 when we have face-down lead, this card has not payed, so we can Director = can=20 force South to make the opening lead.
82C=20 (Directors error) don't apply( both sides non-offending), if we can = determine=20 what happens, if when South leads.
Juuso
-----Original Message----- C 
From: = blml-admin@rtflb.org=20 [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of Skjaran,=20 Harald
Sent: 17. lokakuuta 2003 12:10
To:=20 BLML
Subject: SV: [blml] Dummy

Ken Johnston wrote: 
 
Declarer East in = 4S. South makes=20 opening lead face down and East says it is not his = lead. North now=20 makes face down lead and East starts tabling hand. Director now called = and=20 instructs West to play the hand as dummy is now exposed. N/S maintain = defence=20 would be better if played by East as a heart lead (bid by N/S) by = South gains=20 a trick. Should Director award an adjusted score and should Director = have made=20 East play the hand initially? 
-----
Law 47D2a say: An opening lead may not be retracted = after dummy=20 has faced any card.
As it happened, declarer started = facing his=20 hand, not dummy. I'm not sure who the TD should have made play = the hand=20 initially, but I suppose he should have made East play the=20 hand.
Anyhow, with west playing the = hand, he=20 should award an ajusted score afterwards (law 47D2b --> law=20 40C.
 
Regards
Harald Skj=E6ran, = Oslo
-----
 
Ken


********************************************************= **************
This=20 footnote confirms that this email message has been swept = by
MIMEsweeper=20 for the presence of computer viruses.

Norwegian Olympic = Committee and=20 Confederation of=20 = Sports
***************************************************************= *******


********************************************************= ******************
This=20 email and any files transmitted with it are confidential = and
intended=20 solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
they are = addressed.=20 If you have received this email in error
please notify NIF at=20 postmaster@nif.idrett.no.

Abuse can be reported to=20 abuse@nif.idrett.no

This footnote also confirms that this email = message=20 has been
swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer=20 viruses.

Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of=20 = Sports
***************************************************************= ***********
------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C3951E.B2B8D140-- From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Sat Oct 18 12:45:49 2003 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 13:45:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Dummy References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB279900A32E9A@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <00b301c3956e$f4c68d20$f8053dd4@c6l8v1> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_008E_01C3957E.23D3B200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Skjaran, Harald=20 To: BLML=20 Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 11:09 AM Subject: SV: [blml] Dummy Ken Johnston wrote:=20 =20 Declarer East in 4S. South makes opening lead face down and East says = it is not his lead. North now makes face down lead and East starts = tabling hand. Director now called and instructs West to play the hand as = dummy is now exposed. N/S maintain defence would be better if played by = East as a heart lead (bid by N/S) by South gains a trick. Should = Director award an adjusted score and should Director have made East play = the hand initially?=20 ----- Law 47D2a say: An opening lead may not be retracted after dummy has = faced any card. As it happened, declarer started facing his hand, not dummy. I'm not = sure who the TD should have made play the hand initially, but I suppose = he should have made East play the hand. Anyhow, with west playing the hand, he should award an ajusted score = afterwards (law 47D2b --> law 40C. Moreover: Declarer tried to get the play of the contract in the hand = of west. Law72B1. Ben ------=_NextPart_000_008E_01C3957E.23D3B200 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Skjaran, Harald =
To: BLML
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 = 11:09=20 AM
Subject: SV: [blml] Dummy

Ken Johnston wrote: 
 
Declarer East in = 4S. South makes=20 opening lead face down and East says it is not his = lead. North now=20 makes face down lead and East starts tabling hand. Director now called = and=20 instructs West to play the hand as dummy is now exposed. N/S maintain = defence=20 would be better if played by East as a heart lead (bid by N/S) by = South gains=20 a trick. Should Director award an adjusted score and should Director = have made=20 East play the hand initially? 
-----
Law 47D2a say: An opening lead may not be retracted = after dummy=20 has faced any card.
As it happened, declarer started = facing his=20 hand, not dummy. I'm not sure who the TD should have made play = the hand=20 initially, but I suppose he should have made East play the=20 hand.
Anyhow, with west playing the = hand, he=20 should award an ajusted score afterwards (law 47D2b --> law=20 40C.
 
 
Moreover: Declarer tried to get the play of = the=20 contract in the hand of west. Law72B1.
 
Ben
------=_NextPart_000_008E_01C3957E.23D3B200-- From zarpetkov@compuserve.com Sat Oct 18 19:42:30 2003 From: zarpetkov@compuserve.com (zarpetkov@compuserve.com) Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 19:42:30 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] RE: 'Never Miss a Game Again' bridge article and Bermuda Bowl Message-ID: <539758106.1066502550482.JavaMail.zarpetkov@Zar> ------=_Part_0_-1970270693.1066502550161 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Good morning: 1) The new bridge article "Never Miss a Game Again" is accessible from: http://public.aci.on.ca/~zpetkov/ The article comes with 3 different mathematical proofs that Zar Points are 3 times better than: - Charles Goren; - Marty Bergen; - Drouble points. The 3 methods applied to all the 4 Hand Evaluation Methods are: - Span of base - Separation power - Standard Deviation Have look - I hope you'll find the article interesting and useful. If this would be the case, please feel free to send the link to any bridge-friend of yours for which you think it's worth her/his time reading it. 2) There is a link at the top of the page to the critics & discussions with a number of world-class players and bridge editors. 3) The second link on the top of the page is to the Bermuda Bowl Championship discussions (the tournament starts in 2 weeks, Nov. 2, as you know). Thank you in advance for your time and feedback ! Make it a great day: ZAR ------=_Part_0_-1970270693.1066502550161-- From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Sun Oct 19 17:03:02 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 17:03:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy In-Reply-To: <200310171854.LAA08560@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: On Friday, October 17, 2003, at 07:54 pm, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > Ken Johnston wrote: > >> Declarer East in 4S. South makes opening lead face down and East says >> it = >> is not his lead. North now makes face down lead and East starts >> tabling = >> hand. Director now called and instructs West to play the hand as >> dummy = >> is now exposed. N/S maintain defence would be better if played by >> East = >> as a heart lead (bid by N/S) by South gains a trick. Should Director = >> award an adjusted score and should Director have made East play the >> hand = >> initially? > > The Director should have made East play the hand since East was the > declarer. Since North hasn't yet faced his lead, technically we're > still in the auction period, so Law 24 applies; this has ramficiations > only if, before the opening lead is faced, it's discovered that there > was a misexplanation or something and N/S exercise their right to > change a call (Law 21). Assuming this doesn't happen, South faces his > opening lead; and since declarer never has penalty cards, East puts > the exposed cards back in his hand and plays the hand. N/S of course > get to benefit from having seen some of declarer's cards. Particularly since L24 requires that all the exposed cards remain exposed on the table until the auction period is over - ie until the opening lead is faced. So the defenders can stop and have a good look at the exposed cards before choosing to face the opening lead. > > Once Director has made an incorrect ruling, the only basis for an > adjustment is Law 82C (Director's Error). > > East needs to have it explained to him that it's improper to start > tabling the dummy before the opening lead has been faced. > > -- Adam > -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From walt1@verizon.net Sun Oct 19 19:05:37 2003 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 14:05:37 -0400 Subject: [blml] Both Majors In-Reply-To: <000801c39619$b338f8b0$ed31e150@endicott> References: <00a201c3941c$c82503d0$2b2e37d2@Desktop> <003a01c394a0$3d972660$64e87f50@Default> <000801c39619$b338f8b0$ed31e150@endicott> Message-ID: <6.0.0.22.0.20031019135735.03334510@incoming.verizon.net> At 04:03 AM 19/10/2003, Grattan Endicott wrote: >+=+ I am left to puzzle how the player will be aware >that he does not understand the convention. More, >I am inclined to think that for the player in question >his partnership agreement is whatever he understands >the convention to be. His problem may be whether his >partner agrees the understanding. > It strikes me as arrogant to insist that there can be >only one way to interpret a device incorporated in a >partnership's methods.We have, of course, the >infamous debate on 'convention disruption' but this >refers not to some bookish definition of the method >but to a failure of partners to understand the same >thing of their announced 'agreement'. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ The ACBL regulations state clearly that the meaning of the bid and not the name of the convention is to stated when questions are asked. This would seem to take care of the problem mentioned by Grattan. Unfortunately it is very unusual for questions about alerts to be answered with anything but the name of the convention. Walt From svenpran@online.no Sun Oct 19 19:54:38 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 20:54:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] Both Majors In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.0.20031019135735.03334510@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <000401c39672$72e22fd0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Walt ......... > The ACBL regulations state clearly that the meaning of the bid and not = the > name of the convention is to stated when questions are asked. This = would > seem to take care of the problem mentioned by Grattan. >=20 > Unfortunately it is very unusual for questions about alerts to be = answered > with anything but the name of the convention. I still contend that it is a most recommendable question to ask before = the opening lead (if not earlier): "What are we entitled to know about your hands" or words to that same effect. This question asks for every piece of information on declarer's and = dummy's hands that have been conveyed during the auction and maintains the duty = on declarer and dummy to provide the defense with such information = regardless of the defense asking the "correct" ("follow up") questions. Sven From wayne@ebridgenz.com Sun Oct 19 20:29:41 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 08:29:41 +1300 Subject: [blml] Both Majors In-Reply-To: <000601c3963a$fa5bdde0$83e17f50@Default> Message-ID: <012301c39677$5e1fe8d0$dc4236d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: Jaap van der Neut [mailto:jaapvdn@zonnet.nl] > Sent: Monday, 20 October 2003 12:17 a.m. > To: wayne@ebridgenz.com; 'blml' > Subject: Re: [blml] Both Majors > > > Wayne: > > Has there been an infraction? NO! > > Of course we judge there is an infraction before we adjust the score. > > Jaap > > Bidding 2NT with both majors when your system says diamonds and hearts is not an infraction. Wayne From karel@esatclear.ie Sun Oct 19 21:52:44 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 21:52:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Both Majors In-Reply-To: <000001c39315$1bc0c3c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: [Snip ... ] And how do you feel afterwards when partner shows up with something like ten diamonds to Queen and Jack, void in spades, a single small heart and two small clubs? Do you really think partner would bid anything else than 4D regardless of which of your alternatives (s)he believes is the agreement? Moral: Trust your partner and take your own medicine if it were you who happened to be wrong. That will save your partnership best even if it should appear that a rescue operation had been lucky in this particular case. +++ Call me naive here but lets analyse this sequence 1C 2NT* 3NT 4D P P Dbl P P ?? The "general" agreement of 2NT is the reds. Playing with a pick up partner this is what I would assume. Playing against "regular" opponents who alerted this bid I would expect the reds as the explanation. The likely scenario is as follows 1C, 2NT alert, no questions as everyone knows this is the 2 lower 3NT, 4D great partner we have a fit, pass, Pass I trust you Pd, double hehehe geeze these guys are going to get creamed, P, P, ??? Now Sven I don't care who you play with, but people make mistakes, lots of em and sometimes believing the opponents is as important as believing Pd. Sure it depends on a load of factors but I'd venture that this sequence has gone off the rails. Now I think I'm entitled to bid 4M or RDBL. What I don't like though is that the laws seem to allow the NOS a completely free double shot at a top. You ethically pass 4D even though you're sure the wheels have come off and now the opps are allowed a free double and the laws force you to pass and either (1) get creamed or if not a good score (2) call the Td and get creamed. It seems to me if ya make a mistake just slit your wrists cos there is no way you can recover. Some one clear up my mis impression please. K. From svenpran@online.no Sun Oct 19 22:19:15 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 23:19:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] Both Majors In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c39686$a6afd0b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Karel > [Snip ... ] > And how do you feel afterwards when partner shows up with something = like > ten > diamonds to Queen and Jack, void in spades, a single small heart and = two > small clubs? >=20 > Do you really think partner would bid anything else than 4D regardless = of > which of your alternatives (s)he believes is the agreement? >=20 > Moral: Trust your partner and take your own medicine if it were you = who > happened to be wrong. That will save your partnership best even if it > should > appear that a rescue operation had been lucky in this particular case. >=20 >=20 >=20 > +++ Call me naive here but lets analyse this sequence >=20 > 1C 2NT* 3NT 4D > P P Dbl P > P ?? >=20 > The "general" agreement of 2NT is the reds. Playing with a pick up > partner > this is what I would assume. Playing against "regular" opponents who > alerted this bid I would expect the reds as the explanation. >=20 > The likely scenario is as follows 1C, 2NT alert, no questions as = everyone > knows this is the 2 lower 3NT, 4D great partner we have a fit, pass, = Pass > I > trust you Pd, double hehehe geeze these guys are going to get creamed, = P, > P, > ??? >=20 > Now Sven I don't care who you play with, but people make mistakes, = lots of > em and sometimes believing the opponents is as important as believing = Pd. > Sure it depends on a load of factors but I'd venture that this = sequence > has > gone off the rails. Now I think I'm entitled to bid 4M or RDBL. >=20 >=20 > What I don't like though is that the laws seem to allow the NOS a > completely > free double shot at a top. You ethically pass 4D even though you're = sure > the wheels have come off and now the opps are allowed a free double = and > the > laws force you to pass and either (1) get creamed or if not a good = score > (2) > call the Td and get creamed. It seems to me if ya make a mistake just > slit > your wrists cos there is no way you can recover. Some one clear up my = mis > impression please. First of all I pass 4DX not only because I consider it most ethical or because I trust partner but because whatever is the case at the time I believe it is most likely the best contract we can play even if our = auction has gone astray. You may of course bid 4M or redouble if you care, but then you will seed mistrust in your partnership for the future. And in the case above, no TD should ever restrain your choice of call = after the double by opponent; where is the UI that you can have received? So = if your opponents double it is their gamble that the double is warranted. Regards Sven=20 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Oct 19 23:18:31 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 08:18:31 +1000 Subject: [blml] "Random" overcalls (was Both Majors) Message-ID: >>Random is not synonymous with "every hand is equally >>likely" >> >>Wayne Pocket Oxford Dictionary: >random - at haphazard, without aim or purpose or >principle Richard James Hills: If an overcall is described as "random", then the aim or purpose or principle of reducing the chances of some strengths and/or shapes to a likelihood of 0% occurrence, means that "random" is, in fact, a misnomer. To have a true "random" overcall, you must make an unalterable decision whether or not to randomise before looking at your cards. However, in my opinion, such an unalterable decision would be an infraction of Law 74B1, paying insufficient attention to the game. Best wishes RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- 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 Sun Oct 19 23:23:12 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 18:23:12 -0400 Subject: [blml] Both Majors In-Reply-To: <000401c39672$72e22fd0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Sunday, Oct 19, 2003, at 14:54 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > I still contend that it is a most recommendable question to ask before > the > opening lead (if not earlier): "What are we entitled to know about your > hands" or words to that same effect. > > This question asks for every piece of information on declarer's and > dummy's > hands that have been conveyed during the auction and maintains the > duty on > declarer and dummy to provide the defense with such information > regardless > of the defense asking the "correct" ("follow up") questions. ISTR that in the ACBL the approved form of the question is "please explain your auction". I believe that's what "Duplicate Decisions" says, although I can't find my copy at the moment. IAC, when I've had occasion to ask that question the invariable response is a blank look, often accompanied by "huh?" It's all very well to decide that's the proper way to handle it, but somebody oughta tell the players. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Oct 19 23:50:55 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 08:50:55 +1000 Subject: [blml] Both Majors Message-ID: Jaap: [snip] >But you do have a problem when you have to rule a dozen >times a year cases similar to someone overcalling 3C with >a club suit explained as majors or the other way around. > >I never claimed the 'Dutch solution' (giving av+/av- when >there is no hard infraction) is perfect. [snip] >Once again keep in mind that in Holland there are hardly >restrictions on what you can play so we are faced with >other problems than in say France, GB, USA where regs and >culture create a different reality. RJH: Australia is similar to The Netherlands in its loose restrictions on permitted conventions. However, there do seem to be cultural differences. When an Aussie player misbids or misdefends, the Aussie opponents have a "No worries" attitude to the error. In The Netherlands, however, it seems that a player not knowing what they are doing in bidding or defence causes their opponents to be outraged. In my humble opinion, The Netherlands should have solved the problem by educating their players about "rub of the green". In my humble opinion, the solution is *not* The Netherlands illegally amending the Laws to create a new offence of "no hard infraction". Best wishes Richard James 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 svenpran@online.no Mon Oct 20 00:00:29 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 01:00:29 +0200 Subject: [blml] Both Majors In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c39694$ca8fe520$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > > I still contend that it is a most recommendable question to ask before > > the > > opening lead (if not earlier): "What are we entitled to know about your > > hands" or words to that same effect. > > > > This question asks for every piece of information on declarer's and > > dummy's > > hands that have been conveyed during the auction and maintains the > > duty on > > declarer and dummy to provide the defense with such information > > regardless > > of the defense asking the "correct" ("follow up") questions. > > ISTR that in the ACBL the approved form of the question is "please > explain your auction". I believe that's what "Duplicate Decisions" > says, although I can't find my copy at the moment. IAC, when I've had > occasion to ask that question the invariable response is a blank look, > often accompanied by "huh?" > > It's all very well to decide that's the proper way to handle it, but > somebody oughta tell the players. I do indeed consider "Please explain your auction" as "words to the same effect"? However, as a defender I shall very seldom have any interest in knowing which exactly of opponents' calls showed what part of the total picture describing their hands. I shall be perfectly happy with something like: "Partner has shown 5 spades, three hearts, four diamonds and a single club, 4 controls and at least 17HCP". Regards Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Oct 20 00:04:57 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 09:04:57 +1000 Subject: [blml] Both Majors Message-ID: Karel: [snip] >It seems to me if ya make a mistake just slit >your wrists cos there is no way you can recover. >Some one clear up my misimpression please. RJH: If you have not received any UI, you can recover by choosing any call you want to choose - Law 40A. If, however, you have received UI, your choices may be restricted, and it is possible that you may be required to be an ethical lemming - Law 73C. I have lemminged on numerous occasions - but have saved time by attending ACs less frequently than non-lemmings. :-) Best wishes Richard James 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 nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Oct 20 01:53:02 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 01:53:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Random" overcalls (was Both Majors) References: Message-ID: <02b201c396a4$849b9ea0$3e9c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Pocket Oxford Dictionary] >random - at haphazard, without aim or purpose or >principle [Richard James Hills] If an overcall is described as "random", then the aim or purpose or principle of reducing the chances of some strengths and/or shapes to a likelihood of 0%occurrence, means that "random" is, in fact, a misnomer. [Nigel] Aren't you ascribing a rather literary meaning to a common Bridge metaphor. (: If an opponent alerts and says "Sputnik to the two-level" do you expect a dog answering to "Laika" to zoom past :) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 16/10/2003 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Oct 20 02:19:31 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:19:31 +1000 Subject: [blml] "Random" overcalls (was Both Majors) Message-ID: Pocket Oxford Dictionary: >>>random - at haphazard, without aim or purpose or >>>principle Richard James Hills: >>If an overcall is described as "random", then the >>aim or purpose or principle of reducing the chances >>of some strengths and/or shapes to a likelihood of >>0% occurrence, means that "random" is, in fact, a >>misnomer. Nigel: >Aren't you ascribing a rather literary meaning to >a common Bridge metaphor. (: If an opponent alerts >and says "Sputnik to the two-level" do you expect >a dog answering to "Laika" to zoom past :) Richard James Hills: Apart from the exception of words specifically defined in Chapter 1 of the Laws, the WBF LC has ruled that English words in the Laws are to be interpreted according to the English dictionary meaning. Terence Reese derisively dubbed negative doubles as Sputnik doubles in the late 1950s. He was attempting to give his impression that negative doubles were excessively super-scientific, just as the Sputnik satellite was the most famous super-scientific advance of the late 1950s. However, if I mentioned to a young Aussie opponent that I was playing Sputnik doubles, they would indeed be confused by the description, since they were not even born in the late 1950s, and would therefore have no idea that the nickname that old-timers gave to negative doubles was Sputnik. Best wishes RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- 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 Mon Oct 20 04:12:48 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 04:12:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Random" overcalls (was Both Majors) References: Message-ID: <000e01c396b8$0b4c3b40$089c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Nigel] >Aren't you ascribing a rather literal meaning to >a common Bridge metaphor. (: If an opponent alerts >and explains "Sputnik to the two-level" do you >expect a dog answering to "Laika" to zoom past :) [Richard James Hills] Apart from the exception of words specifically defined in Chapter 1 of the Laws, the WBF LC has ruled that English words in the Laws are to be interpreted according to the English dictionary meaning. Terence Reese derisively dubbed negative doubles as Sputnik doubles in the late 1950s. He was attempting to give his impression that negative doubles were excessively super-scientific, just as the Sputnik satellite was the most famous super-scientific advance of the late 1950s. However, if I mentioned to a young Aussie opponent that I was playing Sputnik doubles, they would indeed be confused by the description, since they were not even born in the late 1950s, and would therefore have no idea that the nickname that old-timers gave to negative doubles was Sputnik. [Nigel] I don't think "random overcall" is meant to rely on a statistical notion of random variable or whatever, I think it just implies that the bid is a catch-all for any hand not assigned to a specific call and that the meaning of any given instance is hard to predict. Perhaps "dustbin bid" would be a more apt metaphor. Is there any attempt to define "random overcall" in TFLB or related semi-official WBFLC material? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 16/10/2003 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Oct 20 04:49:24 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 13:49:24 +1000 Subject: [blml] Ghestem (was Both Majors) Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >Ghestem errors are particularly prone to this. > >Someone explains a bid as A+B, when it is actually A+C. By >chance (and this is a 40% chance) he happens to prefer A >over B, so he bids A. > >Whenever this occurs, you can bet on opponents to have at >least a 5-4 fit in B (work it out - the suit has not been >opened either). And neither of them can bid it because the >suit has been named. > >So the "infractors" generally end up with a good score. > >This happened far too frequently in the Netherlands for the >authorities to ignore. Richard James Hills: I do not follow the De Wael reasoning (or the Dutch NBO reasoning). By Herman's own admission, there is a 60% chance that the Ghestem misbidder's partner would prefer a contract in a suit that the Ghestemer has promised but does not hold. By playing in a non-fit, the Ghestem mangling partnership would score a disastrous bottom 60% of the time. How, then, do the "infractors" *generally* end up with a good score? Actually, I suspect that Herman's 60% estimate is a bit conservative. This is due to the huge effect a difference between a 5-card holding, and a singleton or doubleton holding, has on the distributions of the other players. Furthermore, the odds of a Ghestem disaster are 100%, when a Ghestem 3C - promising both red suits - has *neither* red suit, because the Ghestem misbidder holds clubs. I suspect the real Dutch problem is that Ghestem misbidders typically use UI to escape when they are nailed. I also suspect that Dutch TDs do not wish to upset their regular LOL customers, so are too wimpy to enforce the -1400 penalties that are avoided by UI-assisted wriggles out of a Ghestem misbid. Sure Ave- is a "nicer" TD ruling to confused LOLs than a TD ruling of -1400. But "nice" TD rulings are not necessarily Lawful TD rulings. And the "nice" Dutch NBO is not necessarily abiding by the Laws as currently written. Best wishes RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- 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 Oct 20 05:06:58 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 14:06:58 +1000 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia appeal #36 Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >North was dummy, East held no cards. Those two thought +400. >Those two wrote and signed the ticket. >South was declarer, West would have made the second trick, >if there was one. Those two thought +420. > >I'm going with the two who should have known: +420. Richard James Hills: An impeccably technically correct Law 81C6 ruling by Herman. Identical to the actual TD ruling, and consistent with the Appeal Without Merit delivered by the AC. However..... Several of the panel of commentators suspected that East-West had infracted Law 72A2: "A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not lose." Unfortunately, Law 72A2 is almost impossible to enforce due to the word *knowingly*. Therefore, East-West escaped the procedural and/or disciplinary penalty that they probably deserved. Perhaps in the rewritten 2005 edition of the Law, Law 72A2 could read: "A player must not accept the score for a trick, if that player could have known that their side did not win that trick. A player must not accept the concession of a trick, if that player could have known that it would be irrational for their opponents to lose that conceded trick." Best wishes RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- 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 Oct 20 05:37:12 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 14:37:12 +1000 Subject: [blml] Opponents Having No Agreement Message-ID: Marv wrote: [snip] >The conversation: > >"Is it pretty standard that a non-competitive jump >takeout response to a major opening by a passed hand >shows not only the suit bid but also guarantees good >support for opener's suit?" > >"Yes, as explained by Reese long ago. I have never >heard of a different non-conventional meaning to this >response, so we are agreed on that. It's common >knowledge, nothing special." > >Not disclosable, per L75C2. [snip] WBF Code of Practice: "In the laws, regulations, and this Code of Practice, 'special' means 'additional to what is normal and general'." RJH comments: Marv would be correct in failing to disclose the meaning of his non-competitive jump takeout response if it was "normal and general" for all of Marv's opponents to also use the same methods - but in that case, the question would not have been asked in the first place. However, it is possible that only Marv has read Terence Reese, and his opponents have not, so all Marv's opponents use Meckwellian weak jumps instead. In that case, Marv's opponents must disclose that they play Meckwellian jumps. But also in that case, Marv also has to disclose that Marv plays Reese-style jumps. Mutual disclosure is required, because there is no "normal and general" consensus between Marv and his opponents. I disagree with Marv's inference that there is some kind of Platonic "normal and general", which does not have to be disclosed. In my opinion, "normal and general" always depends on local context - different strokes for different folks. Best wishes Richard James 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Oct 20 06:25:51 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:25:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] Philly appeal #33 - undiscussed Message-ID: NABC Open Swiss Teams, First Qualifying Session Dlr: South Vul: Both WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1C(1) 2C(2) Pass 3C(3) Pass ? (1) Standard American. (2) Usually 4 spades and 5 or 6 diamonds (rarely could be 5 spades and 6 diamonds), usually 10-15 hcp (rarely could sometimes be stronger). (3) Undiscussed. Parnership agreement is that a bid of a suit at the two level is an attempt to sign off, a bid of 2NT or a bid of a non-3C suit at the three level is a game invitation. You, West, hold: AKJ8 Q8 AJT84 83 What are your logical alternatives? Best wishes Richard James 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 jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Mon Oct 20 07:20:01 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 08:20:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] Both Majors References: <012301c39677$5e1fe8d0$dc4236d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <002401c396d7$57962aa0$c5ee7f50@Default> Wayne: > Bidding 2NT with both majors when your system says diamonds and hearts > is > not an infraction. This is open to discussion. What really is 'a system'? Who has to prove that this type of mistakes have or don't have a certain frequency that makes them part of the system? How can you correctly explain the system, let alone give full disclosure, if you make this type of mistakes? Is it allowed to make mistakes that actually constitute an illegal system violation? I don't pretend to have the answers to these questions. But those questions give plenty of room to rule as we do within the current law. Because as long as the law doesn't give any guidelines it is up to AC's and national authorities to come up with interpretations. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "'Jaap van der Neut'" ; "'blml'" Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 9:29 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Both Majors > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jaap van der Neut [mailto:jaapvdn@zonnet.nl] > > Sent: Monday, 20 October 2003 12:17 a.m. > > To: wayne@ebridgenz.com; 'blml' > > Subject: Re: [blml] Both Majors > > > > > > Wayne: > > > > Has there been an infraction? NO! > > > > Of course we judge there is an infraction before we adjust the score. > > > > Jaap > > > > > > Bidding 2NT with both majors when your system says diamonds and hearts > is > not an infraction. > > Wayne > From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Mon Oct 20 07:56:43 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 08:56:43 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ghestem (was Both Majors) References: Message-ID: <002501c396d7$58dcb460$c5ee7f50@Default> RJH: I suspect the real Dutch problem is that Ghestem misbidders typically use UI to escape when they are nailed. I also suspect that Dutch TDs do not wish to upset their regular LOL customers, so are too wimpy to enforce the -1400 penalties that are avoided by UI-assisted wriggles out of a Ghestem misbid. First. Your suspicion that they tend to use UI tends to be correct. Maybe not hard UI but at low level they know that mistakes are frequent so they take them into account. Typically they give simple preference rather than bidding 4 something. Also I would not be suprised if they always think before making an artificial call and bid quickly if they have forgotten (no agreement here, just the way it works, let the LOL's play their game please), so there are far fewer self inflicted disasters caused by 'misbids' than you might expect. But once again, if it is a real UI or ME case we rule 'normally'. Second. In Holland we have 100.000 odd members, relative to our population about 10 to 20 times the European average. The numbers coming from the Dutch Fed being very good at organizing all those LOL's. Out of that 100.000 there are only a couple of thousand serious bridge players (and this is an optimistic estimate). In such an environment there is not a lot of support for legal hardliners making +/-1400 rulings. You cannot tell the LOL's to have fun and then making that kind of rulings. RJH: Sure Ave- is a "nicer" TD ruling to confused LOLs than a TD ruling of -1400. But "nice" TD rulings are not necessarily Lawful TD rulings. And the "nice" Dutch NBO is not necessarily abiding by the Laws as currently written. See my response to Wayne. As far as I can see the Dutch NBO is abiding current laws but we might interpret them slightly different than others in this respect. And to defend my Fed, among the big NCBO's the Dutch is by far the most cooperative when it comes to international guidelines. We have very few local regulations. Compared to the French and the ACBL we can afford to make once in a while a small adaptation suited for local needs. And given our population we often cannot rule the same way as we do at say national championship level. The same laws yes, but not always the same interpretation. RJH: How, then, do the "infractors" *generally* end up with a good score? You are right, Hermans math is way too optimistic. But they get far more often a good score than you would expect. But then we are playing without screens and everybody knows their system knowledge is shaky at best. But even this probably would not have caused a reaction by itself. We simply had to do something because we got too many complaints from people getting bad scores from this kind of nonsense. Nowadays the situation has improved because the people causing the problems end up with the bad score (only av- by the way). The complaints have all but dissappeared. We are only left with some complaining smart laywers. Life sucks. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 5:49 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Ghestem (was Both Majors) Herman De Wael: >Ghestem errors are particularly prone to this. > >Someone explains a bid as A+B, when it is actually A+C. By >chance (and this is a 40% chance) he happens to prefer A >over B, so he bids A. > >Whenever this occurs, you can bet on opponents to have at >least a 5-4 fit in B (work it out - the suit has not been >opened either). And neither of them can bid it because the >suit has been named. > >So the "infractors" generally end up with a good score. > >This happened far too frequently in the Netherlands for the >authorities to ignore. Richard James Hills: I do not follow the De Wael reasoning (or the Dutch NBO reasoning). By Herman's own admission, there is a 60% chance that the Ghestem misbidder's partner would prefer a contract in a suit that the Ghestemer has promised but does not hold. By playing in a non-fit, the Ghestem mangling partnership would score a disastrous bottom 60% of the time. How, then, do the "infractors" *generally* end up with a good score? Actually, I suspect that Herman's 60% estimate is a bit conservative. This is due to the huge effect a difference between a 5-card holding, and a singleton or doubleton holding, has on the distributions of the other players. Furthermore, the odds of a Ghestem disaster are 100%, when a Ghestem 3C - promising both red suits - has *neither* red suit, because the Ghestem misbidder holds clubs. I suspect the real Dutch problem is that Ghestem misbidders typically use UI to escape when they are nailed. I also suspect that Dutch TDs do not wish to upset their regular LOL customers, so are too wimpy to enforce the -1400 penalties that are avoided by UI-assisted wriggles out of a Ghestem misbid. Sure Ave- is a "nicer" TD ruling to confused LOLs than a TD ruling of -1400. But "nice" TD rulings are not necessarily Lawful TD rulings. And the "nice" Dutch NBO is not necessarily abiding by the Laws as currently written. Best wishes RJH ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- 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 Mon Oct 20 08:09:20 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 09:09:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] Philly appeal #33 - undiscussed References: Message-ID: <003e01c396d9$17b4cb60$c5ee7f50@Default> Richard, You specialise in this type of quetions do you ? Anyway I like them. And it is fun because you get to expose 'silly' AC rulings from time to time. I bid 3H. Extra's no C stop and something in H. The alternative is 3S to avoid mixup's. Is it possible partner explained D+major at the table ......... Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 7:25 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Philly appeal #33 - undiscussed NABC Open Swiss Teams, First Qualifying Session Dlr: South Vul: Both WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1C(1) 2C(2) Pass 3C(3) Pass ? (1) Standard American. (2) Usually 4 spades and 5 or 6 diamonds (rarely could be 5 spades and 6 diamonds), usually 10-15 hcp (rarely could sometimes be stronger). (3) Undiscussed. Parnership agreement is that a bid of a suit at the two level is an attempt to sign off, a bid of 2NT or a bid of a non-3C suit at the three level is a game invitation. You, West, hold: AKJ8 Q8 AJT84 83 What are your logical alternatives? Best wishes Richard James Hills ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- 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 wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Oct 20 08:59:42 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 20:59:42 +1300 Subject: [blml] Both Majors In-Reply-To: <002401c396d7$57962aa0$c5ee7f50@Default> Message-ID: <006301c396e0$21dbcec0$ecb337d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: Jaap van der Neut [mailto:jaapvdn@zonnet.nl] > Sent: Monday, 20 October 2003 6:20 p.m. > To: wayne@ebridgenz.com; 'blml' > Subject: Re: [blml] Both Majors > > > Wayne: > > Bidding 2NT with both majors when your system says diamonds > and hearts > > is > > not an infraction. > > This is open to discussion. Read the footnote to L75 Example 2 there is no discussion required. Mistaken Bid implies no infraction. And the opponents have no claim to an accurate description of the cards held. What I wrote is not an interpretation it is what is written in black and white in the law book. It is grossly unfair and illegal to penalize a pair that have not infracted the law by complying with their requirements for disclosure but happen to have made a mistake. > What really is 'a system'? A system is what you agree to play with your partner. > Who > has to prove that > this type of mistakes have or don't have a certain frequency > that makes them > part of the system? Anyone interested can prove this but they have to prove it not assume it. > How can you correctly explain the system, > let alone give > full disclosure, if you make this type of mistakes? I don't see the difficulty. > Is it > allowed to make > mistakes that actually constitute an illegal system violation? Why not? But I don't see how a mistaken violation of a system can be illegal. I certainly haven't read that law - which one are you referring to? > I don't > pretend to have the answers to these questions. But those > questions give > plenty of room to rule as we do within the current law. Utter nonsense. Your other posts show that you rule that way to appease some players not because the law says that you can. > Because as long as > the law doesn't give any guidelines it is up to AC's and national > authorities to come up with interpretations. I reiterate the laws say in black and white that the opponents have no claim to knowing what you hold only what your agreement is with your partner. Wayne > > Jaap > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: "'Jaap van der Neut'" ; "'blml'" > > Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 9:29 PM > Subject: RE: [blml] Both Majors > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Jaap van der Neut [mailto:jaapvdn@zonnet.nl] > > > Sent: Monday, 20 October 2003 12:17 a.m. > > > To: wayne@ebridgenz.com; 'blml' > > > Subject: Re: [blml] Both Majors > > > > > > > > > Wayne: > > > > > > Has there been an infraction? NO! > > > > > > Of course we judge there is an infraction before we > adjust the score. > > > > > > Jaap > > > > > > > > > > Bidding 2NT with both majors when your system says diamonds > and hearts > > is > > not an infraction. > > > > Wayne > > > > > > From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Mon Oct 20 09:53:14 2003 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 09:53:14 +0100 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] References: <00a201c3941c$c82503d0$2b2e37d2@Desktop> <003a01c394a0$3d972660$64e87f50@Default> <000801c39619$b338f8b0$ed31e150@endicott> <001801c3962c$45579140$2af57f50@Default> Message-ID: <004b01c396e7$c176b560$c12a2850@multivisionoem> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jaap van der Neut" To: "Grattan Endicott" ; "'blml'" Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 11:13 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Both Majors > Grattan, > > In a way it is part of the 'convention disruption' debate. > I don't know the ins and outs of that one. But you do > have a problem when you have to rule a dozen times > a year cases similar to someone overcalling 3C with a > club suit explained as majors or the other way around. > > I never claimed the 'Dutch solution' (giving av+/av- > when there is no hard infraction) is perfect. I was not > the one to push it although I voted in favor of it. It > seems to me a reasonable way of handling the problem. > The Dutch (with some exceptions) seem to agree > because nowadays 'everybody' knows the policy and > TD's tend to follow it meaning that similar cases tend > to be ruled in a similar way. Before we established > this policy it was the well known free for all, TD's > and AC's ruling every which way imaginable. > > Once again keep in mind that in Holland there are > hardly restrictions on what you can play so we are > faced with other problems than in say France, GB, > USA where regs and culture create a different reality. > > Jaap > +=+ Hi Jaap, I have no problem with the Dutch solution. It is merely a case of controlling the psyching, inadvertently or otherwise, of two-suited overcalls. I did not know, however, that you have such a regulation and was not aware previously that the Netherlands is among the many availing themselves of the 'Geneva' interpretation (that regulations under Law 40D, for example, are not subject to Law 80F). A misbid is an inadvertent psyche. 40D allows regulation of the actual *use* of conventions - it does not talk about 'agreements as to the use of conventions'. You open my eyes to an aspect of the discussion about "convention disruption" I had not previously considered. It is never too late to learn. Perhaps we should all follow Dutch leadership. Incidentally, did ton vote for it as well? < ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ardelm@bigpond.net.au Mon Oct 20 09:27:24 2003 From: ardelm@bigpond.net.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 18:27:24 +1000 Subject: [blml] Both Majors In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031020182223.00b597b0@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> RJH rightly declares >Australia is similar to The Netherlands in its loose >restrictions on permitted conventions. However, there do >seem to be cultural differences. > >When an Aussie player misbids or misdefends, the Aussie >opponents have a "No worries" attitude to the error. > >In The Netherlands, however, it seems that a player not >knowing what they are doing in bidding or defence causes >their opponents to be outraged. > >In my humble opinion, The Netherlands should have solved >the problem by educating their players about "rub of the >green". > >In my humble opinion, the solution is *not* The Netherlands >illegally amending the Laws to create a new offence of "no >hard infraction". I am not aware that convicts were interested in cards, but presumably Puritans were not. Whatever, we can be eternally grateful that we got the convicts and the US got the Puritans, Tony (Sydney) From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Oct 20 10:24:19 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:24:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] Both Majors In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3F93A9C3.8040807@hdw.be> Being somewhat close to the Netherlands, and knowing less than everything about their culture, let me come to their defence. richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Jaap: > > > Australia is similar to The Netherlands in its loose > restrictions on permitted conventions. However, there do > seem to be cultural differences. > > When an Aussie player misbids or misdefends, the Aussie > opponents have a "No worries" attitude to the error. > I am quite certain that the attitude to most errors in the Netherlands is the same as down under. The frequency of bidding errors that result in good scores to the pair making the mistake must be the same around the globe. And people accept the "rub of the green". The frequency of Ghestem errors however, in the Netherlands, became far higher than acceptable. Combine that with the fact that in the specific case of Ghestem, the likelyhood of misbidders landing on their feet and scoring a very good score, and I can well imagine that the players thought that something had to be done. > In The Netherlands, however, it seems that a player not > knowing what they are doing in bidding or defence causes > their opponents to be outraged. > Not normally, I guess. But when it happens over and over again, ... > In my humble opinion, The Netherlands should have solved > the problem by educating their players about "rub of the > green". > > In my humble opinion, the solution is *not* The Netherlands > illegally amending the Laws to create a new offence of "no > hard infraction". > > Best wishes > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Oct 20 10:28:50 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 22:28:50 +1300 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] In-Reply-To: <004b01c396e7$c176b560$c12a2850@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <007e01c396ec$9839a9f0$ecb337d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Grattan Endicott > Sent: Monday, 20 October 2003 8:53 p.m. > To: 'blml'; Grattan Endicott; Jaap van der Neut > Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > To: "Grattan Endicott" ; > "'blml'" > Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 11:13 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Both Majors > > > > Grattan, > > > > In a way it is part of the 'convention disruption' debate. > > I don't know the ins and outs of that one. But you do > > have a problem when you have to rule a dozen times > > a year cases similar to someone overcalling 3C with a > > club suit explained as majors or the other way around. > > > > I never claimed the 'Dutch solution' (giving av+/av- > > when there is no hard infraction) is perfect. I was not > > the one to push it although I voted in favor of it. It > > seems to me a reasonable way of handling the problem. > > The Dutch (with some exceptions) seem to agree > > because nowadays 'everybody' knows the policy and > > TD's tend to follow it meaning that similar cases tend > > to be ruled in a similar way. Before we established > > this policy it was the well known free for all, TD's > > and AC's ruling every which way imaginable. > > > > Once again keep in mind that in Holland there are > > hardly restrictions on what you can play so we are > > faced with other problems than in say France, GB, > > USA where regs and culture create a different reality. > > > > Jaap > > > +=+ Hi Jaap, > I have no problem with the Dutch solution. It is merely > a case of controlling the psyching, inadvertently or otherwise, > of two-suited overcalls. I did not know, however, that you > have such a regulation and was not aware previously that the > Netherlands is among the many availing themselves of the > 'Geneva' interpretation (that regulations under Law 40D, for > example, are not subject to Law 80F). > A misbid is an inadvertent psyche. There is no such beast. This is oxymoronic. A psyche is deliberate so can not be inadvertent. > 40D allows regulation > of the actual *use* of conventions - it does not talk about > 'agreements as to the use of conventions'. > You open my eyes to an aspect of the discussion about > "convention disruption" I had not previously considered. It > is never too late to learn. Perhaps we should all follow Dutch > leadership. Incidentally, did ton vote for it as well? So now we can have regulations that say you can use this convention unless you are too thick to remember it properly. Why is it not just simple enough to accept that players who make mistakes will get poor scores from those mistakes in the long run. Bad players make more mistakes. Bad players get poor scores. That seems simple to me. Wayne > < > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Oct 20 10:34:16 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:34:16 +0200 Subject: [blml] Two-suiter revisited Message-ID: <3F93AC18.1040301@hdw.be> Belgian first division: board one, N, none, screens (N and E on same side) KJT9 W N E S 85 1NT X 2NT KQJ8 p 3D p 6H 653 p p X p 732 AQ8654 p p J63 T74 T7652 A9 1NT:9-11,X:values T4 K8 - AKQ92 94 AQJ972 2NT shows any two suiter except one with spades, but it is explained by North to East as minors. North intends 3Di as showing preference, but South interprets it (of course) as showing both reds and jumps to slam. East explains she did realize that something was amiss, but she did not know what. She doubled in order not to lose her quick spade trick. South (from the same club as EW) tells the director maybe East would not have doubled with the correct information. Your call? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Mon Oct 20 11:29:55 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:29:55 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Two-suiter revisited Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EB9B@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Herman De Wael wrote: Belgian first division: board one, N, none, screens (N and E on same side) KJT9 W N E S 85 1NT X 2NT KQJ8 p 3D p 6H 653 p p X p 732 AQ8654 p p J63 T74 T7652 A9 1NT:9-11,X:values T4 K8 =09 - AKQ92 94 AQJ972 2NT shows any two suiter except one with spades, but it is explained=20 by North to East as minors. North intends 3Di as showing preference, but South interprets it (of=20 course) as showing both reds and jumps to slam. East explains she did realize that something was amiss, but she did=20 not know what. She doubled in order not to lose her quick spade trick. South (from the same club as EW) tells the director maybe East would=20 not have doubled with the correct information. Your call? ----- I don't know why east thought a spade trick could vanish. With the diamond = ace and the club king, there's no way a spade loser can disappear from sout= h's hand. The only way a spade loser can go away is if dummy's spades can b= e discarded on south's clubs and a spade in south's hand be ruffed in dummy= . For that to happen, north need to have 4+ hearts including an honour and = a combined spade+club lenght equal to or shorter than south's club lenght. = Heavy odds against. And for the double to have any logical meaning in this = context, it must demand a spade lead. Would it? So I don't buy east's explanation. Of course east knows a wheel has fallen off in NS's auction. And it's tempt= ing to double on that basis. But east's holdings in hearts, diamonds and cl= ubs should be a warning signal telling her the contract could easily make, = or at most be one down. So I would rule result stands. A PP for ME is OK with me. Regards, Harald Skj=E6ran --=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 ehaa@starpower.net Mon Oct 20 13:40:32 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 08:40:32 -0400 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia appeal #36 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031020083605.023149c0@pop.starpower.net> At 12:06 AM 10/20/03, richard.hills wrote: >Perhaps in the rewritten 2005 edition of the Law, Law 72A2 >could read: > >"A player must not accept the score for a trick, if that >player could have known that their side did not win that >trick. ISTM this is equivalent to, "A player must not accept the score for a trick if their side did not win that trick." Under what set of circumstances could one ever rule that a player "could not have known" the correct trick count? 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 Mon Oct 20 14:41:17 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 14:41:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Philly appeal #33 - undiscussed References: Message-ID: <006f01c3970f$d7cc4d20$2c9c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> {Richard James Hills] NABC Open Swiss Teams, First Qualifying Session Dlr: South Vul: Both WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1C(1) 2C(2) Pass 3C(3) Pass ? (1) Standard American. (2) Usually 4 spades and 5 or 6 diamonds (rarely could be 5 spades and 6 diamonds), usually 10-15 hcp (rarely could sometimes be stronger). (3) Undiscussed. Parnership agreement is that a bid of a suit at the two level is an attempt to sign off, a bid of 2NT or a bid of a non-3C suit at the three level is a game invitation. You, West, hold: AKJ8 Q8 AJT84 83 What are your logical alternatives? [Nigel] Without discussion, I would assume partner just wants me to continue describing my hand - perhaps he has a club stop and hopes I have a diamond stop. I reckon that I am strong in points but weak in shape, so my LAs are 3H=10 3N=9 4C=4 3D=2 4D=1 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 16/10/2003 From svenpran@online.no Mon Oct 20 15:09:49 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:09:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Philly appeal #33 - undiscussed In-Reply-To: <006f01c3970f$d7cc4d20$2c9c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <000001c39713$d2d541b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Nigel Guthrie > Sent: 20. oktober 2003 15:41 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Philly appeal #33 - undiscussed >=20 > {Richard James Hills] > NABC Open Swiss Teams, First Qualifying Session > Dlr: South Vul: Both > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1C(1) > 2C(2) Pass 3C(3) Pass > ? > (1) Standard American. > (2) Usually 4 spades and 5 or 6 diamonds (rarely > could be 5 spades and 6 diamonds), usually > 10-15 hcp (rarely could sometimes be > stronger). > (3) Undiscussed. Parnership agreement is that > a bid of a suit at the two level is an > attempt to sign off, a bid of 2NT or a bid > of a non-3C suit at the three level is a > game invitation. > You, West, hold: AKJ8 Q8 AJT84 83 > What are your logical alternatives? >=20 > [Nigel] > Without discussion, I would assume partner just > wants me to continue describing my hand - perhaps > he has a club stop and hopes I have a diamond stop. > I reckon that I am strong in points but weak in > shape, so my LAs are 3H=3D10 3N=3D9 4C=3D4 3D=3D2 4D=3D1 Doesn't Standard American imply that the 1C opening shows clubs? I believe the general understanding in Norway of bidding opponent's suit like this is that it asks for stopper in that suit. So the only LA = available here would seem to be 3D (the proper answer with a stopper would be = 3NT). Partner's next call will clarify what he is aiming for. Regards Sven From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Oct 20 15:26:46 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:26:46 +0100 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] References: <00a201c3941c$c82503d0$2b2e37d2@Desktop> <003a01c394a0$3d972660$64e87f50@Default> <000801c39619$b338f8b0$ed31e150@endicott> <001801c3962c$45579140$2af57f50@Default> <004b01c396e7$c176b560$c12a2850@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <009301c39716$344ad520$2c9c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Grattan Endicott] Perhaps we should all follow Dutch leadership. Incidentally, did ton vote for it as well? [Nigel] My impression is that Ton does not support Jaap's tolerant rule-bending. I understand Jaap's argument that their lax law keeps punters happy and, as a result, Holland has a lot of players. Surely Richard is right: the Australian interpretation of the current law is correct; and Australia has a lot of happy bridge players too. I sympathise with Jaap, however. Obviously, simple law that players understand is a recipe for a happy bridge-community. If you change the law, I think the Dutch answer is wrong: better would be to insist that if you are asked about your partner's bid and you do not know, then you must guess; if your guess is systemically wrong, then you are judged to be guilty of MI. IMO that is a simple law and doesn't need telepathic TDs. I would like the law to be the same world-wide but this illustrates an argument to the contrary. In practice, the WBF lets SOs experiment with new laws -- and Holland, Britain and America keep diverging from a literal interpretation of TFLB. If such experiments in "fairy" Bridge are carefully monitored, perhaps they may result in better law for all -- provided that the WBFLC eventually enforces reconvergence. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 16/10/2003 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Oct 20 16:01:49 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:01:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Philly appeal #33 - undiscussed References: <000001c39713$d2d541b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <00cc01c3971b$1dddeb60$2c9c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> > {Richard James Hills] > NABC Open Swiss Teams, First Qualifying Session > Dlr: South Vul: Both > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1C(1) > 2C(2) Pass 3C(3) Pass > ? > (1) Standard American. > (2) Usually 4 spades and 5 or 6 diamonds (rarely > could be 5 spades and 6 diamonds), usually > 10-15 hcp (rarely could sometimes be > stronger). > (3) Undiscussed. Parnership agreement is that > a bid of a suit at the two level is an > attempt to sign off, a bid of 2NT or a bid > of a non-3C suit at the three level is a > game invitation. > You, West, hold: AKJ8 Q8 AJT84 83 > What are your logical alternatives? > > [Nigel with typos corrected] > Without discussion, I would assume partner just > wants me to continue describing my hand - perhaps > he has a club stop and hopes I have a HEART stop. > I reckon that I am strong in points but weak in > shape, so my LAs are 3H=10 3N=9 4C=4 3D/S=2 4D=1 [Sven Pran] Doesn't Standard American imply that the 1C opening shows clubs? {Nigel] No. As far as I know, 1C may be Canape in France and America - it may be only three cards, or in extremity two e.g. AKxx xxxx xxx AK I think most Americans would open 1C on this, hoping later to complete their Canape into spades. [Sven] I believe the general understanding in Norway of bidding opponent's suit like this is that it asks for stopper in that suit. So the only LA available here would seem to be 3D (the proper answer with a stopper would be 3NT). Partner's next call will clarify what he is aiming for. [Nigel] When there are two unbid suits and you are interested in notrump, local players in the UK bid the suit in which they have a stopper. Of course, here, a cue-bid of opponent's suit may just be a forcing relay. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 16/10/2003 From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Mon Oct 20 17:51:01 2003 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 17:51:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two-suiter revisited Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB11FA@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Subject: [blml] Two-suiter revisited Belgian first division: board one, N, none, screens (N and E on same side) KJT9 W N E S 85 1NT X 2NT KQJ8 p 3D p 6H 653 p p X p 732 AQ8654 p p J63 T74 T7652 A9 1NT:9-11,X:values T4 K8 =09 - AKQ92 94 AQJ972 2NT shows any two suiter except one with spades, but it is explained=20 by North to East as minors. North intends 3Di as showing preference, but South interprets it (of=20 course) as showing both reds and jumps to slam. East explains she did realize that something was amiss, but she did=20 not know what. She doubled in order not to lose her quick spade trick. South (from the same club as EW) tells the director maybe East would=20 not have doubled with the correct information. Your call? --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html [Frances] East doubled because she thought she had two aces to take. She was = wrong. She doesn't appear to be claiming damage, as she accepts that South = clearly didn't have the minors, she knows as much as North knows. I can see no reason why the score should not stand. South has not explained _why_ there was damage. Whose side is South on? From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Oct 20 20:57:19 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:57:19 -0700 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] References: <00a201c3941c$c82503d0$2b2e37d2@Desktop> <003a01c394a0$3d972660$64e87f50@Default> <000801c39619$b338f8b0$ed31e150@endicott> <001801c3962c$45579140$2af57f50@Default> <004b01c396e7$c176b560$c12a2850@multivisionoem> <009301c39716$344ad520$2c9c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <003901c39744$60c06e20$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Nigel Guthrie" < > If you change the law, I think the Dutch > answer is wrong: better would be to insist > that if you are asked about your partner's > bid and you do not know, then you must guess; > if your guess is systemically wrong, then > you are judged to be guilty of MI. IMO that > is a simple law and doesn't need telepathic TDs. > This is so obviously right that it is difficult to see how anyone could rationally argue with it. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Oct 20 21:11:41 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:11:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two-suiter revisited References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB11FA@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <012c01c39746$732f7220$2c9c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Herman de Wael] Belgian first division: board one, N, none, screens (N and E on same side) KJT9 W N E S 85 1NT X 2NT KQJ8 p 3D p 6H 653 p p X p 732 AQ8654 p p J63 T74 T7652 A9 1NT:9-11, X:values T4 K8 - AKQ92 94 AQJ972 2NT shows any two suiter except one with spades, but it is explained by North to East as minors. North intends 3Di as showing preference, but South interprets it (of course) as showing both reds and jumps to slam. East explains she did realize that something was amiss, but she did not know what. She doubled in order not to lose her quick spade trick. South (from the same club as EW) tells the director maybe East would not have doubled with the correct information. [Frances Hinden] East doubled because she thought she had two aces to take. She was wrong. She doesn't appear to be claiming damage, as she accepts that South clearly didn't have the minors, she knows as much as North knows. I can see no reason why the score should not stand. South has not explained _why_ there was damage. Whose side is South on? [Nigel] South (probably a relative of Richard James Hills) is "actively ethical" (I've encountered nothing like it in the UK where such behavior would be dubbed "actively sadomasochistic"). There is damage only if, in spite of South's 2N "for the minors", his subsequent 6H can be other than to play. e.g. Could it ask North give preference to 7D? Result stands. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 16/10/2003 From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Mon Oct 20 21:29:40 2003 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:29:40 -0400 (EDT) Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] In-Reply-To: <003901c39744$60c06e20$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> from "Marvin French" at Oct 20, 2003 12:57:19 PM Message-ID: <200310202029.h9KKTewG010162@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Marvin French writes: > > > From: "Nigel Guthrie" < > > > If you change the law, I think the Dutch > > answer is wrong: better would be to insist > > that if you are asked about your partner's > > bid and you do not know, then you must guess; > > if your guess is systemically wrong, then > > you are judged to be guilty of MI. IMO that > > is a simple law and doesn't need telepathic TDs. > > > This is so obviously right that it is difficult to see how anyone could > rationally argue with it. > And what of pickup partnerships? I have no problems with conditions of contest that say in effect that in top level competitions you have to know what you're doing. I think Nigel's suggestions are a terrible idea for most competitions. From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Mon Oct 20 21:30:52 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 22:30:52 +0200 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] References: <00a201c3941c$c82503d0$2b2e37d2@Desktop> <003a01c394a0$3d972660$64e87f50@Default> <000801c39619$b338f8b0$ed31e150@endicott> <001801c3962c$45579140$2af57f50@Default> <004b01c396e7$c176b560$c12a2850@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <000301c3974c$019422e0$c2b86dc2@Default> Grattan, We do NOT have a regulation in the sense that our 'laws committee' has made a regulation. What we do have is the national apeal committee (who only makes decisions) ruling these cases like that for about five years. It has never resulted in a regulation. No big suprise, in Holland there are very few local regulations. We tend to follow the international 'consensus'. As far as I know the rules at our champion level are 'identical' to EBL/WBF events. But of course a Dutch AC has a Dutch (legal) culture that differs from an international culture. And although in theory the laws at low level are the same I cannot vouch for the low level reality ......... And once more to be clear. We rule av+/av- if: - there has been a gross 'misbid' in an early obstructive/competitive convention (typical twosuited overcalls) - and it cannot reasonably be ruled ME/UI (although you always can rule ME and often UI) - and opps got a bad score caused by the 'infraction' to at least a certain extent But nothing is written in stone and the opposition (mainly Ton) is alive and kicking. > Incidentally, did ton vote for it as well? Ton doesn't agree on this one as many of you have guessed. > perhaps we should all follow Dutch leadership. You are flattering. If you want to know more about this specific issue please contact Jos Jacobs (I am sure you know him). It was his idea and he can explain it better than I can. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "'blml'" ; "Grattan Endicott" ; "Jaap van der Neut" Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 10:53 AM Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > To: "Grattan Endicott" ; > "'blml'" > Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 11:13 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Both Majors > > > > Grattan, > > > > In a way it is part of the 'convention disruption' debate. > > I don't know the ins and outs of that one. But you do > > have a problem when you have to rule a dozen times > > a year cases similar to someone overcalling 3C with a > > club suit explained as majors or the other way around. > > > > I never claimed the 'Dutch solution' (giving av+/av- > > when there is no hard infraction) is perfect. I was not > > the one to push it although I voted in favor of it. It > > seems to me a reasonable way of handling the problem. > > The Dutch (with some exceptions) seem to agree > > because nowadays 'everybody' knows the policy and > > TD's tend to follow it meaning that similar cases tend > > to be ruled in a similar way. Before we established > > this policy it was the well known free for all, TD's > > and AC's ruling every which way imaginable. > > > > Once again keep in mind that in Holland there are > > hardly restrictions on what you can play so we are > > faced with other problems than in say France, GB, > > USA where regs and culture create a different reality. > > > > Jaap > > > +=+ Hi Jaap, > I have no problem with the Dutch solution. It is merely > a case of controlling the psyching, inadvertently or otherwise, > of two-suited overcalls. I did not know, however, that you > have such a regulation and was not aware previously that the > Netherlands is among the many availing themselves of the > 'Geneva' interpretation (that regulations under Law 40D, for > example, are not subject to Law 80F). > A misbid is an inadvertent psyche. 40D allows regulation > of the actual *use* of conventions - it does not talk about > 'agreements as to the use of conventions'. > You open my eyes to an aspect of the discussion about > "convention disruption" I had not previously considered. It > is never too late to learn. Perhaps we should all follow Dutch > leadership. Incidentally, did ton vote for it as well? > < > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Oct 20 21:20:20 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:20:20 +0100 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] References: <007e01c396ec$9839a9f0$ecb337d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <000801c3974c$c5f43350$dd27e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "'blml'" Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 10:28 AM Subject: RE: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] > > > > > > +=+ Hi Jaap, > > I have no problem with the Dutch solution. It is > > merely a case of controlling the psyching, inadvertently > > or otherwise, of two-suited overcalls. I did not know, > > however, that you have such a regulation and was not > > aware previously that the Netherlands is among the > > many availing themselves of the 'Geneva' interpretation > > (that regulations under Law 40D, for example, are not > > subject to Law 80F). > > A misbid is an inadvertent psyche. > > There is no such beast. This is oxymoronic. A psyche is > deliberate so can not be inadvertent. > +=+ Oh, I agree a psyche is not inadvertent; my point is that a misbid has the characteristics of a deliberate psyche but is inadvertent. If Jaap is correct the Dutch Federation has a regulation that a misbid of a two suited overcall is, or may be, subject to a 60/40 adjustment. This takes the discussion about "convention disruption" to a new level. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ (p.s. Correctly I would have written < "A misbid is an 'inadvertent psyche'." > but deliberately withheld the quotes to arouse the mob.) +=+ As for: ---------------------- > > You open my eyes to an aspect of the > > discussion about "convention disruption" I had not > > previously considered. It is never too late to learn. > > Perhaps we should all follow Dutch leadership. > > So now we can have regulations that say you can use > this convention unless you are too thick to remember > it properly. > ---------------------------- the Dutch are only making use of a decision on the laws that is relied on also by the WBF, the ACBL, the EBL and the EBU, inter alia. ~ G ~ +=+ From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Mon Oct 20 22:09:08 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 23:09:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] Two-suiter revisited References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB11FA@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <012c01c39746$732f7220$2c9c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <001301c3974e$6d3774a0$c2b86dc2@Default> I think also in Holland we would rule table. I would. This mixup doesn't meet one of the main criteria for our 'infamous' rulings. The bad EW score is not caused by the mixup but by east's judgement. We do not adjust the score just because there was a mixup. There needs to be reasonably related damage as well. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 10:11 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Two-suiter revisited > [Herman de Wael] > Belgian first division: > board one, N, none, screens (N and E on same side) > KJT9 W N E S > 85 1NT X 2NT > KQJ8 p 3D p 6H > 653 p p X p > 732 AQ8654 p p > J63 T74 > T7652 A9 1NT:9-11, X:values > T4 K8 > - > AKQ92 > 94 > AQJ972 > 2NT shows any two suiter except one with spades, > but it is explained by North to East as minors. > North intends 3Di as showing preference, but South > interprets it (of course) as showing both reds and > jumps to slam. East explains she did realize that > something was amiss, but she did not know what. > She doubled in order not to lose her quick spade trick. > South (from the same club as EW) tells the director > maybe East would not have doubled with the correct > information. > [Frances Hinden] > East doubled because she thought she had two aces > to take. She was wrong. She doesn't appear to be > claiming damage, as she accepts that South clearly > didn't have the minors, she knows as much as North > knows. I can see no reason why the score should not > stand. South has not explained _why_ there was > damage. Whose side is South on? > [Nigel] > South (probably a relative of Richard James Hills) > is "actively ethical" (I've encountered nothing > like it in the UK where such behavior would be > dubbed "actively sadomasochistic"). There is damage > only if, in spite of South's 2N "for the minors", > his subsequent 6H can be other than to play. e.g. > Could it ask North give preference to 7D? > Result stands. > > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system > (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: > 16/10/2003 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Mon Oct 20 21:34:04 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:34:04 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] In-Reply-To: <000801c3974c$c5f43350$dd27e150@endicott> Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > +=+ Oh, I agree a psyche is not inadvertent; my point is > that a misbid has the characteristics of a deliberate psyche > but is inadvertent. Very true. On this side of the pond, we use exactly the same speech --- when explaining to the victim of a psych why we won't adjust the score. People here seem to already understand that misbids aren't infractions. The "convention disruption" fervor seemed to be a passing thing, which I haven't heard much about the last few years. I can only pray that the startling new interpretation of L40D that appeared on this list yesterday hasn't been overheard by anyone in the ACBL. GRB From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Oct 20 23:41:24 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:41:24 -0700 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] References: <200310202029.h9KKTewG010162@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <000d01c3975b$4c24bcc0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Ron Johnson" > Marvin French writes: > > > > > > From: "Nigel Guthrie" < > > > > > If you change the law, I think the Dutch > > > answer is wrong: better would be to insist > > > that if you are asked about your partner's > > > bid and you do not know, then you must guess; > > > if your guess is systemically wrong, then > > > you are judged to be guilty of MI. IMO that > > > is a simple law and doesn't need telepathic TDs. > > > > > This is so obviously right that it is difficult to see how anyone could > > rationally argue with it. > > > And what of pickup partnerships? > > I have no problems with conditions of contest that say in effect > that in top level competitions you have to know what you're doing. > I think Nigel's suggestions are a terrible idea for most competitions. A pickup partnership is required to fill out two CCs as soon as possible in ACBL-land, even tho that regulation is not well enforced. Of course the CC doesn't cover all subtle bridge understandings, but it covers most of what an opponent will want to know. When one partner makes a bid and the other doesn't know for sure what it means, he is generally going to act in accordance with some meaning, and should Alert or otherwise (if asked) disclose that meaning. Where's the harm if MI results? No harm to the opponents, surely, who will get redress if damaged. Harm to the pair who don't know what they're doing? That's the chance you take with a pickup partner. It happened once that an opponent (LHO) doubled my partner's 2H in a competitive auction. He was just showing "cards," Alertable at the time. My inexperienced partner assumed it was a penalty double and passed with enough to bid 3H. My RHO took the double out, holding a fair defensive hand, all pass. When dummy came down, I called the TD. RHO explained that she did not know what the double meant, it was undiscussed in this new partnership. She guessed that it was for takeout, but it was just a guess. There was a place for this double on the CC of the time, but they hadn't filled out that item. She didn't want to Alert the double because strictly speaking it was for penalty. And she got away with that. I would have ruled MI because she caught the meaning all right. She had it both ways. If she was right, she could not be accused of delivering MI. If she was wrong, well...but they always get it right, don't they? Now some will say she should have Alerted, explaining "I don't know for sure, but if it's for takeout I have to Alert. It's undiscussed, however." This is not only apt to mislead an opponent, but is a bunch of unnecessary UI to the doubler. Sorting out the denouement is likely to be very difficult for the TD, as it may be hard to tell whether the doubler takes advantage of the UI. How much simpler Nigel's suggestion is! Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Oct 21 00:19:48 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 09:19:48 +1000 Subject: [blml] Re: The ACBL (was Dutch) experience Message-ID: Marv: [snip] >It happened once that an opponent (LHO) doubled >my partner's 2H in a competitive auction. He was >just showing "cards," Alertable at the time. My >inexperienced partner assumed it was a penalty >double and passed with enough to bid 3H. My RHO >took the double out, holding a fair defensive >hand, all pass. When dummy came down, I called >the TD. RHO explained that she did not know what >the double meant, it was undiscussed in this new >partnership. She guessed that it was for takeout, >but it was just a guess. There was a place for >this double on the CC of the time, but they >hadn't filled out that item. She didn't want to >Alert the double because strictly speaking it was >for penalty. > >And she got away with that. I would have ruled MI >because she caught the meaning all right. She had >it both ways. If she was right, she could not be >accused of delivering MI. If she was wrong, well... >but they always get it right, don't they? [snip] RJH: It seems to me that this may be a double ACBL error in either: (a) a hole in ACBL regulations, or (b) ACBL carelessness in educating their TDs about ACBL regulations. Any SO should have a supplementary regulation to Law 40B, to specify action to be taken when a misbid is fielded. Any SO which has Alert regulations should specify the Alert status of calls that a partnership has not discussed. In Australia, undiscussed calls are not alerted. However, the misleading inference that LHO's double was penalty would not apply in Australia, because all doubles are "self-alerting" in Australia. Best wishes Richard James 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Oct 21 01:07:53 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 10:07:53 +1000 Subject: [blml] Philly appeal #33 - undiscussed Message-ID: Jaap: >You specialise in this type of question do you? Anyway >I like them. And it is fun because you get to expose >'silly' AC rulings from time to time. > >I bid 3H. Extra's no C stop and something in H. The >alternative is 3S to avoid mixup's. Is it possible >partner explained D+major at the table? Nigel: >Without discussion, I would assume partner just >wants me to continue describing my hand - perhaps >he has a club stop and hopes I have a HEART stop. >I reckon that I am strong in points but weak in >shape, so my LAs are 3H=3D10 3N=3D9 4C=3D4 3D/S=3D2 4D=3D1 Sven: >Doesn't Standard American imply that the 1C opening >shows clubs? Nigel: >No. As far as I know, 1C may be Canape in France >and America - it may be only three cards, or in >extremity two e.g. AKxx xxxx xxx AK >I think most Americans would open 1C on this, hoping >later to complete their Canape into spades. Sven: >I believe the general understanding in Norway of >bidding opponent's suit like this is that it asks >for stopper in that suit. So the only LA available >here would seem to be 3D (the proper answer with a >stopper would be 3NT). Partner's next call will >clarify what he is aiming for. Nigel: >When there are two unbid suits and you are >interested in notrump, local players in the UK >bid the suit in which they have a stopper. >Of course, here, a cue-bid of opponent's suit >may just be a forcing relay. RJH: My understanding of ACBL cue-bid styles is that the West Coast ACBLers cue the Norwegian way, *asking* for a stopper, while the East Coast ACBLers cue the British way, *showing* a stopper. Anyway, for me this style issue is moot, since at the table I would join Jaap in showing my maximum overcall and doubleton heart honour with a 3H call. The complete appeal: 54 K62 K953 T654 AKJ8 762 Q8 7543 AJT84 Q6 83 KJ92 QT93 AJT9 72 AQ7 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1C 2C(1) Pass 3C Pass 3D Pass Pass Pass (1) Alerted; natural The Facts: 3D went down two, +200 for N/S. The opening lead was the H2. The Director was called at the end of the auction. West's 2C bid by agreement showed spades and diamonds, often with longer diamonds. North said he would still have passed with proper information. South chose not to reopen the auction. The Director decided that while West did have UI, with no partnership agreement as to the meaning of 3C, and with no club stopper, no heart stopper, and only four spades the 3D bid looked like the only logical action over 3C. Therefore, the table result was allowed to stand. The AC agreed that 3D was the only logical alternative. Casebook panellist Bramley: "Gee, the Committee said exactly the same thing as the Director. North added nothing to the discussion except his misevaluation of the West hand as having extra values, nor did he suggest a good alternate call for West. This appeal was a complete waste of the Committee's time. Give the Appeal Without Merit Warning." Non-panellist Hills: It is *not* a requirement for the appellant to suggest a logical alternative - bunnies without the analytical skills of their opponents may be protected by the analytical skills of TDs and ACs. Casebook panellist Wildavsky: "I'd like to have seen a poll here. With a maximum in high cards surely there are alternatives to 3D. It is hard to see how 3H could go wrong. Why can't East hold something like Qx Jxx KQx QJxxx? In fact I'd expect more for a cue-bid." Non-panellist Hills: The Wildavsky wish has been granted. Of the three blmlers responding to the poll, only 33% ruled that 3D was the only logical alternative. Best wishes Richard James 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 ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Oct 21 01:26:50 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 20:26:50 -0400 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] In-Reply-To: <004b01c396e7$c176b560$c12a2850@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <43AA9140-035D-11D8-B3A8-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Oct 20, 2003, at 04:53 US/Eastern, Grattan Endicott wrote: > I have no problem with the Dutch solution. It is merely > a case of controlling the psyching, inadvertently or otherwise, > of two-suited overcalls. Utter hogwash. There is no such thing as an inadvertent psyche. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Oct 21 01:32:46 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 01:32:46 +0100 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] References: <007e01c396ec$9839a9f0$ecb337d2@Desktop> <000801c3974c$c5f43350$dd27e150@endicott> Message-ID: <01b901c3976a$da32dd80$2c9c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Grattan Endicott] (p.s. Correctly I would have written < "A misbid is an 'inadvertent psyche'." > but deliberately withheld the quotes to arouse the mob.) [Nigel] Eureka! At last! A clue to understanding Grattan's posts; and to appreciation of TFLB! --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 17/10/2003 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Oct 21 01:34:47 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 20:34:47 -0400 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] In-Reply-To: <009301c39716$344ad520$2c9c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <5F7EDA18-035E-11D8-B3A8-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Oct 20, 2003, at 10:26 US/Eastern, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > If you change the law, I think the Dutch > answer is wrong: better would be to insist > that if you are asked about your partner's > bid and you do not know, then you must guess; > if your guess is systemically wrong, then > you are judged to be guilty of MI. IMO that > is a simple law and doesn't need telepathic TDs. > "Guilty of MI". Yet "The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage." Which is it, Nigel? Are irregularities crimes, subject to punishment, or are they simply mistakes which may entitle opponents to redress?" From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Oct 21 02:04:03 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 11:04:03 +1000 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia appeal #36 Message-ID: Richard James Hills, suggested 2005 change to Law 72A2: >>"A player must not accept the score for a trick, if that >>player could have known that their side did not win that >>trick. A player must not accept the concession of a trick, >>if that player could have known that it would be irrational >>for their opponents to lose that conceded trick." Ed Reppert: >There's that "could have known" thing again. How is a player >to prove, for his defense, that he could *not* have known >whatever it is? Richard James Hills: If an inexperienced player has difficulty counting their own tricks, then it might be presumed that the inexperienced player could *not* have known about the tricks an opponent was entitled to. If, however, a world-class player _always_ "accidentally" accepts undeserved tricks *from* opponents, but _never_ "accidentally" concedes undeserved tricks *to* opponents, as TD my hands are tied under the current Law. The current Law requires "knowingly", not "accidentally". And if, as TD, I rule that "accidentally" is a lie, and "knowingly" is the truth, then I will be hit with an immediate writ for defamation. :-( Best wishes RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- 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 Oct 21 02:29:40 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 11:29:40 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 43A1(c) - Dummy Play Message-ID: Imps; EW vul; South dealer =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 T764 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 AQ5 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 T =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 AK842 KQ2=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0 9 T9862=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0 KJ4 K954=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0 A832 6=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0JT975 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 AJ853 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 73 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 QJ76 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Q3 The bidding: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0 =A0 Pass Pass=A0=A0=A0=A0 1C=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =A0Pass=A0=A0=A0 =A01S Pass=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A03S=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Pass=A0=A0=A0 =A0 4S Pass Pass Pass The play: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH HT HA H4 H3 C6 C2 C5 CQ S2 ? C3 At this point dummy (without waiting for declarer to say anything)=A0played the C4. Declarer looked puzzled, and then noticed the ruff. Question 1: How would you rule on the actual deal? Question 2: On this hand the contract fails anyway after a heart lead, but how would you hypothetically rule if: (a) playing the CK after the ruff would have resulted in the game failing by one trick, and (b) not playing the CK after the ruff would have guaranteed the success of the game? Best wishes Richard James 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 nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Oct 21 04:20:10 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 04:20:10 +0100 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] References: <5F7EDA18-035E-11D8-B3A8-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <028f01c39782$571d8180$2c9c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Ed Reppert] "Guilty of MI". Yet "The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage." [Nigel] With a few exceptions, current Bridge law *is* designed merely to redress damage. Did you did notice, Ed, that I was arguing for *change*. [Ed] Which is it, Nigel? Are irregularities crimes, subject to punishment, or are they simply mistakes which may entitle opponents to redress?" [Nigel] Thank you Ed. As I've argued before: This is a major current flaw in TFLB. Legal infractions are *usually* just mistakes -- but, in the rules of a game, *redress isn't enough* for obvious reasons: (1) The law should discourage you from recidivism. Otherwise your "crime" can't lose. If the law just restores the status quo, there's no deterrent. (2) To cater for your frequent infractions that are hard to detect and or rule against, redress to opponents should take into account some of the previous damage that they suffered when you previously got away with it. Otherwise, your infractions may be positively rewarded. (3) For some kinds of behaviour, your infraction may not be a mere mistake. Then, IMO, the law should impose a sanction sufficient to betoken its distaste of your deliberate bad behaviour: e.g. bad manners, using UI, nondisclosure, other forms of cheating. Grattan has recently claimed that some of what he writes is intended to wind up the stupid bridge playing mob. Could explain the amazing TFLB "redress only" mission statement? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 17/10/2003 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Oct 21 04:34:50 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 04:34:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia appeal #36 References: Message-ID: <02b701c39784$495b3fe0$2c9c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Richard James Hills, suggested 2005 change to Law 72A2] "A player must not accept the score for a trick, if that player could have known that their side did not win that trick. A player must not accept the concession of a trick, if that player could have known that it would be irrational for their opponents to lose that conceded trick." [Nigel] IMO, all players would support Richard in his campaign to rephrase rules that imply "knowingly" with a "could have known" construction. As Richard points out, the current formulation castrates TD's. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 17/10/2003 From wayne@ebridgenz.com Tue Oct 21 05:19:47 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 17:19:47 +1300 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] In-Reply-To: <028f01c39782$571d8180$2c9c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <002801c3978a$96289970$202e56d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Nigel Guthrie > Sent: Tuesday, 21 October 2003 3:20 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] > > > [Ed Reppert] > "Guilty of MI". Yet "The Laws are primarily > designed not as punishment for irregularities, > but rather as redress for damage." > > [Nigel] > With a few exceptions, current Bridge law *is* > designed merely to redress damage. Did you did > notice, Ed, that I was arguing for *change*. > > [Ed] > Which is it, Nigel? Are irregularities crimes, > subject to punishment, or are they simply > mistakes which may entitle opponents to redress?" > > [Nigel] > Thank you Ed. As I've argued before: This is a > major current flaw in TFLB. Legal infractions are > *usually* just mistakes -- but, in the rules of a > game, *redress isn't enough* for obvious reasons: > > (1) The law should discourage you from recidivism. > Otherwise your "crime" can't lose. If the law just > restores the status quo, there's no deterrent. The law goes further doubtful points are resolved against the offender. > > (2) To cater for your frequent infractions that > are hard to detect and or rule against, redress > to opponents should take into account some of > the previous damage that they suffered when you > previously got away with it. Otherwise, your > infractions may be positively rewarded. If you infract you should never get away with it. But a mis-bid is not an infraction. > > (3) For some kinds of behaviour, your infraction > may not be a mere mistake. Then, IMO, the law > should impose a sanction sufficient to betoken > its distaste of your deliberate bad behaviour: > e.g. bad manners, using UI, nondisclosure, other > forms of cheating. As long as this includes a penalty for the bad manners of those who can not accept a "rub of the green" fortunate result of their opponents, I agree. Wayne From adam@tameware.com Tue Oct 21 05:38:44 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 00:38:44 -0400 Subject: [blml] Philly appeal #33 - undiscussed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >Casebook panellist Wildavsky: > >"I'd like to have seen a poll here. With a maximum in >high cards surely there are alternatives to 3D. It is >hard to see how 3H could go wrong. Why can't East hold >something like Qx Jxx KQx QJxxx? In fact I'd expect more >for a cue-bid." > >Non-panellist Hills: > >The Wildavsky wish has been granted. Of the three >blmlers responding to the poll, only 33% ruled that 3D >was the only logical alternative. I always suspected the Internet was magical -- now it's granted one of my wishes! Thanks Richard. I'm delighted you undertook the poll. I must note, though, that some authorities, in particular Ron Gerard, think they are of little value. I corresponded with Ron about this and while I'm not certain, I suspect part of his objection is to the way such polls are often phrased. Ron believes that is the responsibility of the AC, and only the AC, to determine what the LAs are. That makes sense to me. So I am now convinced that in a poll we should not ask "What are your logical alternatives?". A better question might be "What would you bid?" and also "Is it close?" or "Would you seriously consider anything else?" In practice there may be little difference to the results of the poll, but I see Ron's point and I think it's worth trying to address it. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Oct 21 06:30:45 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 06:30:45 +0100 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] References: <002801c3978a$96289970$202e56d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <03da01c39794$7af47160$2c9c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Wayne] As long as this includes a penalty for the bad manners of those who can not accept a "rub of the green" fortunate result of their opponents, I agree. [Nigel] Wayne, would you really impose a PP for appeals in all cases that the AC judged as "rub of the green?" (: Or are you just trying to wind us up, too? :) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 17/10/2003 From wayne@ebridgenz.com Tue Oct 21 07:22:48 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 19:22:48 +1300 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] In-Reply-To: <03da01c39794$7af47160$2c9c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <004401c3979b$c52d47f0$202e56d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Nigel Guthrie > Sent: Tuesday, 21 October 2003 5:31 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] > > > [Wayne] > As long as this includes a penalty for the bad manners > of those who can not accept a "rub of the green" > fortunate result of their opponents, I agree. > > [Nigel] > Wayne, would you really impose a PP for appeals in > all cases that the AC judged as "rub of the green?" > > (: Or are you just trying to wind us up, too? :) No but there is a case for some discipline when players repeatedly try to get an advantage when there has been no infraction. And that is my opinion of invoking a law or regulation or ruling that penalizes a players when no infraction has occurred. Wayne From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Oct 21 07:05:08 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 16:05:08 +1000 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] Message-ID: Nigel fence-sits: >My impression is that Ton does not support >Jaap's tolerant rule-bending. > >I understand Jaap's argument that their lax >law keeps punters happy and, as a result, >Holland has a lot of players. > >Surely Richard is right: the Australian >interpretation of the current law is correct; >and Australia has a lot of happy bridge >players too. > >I sympathise with Jaap, however. [snip] RJH also waffles: To correct any draconian impression I may have given in my previous post, I too sympathise with Jaap's position and the Dutch NBO position. One cultural difference (that I failed to mention last time), also distinguishing Dutch LOLs from Aussie LOLs, is that Ghestem is hugely popular in The Netherlands, but Ghestem is almost unknown in Australia. As was repeatedly mentioned in an endless blml thread about Ghestem a few years ago, Ghestem is a convention that is *particularly* prone to misbids, CPUs and UI. Best wishes Richard James 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 cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Oct 21 07:35:51 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 07:35:51 +0100 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] References: <00a201c3941c$c82503d0$2b2e37d2@Desktop> <003a01c394a0$3d972660$64e87f50@Default> <000801c39619$b338f8b0$ed31e150@endicott> <001801c3962c$45579140$2af57f50@Default> <004b01c396e7$c176b560$c12a2850@multivisionoem> <000301c3974c$019422e0$c2b86dc2@Default> Message-ID: <001201c3979d$a61305b0$7413e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Grattan Endicott" ; "'blml'" ; "Grattan Endicott" Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 9:30 PM Subject: Re: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] > Grattan, > > We do NOT have a regulation in the sense that our 'laws committee' has made > a regulation. > +=+ What was it you said you voted for?+=+ > > What we do have is the national apeal committee (who > only makes decisions) ruling these cases like that for > about five years. It has never resulted in a regulation. > +=+ I do not understand. The national appeal committee does something without a legal basis for it, do you say? Its 'decisions' must have the effect of regulation then, since de facto it may act as though there were a formal regulation. It sounds lacking in cohesion and, whilst I would regard such a regulation as lawful the practice at this time sounds to be outside of the law. Is this what ton is saying about your domestic disagreement? +=+ > > No big suprise, in Holland there are very few local > regulations. We tend to follow the international > 'consensus'. As far as I know the rules at our champion > level are 'identical' to EBL/WBF events. But of course > a Dutch AC has a Dutch (legal) culture that differs > from an international culture. And although in theory > the laws at low level are the same I cannot vouch for > the low level reality ......... > > And once more to be clear. We rule av+/av- if: > - there has been a gross 'misbid' in an early > obstructive/competitive convention (typical > twosuited overcalls) - and it cannot reasonably be > ruled ME/UI (although you always can rule ME > and often UI) - and opps got a bad score caused > by the 'infraction' to at least a certain extent > > But nothing is written in stone and the opposition > (mainly Ton) is alive and kicking. > > > +=+ It sounds topsy turvy. Acting by national consensus of the players to rule without any formal regulation to back it up, with the source of regulation sidelined. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Oct 21 08:03:02 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 08:03:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 43A1(c) - Dummy Play References: Message-ID: <049f01c397a1$601abe00$2c9c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Richard James Hills] [South led a club West ruffed and..] At this point dummy (without waiting for declarer to say anything) played the C4. Declarer looked puzzled, and then noticed the ruff. Question 1: How would you rule on the actual deal? Question 2: On this hand the contract fails anyway after a heart lead, but how would you rule if: (a) playing the CK after the ruff would have resulted in the game failing by one trick, and (b) not playing the CK after the ruff would have guaranteed the success of the game? [Nigel] Ed may disagree but, IMO, the TD would be quite wrong to offer simple redress to both sides by trying to restore the status quo. A ruling against North-South requires that... (1) East-West notice what is going on, (2) They have some relevant legal knowledge, (3) They are in still in contention and (4) They decide to call the TD. (5) The TD believes their version of events, (6) He knows the relevant law, (7) He agrees that North broke it and possibly.. (8) An AC comes to the same conclusions. Hence IMO, unless North is a beginner, in all Richard's cases, the TD should *punish* North South with a PP (as well as ruling the most favourable result possible for East-West). I would change the law, so that there would be no mitigation, even for beginners. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 17/10/2003 From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Tue Oct 21 08:27:45 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 09:27:45 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Law 43A1(c) - Dummy Play Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EB9E@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Richard James Hills wrote: Imps; EW vul; South dealer =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 T764 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 AQ5 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 T =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 AK842 KQ2=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0 9 T9862=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = KJ4 K954=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0 A832 6=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0JT975 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 AJ853 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 73 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 QJ76 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Q3 The bidding: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0 Pass Pass=A0=A0=A0=A0 1C=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =A0Pass=A0=A0=A0 =A01S Pass=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A03S=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Pass=A0=A0=A0 =A0 4S Pass Pass Pass The play: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH HT HA H4 H3 C6 C2 C5 CQ S2 ? C3 At this point dummy (without waiting for declarer to say anything)=A0played the C4. Declarer looked puzzled, and then noticed the ruff. Question 1: How would you rule on the actual deal? ----- As the play to trick 3 has doesn't influence the outcome of the hand, resul= t stands. I would give north a warning for breaking law 45F. (Or a PP.) ----- Question 2: On this hand the contract fails anyway after a heart lead, but how would you hypothetically rule if: (a) playing the CK after the ruff would have resulted in the game failing by one trick, and (b) not playing the CK after the ruff would have guaranteed the success of the game? ----- Law 45F tells me that I after the play could assing an adjusted score, whic= h I would do. Ruling: 1 down. Regards, Harald Skj=E6ran ----- Best wishes Richard James Hills ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----------- 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 jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Tue Oct 21 11:22:50 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 12:22:50 +0200 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] References: <00a201c3941c$c82503d0$2b2e37d2@Desktop> <003a01c394a0$3d972660$64e87f50@Default> <000801c39619$b338f8b0$ed31e150@endicott> <001801c3962c$45579140$2af57f50@Default> <004b01c396e7$c176b560$c12a2850@multivisionoem> <000301c3974c$019422e0$c2b86dc2@Default> <001201c3979d$a61305b0$7413e150@endicott> Message-ID: <003301c397c0$68d35060$caf43b51@Default> Grattan, We do not even have a real 'laws committee'. There are two 'rules' committees. One who focus on writing rules, but 99% of all rules is about organizing the fed rather than about ruling bridge. This committee typically doesn't take initatives but makes regs when asked to do so by other bodies of the fed. Another committee is in charge of organizing the national competitions and such, this committee will take the initiative when we need regulations about playing and ruling. But for this committee making rules is not its main job. So not surprisingly there are not a lot of regulations in Holland about interpretation of the laws. Making regs is work and as long as there is no real need it won't happen. So most 'regulations' in Holland are not regulations at all but just policies set by the national appeals committee, that for practical purposes is responsible for interpreting the law and for ruling on anything that is not (well) covered by laws or regulations. And don't worry about the national authority getting crazy. First of all the mentioned committies can make rules to restrain the freedom of interpretation if they really don't like what the national AC is doing (I can remember one case were the lawmakers have 'overruled' the national AC by making a new reg). Second every decision made by any committee (or the board for that matter) can be challenged on legal grounds (only) by a kind of independent appeals court. This 'court' obviously cannot really overrule any committee or the board but they can cancel any decision if incorrect procedures were used (board decisions have been cancelled this way). > +=+ It sounds topsy turvy. Acting by national > consensus of the players to rule without any > formal regulation to back it up, with the source > of regulation sidelined. This is overstating things. An official ruling by the national AC has more status than national consensus of the players (but the national AC is mainly top level players). And in Holland national AC decisions can be considered as being part of the 'regulation proces' (as long as the lawmakers agree they are unlikely to make backup regs). But you might be right that this way of working is dubious by certain standards. But it works fine in Holland and the Dutch fed is rather succesful so far. Keep in mind I am not a lawyer. So I cannot guarantee the above information is 'legally correct'. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "'blml'" Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 8:35 AM Subject: Re: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] > > Grattan Endicott (also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > and gesta@tiscali.co.uk) > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "Had laws not been, we never had been blamed, > For not to know we sin is innocence." > - Wm. D' Avenant > ================================== > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > To: "Grattan Endicott" ; "'blml'" > ; "Grattan Endicott" > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 9:30 PM > Subject: Re: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] > > > > Grattan, > > > > We do NOT have a regulation in the sense that our 'laws committee' > has made > > a regulation. > > > +=+ What was it you said you voted for?+=+ > > > > What we do have is the national apeal committee (who > > only makes decisions) ruling these cases like that for > > about five years. It has never resulted in a regulation. > > > +=+ I do not understand. The national appeal committee > does something without a legal basis for it, do you say? > Its 'decisions' must have the effect of regulation then, > since de facto it may act as though there were a formal > regulation. It sounds lacking in cohesion and, whilst > I would regard such a regulation as lawful the practice > at this time sounds to be outside of the law. Is this what > ton is saying about your domestic disagreement? > > +=+ > > > > No big suprise, in Holland there are very few local > > regulations. We tend to follow the international > > 'consensus'. As far as I know the rules at our champion > > level are 'identical' to EBL/WBF events. But of course > > a Dutch AC has a Dutch (legal) culture that differs > > from an international culture. And although in theory > > the laws at low level are the same I cannot vouch for > > the low level reality ......... > > > > And once more to be clear. We rule av+/av- if: > > - there has been a gross 'misbid' in an early > > obstructive/competitive convention (typical > > twosuited overcalls) - and it cannot reasonably be > > ruled ME/UI (although you always can rule ME > > and often UI) - and opps got a bad score caused > > by the 'infraction' to at least a certain extent > > > > But nothing is written in stone and the opposition > > (mainly Ton) is alive and kicking. > > > > > +=+ It sounds topsy turvy. Acting by national > consensus of the players to rule without any > formal regulation to back it up, with the source > of regulation sidelined. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Tue Oct 21 11:44:40 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 12:44:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia appeal #36 References: <02b701c39784$495b3fe0$2c9c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <003401c397c0$6a2aa300$caf43b51@Default> > [Nigel] > IMO, all players would support Richard in his > campaign to rephrase rules that imply "knowingly" > with a "could have known" construction. All players is a lot my dear. In a way I agree that 'knowingly' is a rotten concept. But too replace all instances with 'could have known' is another matter because it is something completely different. In the example you use 'could have known' is ridiculous IMO because it requires people to analyse things they never analyse. If someone concedes the rest it is not your job to check if this is correct. IMO you can use 'could have known' only in relation to infractions, not in relation with non-infractions. > As Richard points out, the current formulation > castrates TD's. Sometimes that is a good idea. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 5:34 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Philadelphia appeal #36 > [Richard James Hills, suggested 2005 change to Law > 72A2] > "A player must not accept the score for a trick, if > that > player could have known that their side did not win > that > trick. A player must not accept the concession of a > trick, > if that player could have known that it would be > irrational > for their opponents to lose that conceded trick." > [Nigel] > IMO, all players would support Richard in his > campaign to rephrase rules that imply "knowingly" > with a "could have known" construction. > As Richard points out, the current formulation > castrates TD's. > > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system > (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: > 17/10/2003 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Tue Oct 21 12:52:58 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 13:52:58 +0200 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] References: <00a201c3941c$c82503d0$2b2e37d2@Desktop> <003a01c394a0$3d972660$64e87f50@Default> <000801c39619$b338f8b0$ed31e150@endicott> <001801c3962c$45579140$2af57f50@Default> <004b01c396e7$c176b560$c12a2850@multivisionoem> <000301c3974c$019422e0$c2b86dc2@Default> Message-ID: <009601c397ca$0c2a69c0$0883b6d4@LNV> > Grattan, > > We do NOT have a regulation in the sense that our 'laws committee' has made > a regulation. > > > But nothing is written in stone and the opposition (mainly Ton) is alive and > kicking. Given my position my voice is probably heard more often than others regarding this subject, but I can assure you that the Dutch committee responsible for duplicate bridge and the conditions therein does not support this approach within (parts of) the Dutch AC. This creates a problem in Dutch bridge since TD's are instructed to follow the laws (also law 75B that is) and risk appeals with an uncertain outcome doing so. ton Grattan: > > Incidentally, did ton vote for it as well? > Ton doesn't agree on this one as many of you have guessed. From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Tue Oct 21 13:07:40 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:07:40 +0200 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] References: <00a201c3941c$c82503d0$2b2e37d2@Desktop> <003a01c394a0$3d972660$64e87f50@Default> <000801c39619$b338f8b0$ed31e150@endicott> <001801c3962c$45579140$2af57f50@Default> <004b01c396e7$c176b560$c12a2850@multivisionoem> <009301c39716$344ad520$2c9c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> <003901c39744$60c06e20$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <00dc01c397cb$fdc57f80$0883b6d4@LNV> > From: "Nigel Guthrie" < > > > If you change the law, I think the Dutch > > answer is wrong: better would be to insist > > that if you are asked about your partner's > > bid and you do not know, then you must guess; > > if your guess is systemically wrong, then > > you are judged to be guilty of MI. IMO that > > is a simple law and doesn't need telepathic TDs. > > > This is so obviously right that it is difficult to see how anyone could > rationally argue with it. > > Marv I understand that Nigel wants a player to be forced by law to make a guess when he doesn't remember the agreement. I don't understand why Marv finds this 'so obviouisly right'. I don't, it sounds obviously strange (in my new approach 'strange' wil be the strongest word I use). We don't need this, there is also MI when a player can't tell what the agreement is (if there is one), as I tried to explain some days ago. ton From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Tue Oct 21 13:08:08 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:08:08 +0200 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] References: <00a201c3941c$c82503d0$2b2e37d2@Desktop> <003a01c394a0$3d972660$64e87f50@Default> <000801c39619$b338f8b0$ed31e150@endicott> <001801c3962c$45579140$2af57f50@Default> <004b01c396e7$c176b560$c12a2850@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <00df01c397cb$fe0128f0$0883b6d4@LNV> > > Grattan, > > > > In a way it is part of the 'convention disruption' debate. > > I don't know the ins and outs of that one. But you do > > have a problem when you have to rule a dozen times > > a year cases similar to someone overcalling 3C with a > > club suit explained as majors or the other way around. > > > > I never claimed the 'Dutch solution' (giving av+/av- > > when there is no hard infraction) is perfect. I was not > > the one to push it although I voted in favor of it. It > > seems to me a reasonable way of handling the problem. > > The Dutch (with some exceptions) seem to agree > > because nowadays 'everybody' knows the policy and > > TD's tend to follow it meaning that similar cases tend > > to be ruled in a similar way. Before we established > > this policy it was the well known free for all, TD's > > and AC's ruling every which way imaginable. > > > > Once again keep in mind that in Holland there are > > hardly restrictions on what you can play so we are > > faced with other problems than in say France, GB, > > USA where regs and culture create a different reality. > > > > Jaap > > > +=+ Hi Jaap, > I have no problem with the Dutch solution. It is merely > a case of controlling the psyching, inadvertently or otherwise, > of two-suited overcalls. I did not know, however, that you > have such a regulation and was not aware previously that the > Netherlands is among the many availing themselves of the > 'Geneva' interpretation (that regulations under Law 40D, for > example, are not subject to Law 80F). > A misbid is an inadvertent psyche. 40D allows regulation > of the actual *use* of conventions - it does not talk about > 'agreements as to the use of conventions'. > You open my eyes to an aspect of the discussion about > "convention disruption" I had not previously considered. It > is never too late to learn. Perhaps we should all follow Dutch > leadership. Incidentally, did ton vote for it as well? > < > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ No, I didn't and I am still strongly opposing this idea, since it is not in accordance with the laws. And I don't need more than L75B to know what the laws (want to) say about this. For the moment I am waiting for the 25 cases in which the Dutch AC decided to give av+/av- in cases with this kind of irregularity (over the last five years). But Jaap probably needs more time to find those. ton From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Oct 21 18:11:15 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 13:11:15 -0400 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] In-Reply-To: <004401c3979b$c52d47f0$202e56d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <94597A3C-03E9-11D8-B75E-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Oct 21, 2003, at 02:22 US/Eastern, wayne@ebridgenz.com wrote: > No but there is a case for some discipline when players repeatedly > try to get an advantage when there has been no infraction. If I understand you correctly, you have no problem with a player calling the director when he thinks there may have been an infraction - your problem is with players who continue to do so in like situations when they should have already learned that there hasn't been. If so, I agree. > And that is my opinion of invoking a law or regulation or ruling > that penalizes a players when no infraction has occurred. I don't understand this bit - unless you're speaking of the Dutch policy of assuming that a putative Ghestem bid is an infraction if the bidder's hand doesn't match the agreed meaning. Assuming, of course, that I have understood the Dutch policy correctly. :-) From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Oct 21 08:52:36 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 08:52:36 +0100 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] References: <5F7EDA18-035E-11D8-B3A8-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <028f01c39782$571d8180$2c9c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <000e01c397f8$37f48080$f632e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott > Grattan has recently claimed that some of what > he writes is intended to wind up the stupid > bridge playing mob. < +=+ Only those who fail to penetrate the intentional oxymoron to the core of its purpose. +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Oct 21 09:11:50 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 09:11:50 +0100 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] References: <43AA9140-035D-11D8-B3A8-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000f01c397f8$38b33ca0$f632e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 1:26 AM Subject: Re: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] > > On Monday, Oct 20, 2003, at 04:53 US/Eastern, > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > I have no problem with the Dutch solution. It is > merely a case of controlling the psyching, inadvertently > > or otherwise, of two-suited overcalls. > > Utter hogwash. There is no such thing as an inadvertent > psyche. > +=+ "Et tu, Brute?" No indeed there is not, but the misbid occurs in using the convention. 40D says that "the SO may regulate the use of bidding or play conventions" So this (unwritten*) regulation has a lawful basis under the given law. (* see parallel messages from and to Neut - the 'Dutch solution' appears to be a matter of practice, the national appeals committee acting as its own R & R committee.) ~ G ~ +=+ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Oct 21 18:40:44 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 13:40:44 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 43A1(c) - Dummy Play In-Reply-To: <049f01c397a1$601abe00$2c9c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: On Tuesday, Oct 21, 2003, at 03:03 US/Eastern, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > Ed may disagree but, IMO, the TD would be quite > wrong to offer simple redress to both sides by > trying to restore the status quo. The laws *do* make provision for penalties, when appropriate. Seems appropriate in this case. > A ruling against North-South requires that... I would leave out "against North-South" for the moment. > (1) East-West notice what is going on, Ok. > (2) They have some relevant legal knowledge, That being that they know that dummy ain't supposed to do that, and that when dummy does do that, somebody should call the TD, or if someone draws attention to dummy having done that, somebody *must* call the TD. > (3) They are in still in contention and I don't see why this is relevant. Aside from which, for some players (myself included) knowing whether they're "still in contention" is problematic at best. > (4) They decide to call the TD. Basic principle: when an infraction has or may have occurred, call the TD. Period. Exclamation point. If people did that, there would be a lot less BS floating around, IMO. > (5) The TD believes their version of events, Counsel is assuming facts not in evidence. If N-S do not claim that dummy didn't do what the opponents say he did, then the TD has no basis to disbelieve E-W's "version of events". > (6) He knows the relevant law, Or he can read. He damn well better be able to meet one or the other requirement, or the SO oughta fire him. > (7) He agrees that North broke it and possibly.. D'oh. If the original description of events is correct, then North broke the law. If the TD does not agree, he oughta put down that joint for a while. > (8) An AC comes to the same conclusions. Seems to me this is a matter of law, not TD judgement. An AC cannot override the TD on a matter of law. > Hence IMO, unless North is a beginner, in all > Richard's cases, the TD should *punish* North > South with a PP (as well as ruling the most > favourable result possible for East-West). "Dummy *must* *not* participate in the play." [Emphasis mine.] This is the strongest possible constraint. As such, it rates a PP, IMO, whatever the level of the offender. There's an old saying I read somewhere : "Raise up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it". Catch a player doing this early in his career, and let him know it will not be tolerated, and maybe, just maybe, when he gets to your level, Nigel, he won't be doing it. > I would change the law, so that there would be no mitigation, even for > beginners. I'm not so sure that's where the need lies. Larry Harris, in his "Bridge Director's Guide", suggests that certain offenses (I'm not sure this is one of them) rate, at least on the first occurrence, a PP that consists of a warning. Something along the lines of "this is a clear violation of Law 43A(1)c, and if you do it again, I will penalize you X% of a board." If you don't consider that to be a PP, fine, but I think the player who received it would. IAC, it seems to me that education of TDs is more needed than a change in the law. I would not be surprised to find that if you do the latter, a large number of TDs will simply continue to do as they've always done, and let beginners get away with infractions just because they're beginners (and when does one stop being a beginner?) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Oct 21 18:51:22 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 13:51:22 -0400 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] In-Reply-To: <028f01c39782$571d8180$2c9c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <2EE74966-03EF-11D8-B75E-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Oct 20, 2003, at 23:20 US/Eastern, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > [Nigel] > With a few exceptions, current Bridge law *is* > designed merely to redress damage. Did you did > notice, Ed, that I was arguing for *change*. You usually do. :-) > [Ed] > Which is it, Nigel? Are irregularities crimes, > subject to punishment, or are they simply > mistakes which may entitle opponents to redress?" > > [Nigel] > Thank you Ed. As I've argued before: This is a > major current flaw in TFLB. Legal infractions are > *usually* just mistakes -- but, in the rules of a > game, *redress isn't enough* for obvious reasons: > > (1) The law should discourage you from recidivism. > Otherwise your "crime" can't lose. If the law just > restores the status quo, there's no deterrent. I'm not so sure this is an obvious reason. > (2) To cater for your frequent infractions that > are hard to detect and or rule against, redress > to opponents should take into account some of > the previous damage that they suffered when you > previously got away with it. Otherwise, your > infractions may be positively rewarded. No, no, and Hell NO! You *CANNOT* make rulings under the assumption that a player who has committed an infraction habitually does so. That way lies madness. > (3) For some kinds of behaviour, your infraction > may not be a mere mistake. Then, IMO, the law > should impose a sanction sufficient to betoken > its distaste of your deliberate bad behaviour: > e.g. bad manners, using UI, nondisclosure, other > forms of cheating. Laws 90 and 91 aren't sufficient for your taste? Note, I'm not talking about how TDs (particularly in clubs) administer (or don't administer) these laws - that's a matter for TD education. I'm talking about whether the laws themselves provide sufficient sanction. I think they do. From schuster@eduhi.at Tue Oct 21 19:15:09 2003 From: schuster@eduhi.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 20:15:09 +0200 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] In-Reply-To: <00df01c397cb$fe0128f0$0883b6d4@LNV> References: <00a201c3941c$c82503d0$2b2e37d2@Desktop> <003a01c394a0$3d972660$64e87f50@Default> <000801c39619$b338f8b0$ed31e150@endicott> <001801c3962c$45579140$2af57f50@Default> <004b01c396e7$c176b560$c12a2850@multivisionoem> <00df01c397cb$fe0128f0$0883b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:08:08 +0200, Ton Kooijman wrote: > > Grattan: >> You open my eyes to an aspect of the discussion about >> "convention disruption" I had not previously considered. It >> is never too late to learn. Perhaps we should all follow Dutch >> leadership. Incidentally, did ton vote for it as well? >> < > > No, I didn't and I am still strongly opposing this idea, since it is not > in > accordance with the laws. > And I don't need more than L75B to know what the laws (want to) say about > this. Without a suitable regulation, sure. But it would be perfectly legal (40D) to permit the use of such conventions only if the hands match the agreement. Then, a deviation would be "using an illegal convention", for which av-/av+ is the usual score adjustment. Regards, -- Petrus From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Oct 21 19:25:51 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 19:25:51 +0100 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] References: <00a201c3941c$c82503d0$2b2e37d2@Desktop> <003a01c394a0$3d972660$64e87f50@Default> <000801c39619$b338f8b0$ed31e150@endicott> <001801c3962c$45579140$2af57f50@Default> <004b01c396e7$c176b560$c12a2850@multivisionoem> <00df01c397cb$fe0128f0$0883b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: <005101c39800$f5372640$f632e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "'blml'" Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 1:08 PM Subject: Re: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] > > 40D allows regulation of the actual *use* of conventions > > - it does not talk about 'agreements as to the use of > > conventions'. > > You open my eyes to an aspect of the discussion about > > "convention disruption" I had not previously considered. It > > is never too late to learn. Perhaps we should all follow Dutch > > leadership. Incidentally, did ton vote for it as well? > > < > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > No, I didn't and I am still strongly opposing this idea, since > it is not in accordance with the laws. And I don't need more > than L75B to know what the laws (want to) say about this. > For the moment I am waiting for the 25 cases in which the > Dutch AC decided to give av+/av- in cases with this kind > of irregularity (over the last five years). But Jaap probably > needs more time to find those. > > ton > +=+ I am, of course, well aware of the strength of your views. However, where we are today is that it is established that regulations may be made under 40D, 40E, 78D, 80E, at least, which are not subject to Law 80F. On this basis: 1. The WBF has instituted a control on natural overcalls; 2. The EBL and the ACBL have instituted regulations forbidding psyches of certain conventional opening bids; 3. The ACBL and the EBU (and I think perhaps others) have forbidden the use of conventions with natural opening bids of less than a given strength; 4. Competitions may have scoring arrangements that do not conform to Law 77 through 78C. This being so, it is quite simply the case that if your (or any) Federation were to regulate an automatic 60%-40% artificial score in the event of the misbid of a conventional bid it would be equally legitimate with any of the above. I took that to be what Jaap was reporting as the situation in the Netherlands, but now he describes a nation in chaos in which there is no Dutch Laws Committee, no single Dutch Rules and Regulations Committee (but two quasi such), and a National Appeals Committee that acts unilaterally in the absence of an adequate regulatory structure. Of course this is not to be believed, except - well, er, at least it could provide an example for the phrase "alles bohmische Dorfer", or in English, as we say, "Double Dutch". :-) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From wayne@ebridgenz.com Tue Oct 21 21:11:24 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 09:11:24 +1300 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <003e01c3980f$86c7fa90$097758db@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Petrus Schuster OSB > Sent: Wednesday, 22 October 2003 6:15 a.m. > To: 'blml' > Subject: Re: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] > > > On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:08:08 +0200, Ton Kooijman > > wrote: > > > > > Grattan: > > >> You open my eyes to an aspect of the discussion about > >> "convention disruption" I had not previously considered. It > >> is never too late to learn. Perhaps we should all follow Dutch > >> leadership. Incidentally, did ton vote for it as well? > >> < > > > > > No, I didn't and I am still strongly opposing this idea, > since it is not > > in > > accordance with the laws. > > And I don't need more than L75B to know what the laws (want > to) say about > > this. > > Without a suitable regulation, sure. But it would be > perfectly legal (40D) > to permit the use of such conventions only if the hands match the > agreement. Then, a deviation would be "using an illegal > convention", for > which av-/av+ is the usual score adjustment. > Regards, The conclusion that a variation would be using an illegal convention does not follow. There are a number of possibilities: 1. They are in fact using an illegal convention 2. They misbid a legal convention (misusing a legal convention) 3. They are psyching a legal convention There may be other possibilities. While 1. is an infraction of law 2. and 3. are not. Therefore in cases 2. and 3. it is the adjustment that is illegal not the bid. Wayne > -- > Petrus > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From adam@irvine.com Tue Oct 21 21:50:52 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 13:50:52 -0700 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 22 Oct 2003 09:11:24 +1300." <003e01c3980f$86c7fa90$097758db@Desktop> Message-ID: <200310212050.NAA17069@mailhub.irvine.com> Wayne wrote: > > [Petrus wrote:] > > Without a suitable regulation, sure. But it would be > > perfectly legal (40D) > > to permit the use of such conventions only if the hands match the > > agreement. Then, a deviation would be "using an illegal > > convention", for > > which av-/av+ is the usual score adjustment. > > Regards, > > The conclusion that a variation would be using an illegal convention > does not follow. Maybe it would have been better for Petrus to say "Then, a deviation would be 'an illegal use of a convention'", rather than "using an illegal convention", i.e. putting the adjective "illegal" on the word "use" rather than the word "convention". Then we can say that even if a convention is "legal", a particular use of an otherwise convention may still be an illegal use. The wording of Law 40D is "The sponsoring organization may regulate the use of bidding or play conventions"; this leads me to believe that SO's do have the power to declare a "use" of a convention, as opposed to merely a convention itself, to be "illegal". Sorry if this has been said before. -- Adam From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Tue Oct 21 20:48:58 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 11:48:58 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] In-Reply-To: <2EE74966-03EF-11D8-B75E-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Ed Reppert wrote: >[and someone before Ed wrote:] > > (3) For some kinds of behaviour, your infraction > > may not be a mere mistake. Then, IMO, the law > > should impose a sanction sufficient to betoken > > its distaste of your deliberate bad behaviour: > > e.g. bad manners, using UI, nondisclosure, other > > forms of cheating. > > Laws 90 and 91 aren't sufficient for your taste? Note, I'm not talking > about how TDs (particularly in clubs) administer (or don't administer) > these laws - that's a matter for TD education. I'm talking about > whether the laws themselves provide sufficient sanction. I think they > do. Well, then let's talk about WHY directors administer (or don't administer) these laws. These laws enable a director to do essentially anything to anyone. The problem is if you assess a penalty and the players ask why, "because I can and I damn well feel like it!" is not the kind of reason that makes players want to come back. For some offences in some jurisdictions, we have regulations for guidance. (Example: foul a board? wham... one full board penalty in the ACBL.) In other cases, we have established traditions, or a general sense of fairness to appeal to. (Example: if you do something at your table that makes me give A+/A+ to someone else, in my club, the extra 20% needed to make the sheet balance gets deducted from your table - a leftover from when we scored the game by hand.) If we are on our own, though, it's hard for us to make anything stick, at least without offending a customer. The L91 power to suspend has been used exactly once at my club in ten years. Someone who showed up so drunk she could hardly walk was refused entry into the game and sent home in a cab at the club's expense. She was a regular and one of the best players in town -- and in the eight years since then, she has played exactly one session at a local sectional and zero at the club. I still think the director did the right thing -- but now it's always in the back of our heads that the more we use L90 and L91 the greater the risk we run of driving players away or even splintering the club in half. The counter-argument is that doing nothing might cost us more new players in the long run .... but it is much easier to count the birds that used to be in our hands than the ones that might fly out of the bushes and into them. GRB From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Oct 22 08:47:48 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 09:47:48 +0200 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] In-Reply-To: <00dc01c397cb$fdc57f80$0883b6d4@LNV> References: <00a201c3941c$c82503d0$2b2e37d2@Desktop> <003a01c394a0$3d972660$64e87f50@Default> <000801c39619$b338f8b0$ed31e150@endicott> <001801c3962c$45579140$2af57f50@Default> <004b01c396e7$c176b560$c12a2850@multivisionoem> <009301c39716$344ad520$2c9c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> <003901c39744$60c06e20$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <00dc01c397cb$fdc57f80$0883b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: <3F963624.3040804@hdw.be> Ton Kooijman wrote: > > I understand that Nigel wants a player to be forced by law to make a guess > when he doesn't remember the agreement. I don't understand > why Marv finds this 'so obviouisly right'. I don't, it sounds obviously > strange (in my new approach 'strange' wil be the strongest word I use). > We don't need this, there is also MI when a player can't tell what the > agreement is (if there is one), as I tried to explain some days ago. > I don't propose a Law change in the sense that Nigel wants, I believe that the current law already implies this. When one player makes a call which, when looking at his cards, has a clear understandable meaning, then it is very probable that there exists some basis of understanding (maybe just hope) between partners. That basis of understanding needs to be explained. When the partner now replies "I have no idea", but then still selects the correct meaning, it is clear to me that opponents have been misinformed. When he replies "I think it is A", and A is the correct intent, there has been no MI, but opponents have received AI to which they are not entitled to. When he replies "it is A", no MI and no AI. If, OTOH, he believes it is A, while actually it was intended as B, again you get: -if he says "I have no idea": MI -"I think it is A": MI (and AI) "I think" is no excuse and the TD will not take it into account. -"it is A": MI. The opponents cannot claim damage for not knowing they were uncertain, so the bad final contract will remain undoubled. I believe the current laws are such that it is best for a player, even when uncertain, to simply state "it is A". No Law change needed. Which is why I agree with Ton. > ton > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Wed Oct 22 09:30:18 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:30:18 +0200 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] References: <00a201c3941c$c82503d0$2b2e37d2@Desktop> <003a01c394a0$3d972660$64e87f50@Default> <000801c39619$b338f8b0$ed31e150@endicott> <001801c3962c$45579140$2af57f50@Default> <004b01c396e7$c176b560$c12a2850@multivisionoem> <00df01c397cb$fe0128f0$0883b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: <004201c39877$68880260$0100007f@LNV> > > Grattan: > > >> You open my eyes to an aspect of the discussion about > >> "convention disruption" I had not previously considered. It > >> is never too late to learn. Perhaps we should all follow Dutch > >> leadership. Incidentally, did ton vote for it as well? > >> < > > > > > No, I didn't and I am still strongly opposing this idea, since it is not > > in > > accordance with the laws. > > And I don't need more than L75B to know what the laws (want to) say about > > this. > > Without a suitable regulation, sure. But it would be perfectly legal (40D) > to permit the use of such conventions only if the hands match the > agreement. Then, a deviation would be "using an illegal convention", for > which av-/av+ is the usual score adjustment. > Regards, > -- > Petrus In my opinion such view won't hold in a serious court. It sounds clever but in fact you are saying that for some mistakes L75B doesn't exist. Even worse: you are aying that for some mistakes, violations of a couple of announced agreements (read 75B), opponents are entitled to redress. There is only one institution that could make such interpretation of the laws: the WBF LC. It didn't and I would be very reluctant to consider such suggestion. L 75B sounds quite fundamental to me. How to explain that it can be thrown away? ton From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Wed Oct 22 09:38:46 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:38:46 +0200 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] References: <00a201c3941c$c82503d0$2b2e37d2@Desktop> <003a01c394a0$3d972660$64e87f50@Default> <000801c39619$b338f8b0$ed31e150@endicott> <001801c3962c$45579140$2af57f50@Default> <004b01c396e7$c176b560$c12a2850@multivisionoem> <00df01c397cb$fe0128f0$0883b6d4@LNV> <005101c39800$f5372640$f632e150@endicott> Message-ID: <005601c39877$e881d9a0$0100007f@LNV> > > > Perhaps we should all follow Dutch > > > leadership. Incidentally, did ton vote for it as well? > > > > > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ton: > > No, I didn't and I am still strongly opposing this idea, since > > it is not in accordance with the laws. And I don't need more > > than L75B to know what the laws (want to) say about this. > > For the moment I am waiting for the 25 cases in which the > > Dutch AC decided to give av+/av- in cases with this kind > > of irregularity (over the last five years). But Jaap probably > > needs more time to find those. > +=+ I am, of course, well aware of the strength of your > views. However, where we are today is that it is established > that regulations may be made under 40D, 40E, 78D, 80E, at > least, which are not subject to Law 80F. On this basis: > 1. The WBF has instituted a control on natural overcalls; > 2. The EBL and the ACBL have instituted regulations > forbidding psyches of certain conventional opening bids; > 3. The ACBL and the EBU (and I think perhaps others) > have forbidden the use of conventions with natural opening > bids of less than a given strength; > 4. Competitions may have scoring arrangements that > do not conform to Law 77 through 78C. > This being so, it is quite simply the case that if your (or > any) Federation were to regulate an automatic 60%-40% > artificial score in the event of the misbid of a conventional > bid it would be equally legitimate with any of the above. Nicely said: 'equally legitimate'. This includes 'not legitimate' .To be honest: I prefer the 'chaos' (your words) within the Dutch Fed. above a situation where we use references to some laws and then need weird interpretations (infringing other laws) to justify weird regulations. ton > I took that to be what Jaap was reporting as the situation > in the Netherlands, but now he describes a nation in chaos > in which there is no Dutch Laws Committee, no single > Dutch Rules and Regulations Committee (but two quasi > such), and a National Appeals Committee that acts > unilaterally in the absence of an adequate regulatory > structure. Of course this is not to be believed, except - > well, er, at least it could provide an example for the > phrase "alles bohmische Dorfer", or in English, as we > say, "Double Dutch". :-) > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From wayne@ebridgenz.com Wed Oct 22 11:24:05 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:24:05 +1300 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] In-Reply-To: <3F963624.3040804@hdw.be> Message-ID: <00ba01c39886$a4e88f90$58e436d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Wednesday, 22 October 2003 7:48 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] > > > Ton Kooijman wrote: > > > > > I understand that Nigel wants a player to be forced by law > to make a guess > > when he doesn't remember the agreement. I don't understand > > why Marv finds this 'so obviouisly right'. I don't, it > sounds obviously > > strange (in my new approach 'strange' wil be the strongest > word I use). > > We don't need this, there is also MI when a player can't > tell what the > > agreement is (if there is one), as I tried to explain some days ago. > > > > I don't propose a Law change in the sense that Nigel wants, I believe > that the current law already implies this. > > When one player makes a call which, when looking at his cards, has a > clear understandable meaning, then it is very probable that there > exists some basis of understanding (maybe just hope) between partners. > That basis of understanding needs to be explained. > > When the partner now replies "I have no idea", but then still selects > the correct meaning, it is clear to me that opponents have been > misinformed. It is not clear to me. Do you not have honest opponents in Europe who sometimes guess correctly? > > When he replies "I think it is A", and A is the correct intent, there > has been no MI, but opponents have received AI to which they are not > entitled to. > > When he replies "it is A", no MI and no AI. > > If, OTOH, he believes it is A, while actually it was intended as B, > again you get: > -if he says "I have no idea": MI > -"I think it is A": MI (and AI) "I think" is no excuse and > the TD will > not take it into account. > -"it is A": MI. The opponents cannot claim damage for not > knowing they > were uncertain, so the bad final contract will remain undoubled. This argument is not "OTOH" unless you have three or hands because there is a third alternative: The player actually has "no idea" and maybe even a fourth alternative: The player has an idea but it is not based on partnership understanding rather it is based on general bridge knowledge. Wayne > > I believe the current laws are such that it is best for a > player, even > when uncertain, to simply state "it is A". > > No Law change needed. > > Which is why I agree with Ton. > > > ton > > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Oct 22 11:37:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 11:37 +0100 (BST) Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] In-Reply-To: <3F963624.3040804@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > When one player makes a call which, when looking at his cards, has a > clear understandable meaning, then it is very probable that there > exists some basis of understanding (maybe just hope) between partners. > That basis of understanding needs to be explained. > > When the partner now replies "I have no idea", but then still selects > the correct meaning, it is clear to me that opponents have been > misinformed. I strongly disagree (unless you draw a distinction between "I have no idea" and "undiscussed"). Last night, playing with a pick-up partner, I held xx,KJxxxx,ATx,AK and the auction went (1D)-P-(P)-1H-(2D)-X. The double was undiscussed and not alerted (while we had agreed to play negative X through 2S we hadn't agreed on competitive X). My partner intended it as "values" (alertable). I divined the intention correctly because my diamond holding and the auction suggested it was unlikely partner would hold a penalty double and highly likely pard would hold 4+ spades. Opponents are *not* entitled to deductions based on my own holding. Tim From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Oct 22 12:59:02 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:59:02 +0200 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] In-Reply-To: <00ba01c39886$a4e88f90$58e436d2@Desktop> References: <00ba01c39886$a4e88f90$58e436d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <3F967106.70104@hdw.be> Hello Wayne, You are telling me nothing I do not know. However: wayne@ebridgenz.com wrote: > >> >>If, OTOH, he believes it is A, while actually it was intended as B, >>again you get: >>-if he says "I have no idea": MI >>-"I think it is A": MI (and AI) "I think" is no excuse and >>the TD will >>not take it into account. >>-"it is A": MI. The opponents cannot claim damage for not >>knowing they >>were uncertain, so the bad final contract will remain undoubled. > > > This argument is not "OTOH" unless you have three or hands because there > > is a third alternative: > > The player actually has "no idea" > Yes, this might well happen. But still he has to guess. So he does have "an idea". Even if it is only a guess. The principle is still the same. The TD will (often) suppose that the intended meaning is the systemic one, so the answer is still MI. I'm only stating that I believe it is best to answer "A", rather than "no idea". > and maybe even a fourth alternative: > > The player has an idea but it is not based on partnership understanding > rather > it is based on general bridge knowledge. > That is not another alternative either. Then too "I think it is A" is the truth, and "no idea" is MI unless the general bridge knowledge is truely general, in which case again, the information given is simply "A". Whatever the player answers, the TD will always reduce this to "A". If it is indeed a, there is no MI, if it turns out as B, there is. "no idea" is always MI. > Wayne -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Oct 22 13:14:03 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 08:14:03 -0400 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] In-Reply-To: <003e01c3980f$86c7fa90$097758db@Desktop> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031022080954.02336960@pop.starpower.net> At 04:11 PM 10/21/03, wayne wrote: >The conclusion that a variation would be using an illegal convention >does not follow. > >There are a number of possibilities: > >1. They are in fact using an illegal convention > >2. They misbid a legal convention (misusing a legal convention) > >3. They are psyching a legal convention > >There may be other possibilities. > >While 1. is an infraction of law 2. and 3. are not. > >Therefore in cases 2. and 3. it is the adjustment that is illegal >not the bid. Wayne's error is that he's reading L40D as it is written, overlooking the WBF's "official interpretation", which says that the power to "regulate the use of... conventions" goes beyond deciding what may or may not be used to encompass any regulation whatsoever that the writers can find a way to get the word "convention" into. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From bbullet@email.com Wed Oct 22 14:05:21 2003 From: bbullet@email.com (bbullet@email.com) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:05:21 +0200 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) feel like a 21 year old on heat! Message-ID: <20031022130244.32AB72BF51@rhubarb.custard.org> PEhUTUw+PEhFQUQ+PFRJVExFPnJhbmQ8L1RJVExFPjwvSEVBRD4NCjxCT0RZIGJnY29sb3I9ImJs dWVzIj48ZGl2IGFsaWduPSJjZW50ZXIiPg0KPHRhYmxlIHdpZHRoPTUwMHB4IGJnY29sb3I9ImJs YWNrIiBib3JkZXJjb2xvcmRhcms9IndoaXRlIiBib3JkZXJjb2xvcmxpZ2h0PSJ3aGl0ZSIgYm9y ZGVyPSIxIiBjZWxscGFkZGluZz0wIGNlbGxzcGFjaW5nPTA+PHRyPjx0ZCBhbGlnbj0iY2VudGVy Ij4NCjxmb250IHNpemU9IjEiIGZhY2U9IlZlcmRhbmEiIGNvbG9yPSJ3aGl0ZSI+PGI+TEFURVNU IEJSRUFLVEhST1VHSCAtIE5FV1MgRkxBU0g8L2I+PC9mb250Pg0KPC90ZD48L3RyPjwvdGFibGU+ DQo8YnI+DQo8dGFibGUgd2lkdGg9NTAwcHggYmdjb2xvcj0iYmxhY2siIGJvcmRlcmNvbG9yZGFy az0ieWVsbG93IiBib3JkZXJjb2xvcmxpZ2h0PSJ5ZWxsb3ciIGJvcmRlcj0iMSIgY2VsbHBhZGRp bmc9MCBjZWxsc3BhY2luZz0wPjx0cj48dGQgYWxpZ249ImNlbnRlciI+DQo8Zm9udCBzaXplPSIz IiBmYWNlPSJWZXJkYW5hIiBjb2xvcj0id2hpdGUiPjxiPjxicj4NClRoZSA8Zm9udCBjb2xvcj0i cmVkIj5CQUQ8L2ZvbnQ+IE5ld3M6IDxpPkFzIHlvdSBBZ2UgeW91ciBib2R5IHByb2R1Y2VzIGxl c3MgaG9ybW9uZXMgY2F1c2luZyB5b3UgdG8gbG9vayBvbGRlciwgZmVlbCBvbGRlciBhbmQgYmUg d2Vha2VyITwvaT4NCjxicj48YnI+DQombmJzcDtUaGUgPGZvbnQgY29sb3I9IiMwMENDNjYiPkdP T0Q8L2ZvbnQ+IE5ld3M6IDxpPkV4cGVydHMgaW4gdGhlIE5ldyBFbmdsYW5kIEpvdXJuYWwgb2Yg TWVkaWNpbmUsIHJlcG9ydCB0aGF0IEh1bWFuIEdyb3d0aCBIb3Jtb25lIHRoZXJhcHkgbWFrZXMg eW91IGxvb2sgYW5kIGZlZWwgMjAgWUVBUlMgWU9VTkdFUiE8L2k+PGJyPjxicj48L2I+PC9mb250 Pg0KPC90ZD48L3RyPjwvdGFibGU+DQo8YnI+DQo8dGFibGUgd2lkdGg9NTAwcHggYmdjb2xvcj0i d2hpdGUiIGJvcmRlcmNvbG9yZGFyaz0id2hpdGUiIGJvcmRlcmNvbG9ybGlnaHQ9IndoaXRlIiBi b3JkZXI9IjEiIGNlbGxwYWRkaW5nPTAgY2VsbHNwYWNpbmc9MD48dHI+PHRkIGFsaWduPSJjZW50 ZXIiPjxicj4NCjxhIGhyZWY9Imh0dHA6Ly93d3cuYmxhbmsuY29tLyI+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0iNSIg ZmFjZT0iVmVyZGFuYSIgY29sb3I9ImJsdWUiPjxiPkNsaWNrIEhlcmUgRm9yIE1vcmUgSW5mbzwv Yj48L2ZvbnQ+PC9hPjxicj48YnI+DQo8L3RkPjwvdHI+PC90YWJsZT4NCjwvZGl2PjwvQk9EWT48 L0hUTUw+DQo= From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Oct 22 16:19:07 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:19:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Knowledge & experience References: <00ba01c39886$a4e88f90$58e436d2@Desktop> <3F967106.70104@hdw.be> Message-ID: <00a001c398af$d6dcd000$0f9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> >>[Wayne] >>The player actually has "no idea" >[Herman de Wael] >But still he has to guess. So he does have >"an idea". Even if it is only a guess. [Nigel] Obviously, Wayne and Tim are lucky enough to play against people who meticulously complete their CCs and religiously disclose their understandings. It appears that Herman and I slum it in less formal environents where the typical opponent is less "actively ethical." This typical opponent takes one look at my card and exclaims "I'm not reading all that rubbish, just alert will you". His card is clean or has a few illegible scribbles. If asked about his partner's bid, his usual answer is "undiscussed". If I have the temerity to remark that, again, he has guessed correctly, he feigns offence and protests that he relies only on "general bridge knowledge and experience" which is the literal truth. This opponent may be an excellent bridge player and he is sure that he is doing nothing wrong. Over the years, in his circle of cronies there is no formal discussion of agreements; but he is a sharp observer, with a good memory, who learns by painful experience. For example, discussed or not, playing with us, almost all his doubles are take-out or "show values". In a different environment, where penalty doubles were the norm, I am sure that he would have assimilated the local practice; but in either case he feels he can answer "no agreement" with a clear conscience. He wouldn't occur to him to divulge a *negative inferences* for instance, that a double is *never* a support double. The strategy has little advantage against other established club members, but it's effective against the newer members; and lethal against in matches and congresses, away from the club. I am told that this is a common strategy in small rubber bridge clubs, to ensure that strangers are quickly fleeced. If a player is secretive, this habit is often widely known. Hence, surely you would expect an official to have a quiet word with him. On the contrary, on the only occasion that I remember, when an exasperated opponent called the TD, to try and extract a small crumb of information from such a player, the TD admonished the questioner for harassment. So, unlike Herman, I concede that Wayne and Tim are right about the *current* rules. Please don't rehearse that argument again. Like Marvin, I am arguing for *change* to a simpler fairer game. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 16/10/2003 From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Oct 22 12:24:57 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 12:24:57 +0100 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5E1195D0-0482-11D8-9A6C-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> --Apple-Mail-2-467868263 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On Wednesday, October 22, 2003, at 11:37 am, Tim West-Meads wrote: > I strongly disagree (unless you draw a distinction between "I have no > idea" and "undiscussed"). Last night, playing with a pick-up partner, > I > held xx,KJxxxx,ATx,AK and the auction went (1D)-P-(P)-1H-(2D)-X. The > double was undiscussed and not alerted (while we had agreed to play > negative X through 2S we hadn't agreed on competitive X). My partner > intended it as "values" (alertable). I divined the intention correctly > because my diamond holding and the auction suggested it was unlikely > partner would hold a penalty double and highly likely pard would hold > 4+ spades. Opponents are *not* entitled to deductions based on my own > holding. Your deduction seems at least in part based on the discussion you had before the game, including the agreement to play negative doubles to 2S. Had you had a different agreement - for example that "all doubles are penalty except of opening bids" - you might have made a different deduction with the same hand. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK --Apple-Mail-2-467868263 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=US-ASCII On Wednesday, October 22, 2003, at 11:37 am, Tim West-Meads wrote: I strongly disagree (unless you draw a distinction between "I have no idea" and "undiscussed"). Last night, playing with a pick-up partner, I held xx,KJxxxx,ATx,AK and the auction went (1D)-P-(P)-1H-(2D)-X. The double was undiscussed and not alerted (while we had agreed to play negative X through 2S we hadn't agreed on competitive X). My partner intended it as "values" (alertable). I divined the intention correctly because my diamond holding and the auction suggested it was unlikely partner would hold a penalty double and highly likely pard would hold 4+ spades. Opponents are *not* entitled to deductions based on my own holding. Your deduction seems at least in part based on the discussion you had before the game, including the agreement to play negative doubles to 2S. Had you had a different agreement - for example that "all doubles are penalty except of opening bids" - you might have made a different deduction with the same hand. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK --Apple-Mail-2-467868263-- From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Oct 22 17:25:44 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 12:25:44 -0400 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] In-Reply-To: <3F963624.3040804@hdw.be> Message-ID: <63014C58-04AC-11D8-8632-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Oct 22, 2003, at 03:47 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > Ton Kooijman wrote: > >> I understand that Nigel wants a player to be forced by law to make a >> guess >> when he doesn't remember the agreement. I don't understand >> why Marv finds this 'so obviouisly right'. I don't, it sounds >> obviously >> strange (in my new approach 'strange' wil be the strongest word I >> use). >> We don't need this, there is also MI when a player can't tell what the >> agreement is (if there is one), as I tried to explain some days ago. > > I don't propose a Law change in the sense that Nigel wants, I believe > that the current law already implies this. > > When one player makes a call which, when looking at his cards, has a > clear understandable meaning, then it is very probable that there > exists some basis of understanding (maybe just hope) between partners. > That basis of understanding needs to be explained. That depends on what the basis is. If it is "general bridge knowledge (whatever that is) it does *not* need to be explained. > When the partner now replies "I have no idea", but then still selects > the correct meaning, it is clear to me that opponents have been > misinformed. It's not clear to me. Aside from that, I think we need to acknowledge that players do not always use the best phrasing in these situations. Perhaps the law needs to specify the correct phrasing. > When he replies "I think it is A", and A is the correct intent, there > has been no MI, but opponents have received AI to which they are not > entitled to. If they are not entitled to this information, how is it AI? > When he replies "it is A", no MI and no AI. > > If, OTOH, he believes it is A, while actually it was intended as B, > again you get: > -if he says "I have no idea": MI Maybe. Not clear to me. > -"I think it is A": MI (and AI) "I think" is no excuse and the TD will > not take it into account. No? > -"it is A": MI. The opponents cannot claim damage for not knowing they > were uncertain, so the bad final contract will remain undoubled. Okay, now you've lost me completely. > > I believe the current laws are such that it is best for a player, even > when uncertain, to simply state "it is A". IOW, you want a player to lie. Sorry, I can't buy it. > No Law change needed. > > Which is why I agree with Ton. Hm. But does Ton agree with you? :-) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Oct 22 17:36:36 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 12:36:36 -0400 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] In-Reply-To: <000f01c397f8$38b33ca0$f632e150@endicott> Message-ID: On Tuesday, Oct 21, 2003, at 04:11 US/Eastern, Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ "Et tu, Brute?" > No indeed there is not, but the misbid occurs in > using the convention. 40D says that "the SO may > regulate the use of bidding or play conventions" > So this (unwritten*) regulation has a lawful basis > under the given law. > (* see parallel messages from and to Neut > - the 'Dutch solution' appears to be a matter of > practice, the national appeals committee acting > as its own R & R committee.) ~ G ~ +=+ Okay, I didn't see the hook. I suppose that makes me a fish. Congratulations, you caught me. The laws say an SO is permitted to make regulations. While it doesn't require those regulations to be in writing, it seems to me that when people sit down to play a game, they oughta know, or at least be able to know, what the rules of that game are. If regulations are unwritten, they can't know - at least, not until they run afoul of such regulations. I don't like that. I would therefore strongly recommend that in the coming amendments to the laws, the requirement to present such regulations in writing before the event be made explicit. From svenpran@online.no Wed Oct 22 18:45:38 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 19:45:38 +0200 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] In-Reply-To: <63014C58-04AC-11D8-8632-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c398c4$4e58cbc0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert ............. > > When one player makes a call which, when looking at his cards, has a > > clear understandable meaning, then it is very probable that there > > exists some basis of understanding (maybe just hope) between = partners. > > That basis of understanding needs to be explained. >=20 > That depends on what the basis is. If it is "general bridge knowledge > (whatever that is) it does *not* need to be explained. I myself am not comfortable with the "general bridge knowledge" clause although the probable foundation for this clause is both sound and = logical: In the days of Culbertson it was generally known that you needed a = certain general strength (measured in honor tricks) to make certain bids and you needed at least 4 cards in a suit for that suit to be "biddable". I understand the "logic" behind the "general knowledge" clause to be = that you need not clobber up your disclosure with such information that "everybody" (already) knows. What I strongly disapprove of is the tendency we seem to have of some players apparently "hiding" behind the "general knowledge" clause to = avoid a full disclosure of their agreements and methods. When explaining a call or an auction I think we should understand this clause so that we do not need to elaborate way into the first-term class = for students at the game of bridge, but it is my firm opinion that no player shall ever be permitted to refuse answering a question (or a follow-up question) with the words "this is general knowledge" or other words to = that same effect.=20 =20 > > When the partner now replies "I have no idea", but then still = selects > > the correct meaning, it is clear to me that opponents have been > > misinformed. >=20 > It's not clear to me. Aside from that, I think we need to acknowledge > that players do not always use the best phrasing in these situations. > Perhaps the law needs to specify the correct phrasing. >=20 > > When he replies "I think it is A", and A is the correct intent, = there > > has been no MI, but opponents have received AI to which they are not > > entitled to. >=20 > If they are not entitled to this information, how is it AI? Any information volunteered to you from an opponent is AI for you = whether you are entitled to that information or not. The possibly extraneous information in this example is not that the meaning is (probably) "A" = but that the player answering the question is in doubt. However, I am not so sure that information is really extraneous, see below. =20 > > When he replies "it is A", no MI and no AI. Here I disagree: The reply "It is A" gives the incorrect information = that the speaker is certain of his statement. If he actually is not then he = will most likely take his doubt into consideration when selecting his further calls, a doubt he has concealed from his opponents even though it has = some impact on his further participation in the auction. Although this is a very tricky point I could possibly rule that he has = made an incomplete disclosure. > > > > If, OTOH, he believes it is A, while actually it was intended as B, > > again you get: > > -if he says "I have no idea": MI >=20 > Maybe. Not clear to me. >=20 > > -"I think it is A": MI (and AI) "I think" is no excuse and the TD = will > > not take it into account. >=20 > No? >=20 > > -"it is A": MI. The opponents cannot claim damage for not knowing = they > > were uncertain, so the bad final contract will remain undoubled. >=20 > Okay, now you've lost me completely. Except for the last statement he has lost me too.=20 And I strongly disagree with the statement that opponents cannot demand redress for damage because players have concealed their misunderstanding = or uncertainty during the auction when answering direct requests for (full) disclosure of calls. He himself has actually shown a very good reason for this opinion of = mine: Because the player has concealed his doubt which is certainly not part = of any general bridge knowledge or experience and which very likely may = have influenced his selection of subsequent call(s), he has in fact deprived = his opponents of information which could have influenced their calls as = well. >=20 > > > > I believe the current laws are such that it is best for a player, = even > > when uncertain, to simply state "it is A". >=20 > IOW, you want a player to lie. Sorry, I can't buy it. If a player feels sure "it is A" then he should just say so. But if in = doubt in such a way that it may influence his further calls that doubt should = be part of his disclosure. Regards Sven From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Wed Oct 22 19:01:32 2003 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 19:01:32 +0100 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1229@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Herman wrote: =20 > When one player makes a call which, when looking at his cards, has a=20 > clear understandable meaning, then it is very probable that there=20 > exists some basis of understanding (maybe just hope) between partners. > That basis of understanding needs to be explained. >=20 > When the partner now replies "I have no idea", but then still selects=20 > the correct meaning, it is clear to me that opponents have been=20 > misinformed. I strongly disagree (unless you draw a distinction between "I have no=20 idea" and "undiscussed"). Last night, playing with a pick-up partner, I = held xx,KJxxxx,ATx,AK and the auction went (1D)-P-(P)-1H-(2D)-X. The=20 double was undiscussed and not alerted (while we had agreed to play=20 negative X through 2S we hadn't agreed on competitive X). My partner=20 intended it as "values" (alertable). I divined the intention correctly=20 because my diamond holding and the auction suggested it was unlikely=20 partner would hold a penalty double and highly likely pard would hold=20 4+ spades. Opponents are *not* entitled to deductions based on my own=20 holding. Tim [Frances] No, they aren't entitled to deductions based on your own holding. To=20 take this particular example they are entitled to considerably more=20 than 'undiscussed'. A full explanation might be something like: We have not discussed doubles in this position. We have agreed to play negative doubles through 2S. We have agreed that other doubles are often take-out (if you have). Or maybe I know my partner comes from a group of players who like to play take-out doubles. =20 My partner either thinks this is a take-out/values doubles or=20 that it is penalties, he is hoping I will work this out by looking at my = hand. I cannot tell from your sample hand if partner has penalties of diamonds or values. If you were confident _before_ the next hand passed or = pulled to 2S then I think you had additional partnership information that you are not disclosing here. I hate the 'general bridge knowledge and experience' clause. I agree with Nigel, it is used as a get-out by people who are trying to be unhelpful. In particular, I don't think there can be any excuse for a regular partnership to announce 'undiscussed' and give no further information based on other agreements. From wrgptfan@fastmail.fm Wed Oct 22 19:04:30 2003 From: wrgptfan@fastmail.fm (David Kent) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 14:04:30 -0400 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] In-Reply-To: <5E1195D0-0482-11D8-9A6C-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <5E1195D0-0482-11D8-9A6C-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <20031022180430.74B3A1B639@www.fastmail.fm> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 12:24:57 +0100, "Gordon Rainsford" said: > > On Wednesday, October 22, 2003, at 11:37 am, Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > I strongly disagree (unless you draw a distinction between "I have no > > idea" and "undiscussed"). Last night, playing with a pick-up partner, > > I > > held xx,KJxxxx,ATx,AK and the auction went (1D)-P-(P)-1H-(2D)-X. The > > double was undiscussed and not alerted (while we had agreed to play > > negative X through 2S we hadn't agreed on competitive X). My partner > > intended it as "values" (alertable). I divined the intention correctly > > because my diamond holding and the auction suggested it was unlikely > > partner would hold a penalty double and highly likely pard would hold > > 4+ spades. Opponents are *not* entitled to deductions based on my own > > holding. > > Your deduction seems at least in part based on the discussion you had > before the game, including the agreement to play negative doubles to > 2S. Had you had a different agreement - for example that "all doubles > are penalty except of opening bids" - you might have made a different > deduction with the same hand. > By your reasoning, if I have not had enough time to completely fill out a convention card with a pick-up partner and we have decided to play a 2NT opening bid as a balanced 20-21 HCP and the following undiscussed auction comes up: (1S) - 2NT - (P) - ?? I should assume that he has a balanced 20-21 HCP? Or, if we have decided to play Gazzilli, should I assume we also play Turbo if we have not had enough time for discussion? What does the decision to play negative doubles through 2S have to do with competitive / action doubles other than they happen to be the same call? -- David Kent -- http://www.fastmail.fm - One of many happy users: http://www.fastmail.fm/docs/quotes.html From wayne@ebridgenz.com Wed Oct 22 19:52:53 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 07:52:53 +1300 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] In-Reply-To: <3F967106.70104@hdw.be> Message-ID: <00d901c398cd$b93f31f0$0100a8c0@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Wednesday, 22 October 2003 11:59 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] > > > > Whatever the player answers, the TD will always reduce this > to "A". Not if I am the TD. Wayne From wayne@ebridgenz.com Wed Oct 22 20:08:30 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 08:08:30 +1300 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] In-Reply-To: <3F967106.70104@hdw.be> Message-ID: <00da01c398cf$e727e6f0$0100a8c0@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Wednesday, 22 October 2003 11:59 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] > > > > > and maybe even a fourth alternative: > > > > The player has an idea but it is not based on partnership > understanding > > rather > > it is based on general bridge knowledge. > > > > That is not another alternative either. Then too "I think it is A" is > the truth, and "no idea" is MI unless the general bridge knowledge is > truely general, in which case again, the information given is > simply "A". My laws are clear Herman: L75C "When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to an opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience." What laws do you use? Wayne From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Oct 22 20:35:22 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 20:35:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Subjective judgement References: <02b701c39784$495b3fe0$2c9c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> <003401c397c0$6a2aa300$caf43b51@Default> Message-ID: <002501c398d3$a807a2e0$f29468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Jaap van der Neut] All players is a lot my dear. In a way I agree that 'knowingly' is a rotten concept. But too replace all instances with 'could have known' is another matter because it is something completely different. [Nigel] Darling, All agree that Richard is right to point out the difficulty with adverb "knowingly": The TD has to make a potentially slanderous subjective judgement. For example as to whether or not "an expert knew he had lost a trick". Surely "could have known" is less offensive? [Jaap] If someone concedes the rest it is not your job to check if this is correct. [Nigel] Well according to current law, I'm afraid you may be wrong, my love; but I agree with you that if so, the law is bonkers and should be changed: Nobody should be penalized for failing to analyse whether an opponent has done or could have done better than he claims. Ethical players may, of course, volunteer such information if they are aware of it, but that is a subject for *moral* not *legal* debate. (and for what was "Proprieties"). TFLB is full of rules that require spurious subjective judgement to relieve TDs' boredom. For example: a disputed claim: Suppose declarer says he will draw trumps and cash winners. An opponent protests to the TD that declarer will be a trick short. Dummy points out that playing the trumps results in a simple show-up squeeze. This is not a problem for Grattan or Herman, who would give declarer the benefit of the doubt, even if the solution were a double clash squeeze. On the other extreme, I would rule against any declarer (as, I suspect, would David Burn). What concerns players is what happens when declarer is an average player but a friend of the TDs. As the law stands, I suppose that all the TD can do is to refer the matter to an AC. I guess this must happen, often; although it may just postpone the problem. But why should a TD/AC be asked to judge the ability of a player, at all? Such subjective judgements will always depend on which TD makes the ruling and how you relate to him. This and other laws are needlessly subjective. If all unnecessary subjective elements were removed the law would be simpler and fairer. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 16/10/2003 From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Oct 22 20:29:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 20:29 +0100 (BST) Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] In-Reply-To: <5E1195D0-0482-11D8-9A6C-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: Gordon wrote: > Your deduction seems at least in part based on the discussion you had > before the game, including the agreement to play negative doubles to > 2S. Had you had a different agreement - for example that "all doubles > are penalty except of opening bids" - you might have made a different > deduction with the same hand. Well if I had an explicit agreement that this double was penalty (as suggested above) then it a) wouldn't be undiscussed and b) wouldn't need "deduction". Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Oct 22 20:29:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 20:29 +0100 (BST) Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1229@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: > > Herman wrote: > > > When one player makes a call which, when looking at his cards, has a > > clear understandable meaning, then it is very probable that there > > exists some basis of understanding (maybe just hope) between partners. > > That basis of understanding needs to be explained. > > > > When the partner now replies "I have no idea", but then still selects > > the correct meaning, it is clear to me that opponents have been > > misinformed. > > I strongly disagree (unless you draw a distinction between "I have no > idea" and "undiscussed"). Last night, playing with a pick-up partner, > I held xx,KJxxxx,ATx,AK and the auction went (1D)-P-(P)-1H-(2D)-X. The > double was undiscussed and not alerted (while we had agreed to play > negative X through 2S we hadn't agreed on competitive X). My partner > intended it as "values" (alertable). I divined the intention correctly > because my diamond holding and the auction suggested it was unlikely > partner would hold a penalty double and highly likely pard would hold > 4+ spades. Opponents are *not* entitled to deductions based on my own > holding. > > Tim > > [Frances] > No, they aren't entitled to deductions based on your own holding. To > take this particular example they are entitled to considerably more > than 'undiscussed'. A full explanation might be something like: > > We have not discussed doubles in this position. True. > We have agreed to play negative doubles through 2S. Also true (though how this affects a decision to alert a double in a different sequence I am not sure). We had also agreed to play fourth suit forcing but that doesn't seem relevant either. While *I* am aware that many players don't know the difference between negative and competitive doubles that must surely be "general knowledge" rather than specific to the partnership. > We have agreed that other doubles are often take-out (if you have). If that were true then it would not be "undiscussed". > Or maybe I know my partner comes from a group of players who like to > play take-out doubles. Um, "pick-up partner". I had hoped this would convey to people that I have no idea what this person considers normal/common. > My partner either thinks this is a take-out/values doubles or > that it is penalties, he is hoping I will work this out by looking at > my hand. How can I know what partner thinks in this situation after only a few hands? > I cannot tell from your sample hand if partner has penalties of diamonds > or values. If you were confident _before_ the next hand passed or > pulled to 2S then I think you had additional partnership information > that you are not disclosing here. Confident - no. Aware that confidence is a luxury seldom available in pick-up partnerships - yes. I knew I could be be wrong but hoped that we could get to a decent contract anyway. > I hate the 'general bridge knowledge and experience' clause. I agree > with Nigel, it is used as a get-out by people who are trying to be > unhelpful. In particular, I don't think there can be any excuse > for a regular partnership to announce 'undiscussed' and give no further > information based on other agreements. Well, 'general bridge knowledge and experience' has a very limited place when talking about regular partnerships (when I play with Probst I can't think of a single situation where it would apply). The vast majority of sequences have been "confirmed" (or otherwise) by actual partnership experience. A pick-up partnership playing their 7th board after a system discussion involving two lines of shorthand text is, IMO, a rather different kettle of fish. The laws need to cater to both. Tim From wayne@ebridgenz.com Wed Oct 22 21:04:39 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:04:39 +1300 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] In-Reply-To: <3F967106.70104@hdw.be> Message-ID: <00f701c398d7$bfe5b9c0$0100a8c0@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Wednesday, 22 October 2003 11:59 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] > > > is a third alternative: > > > > The player actually has "no idea" > > > > Yes, this might well happen. But still he has to guess. So he does > have "an idea". Even if it is only a guess. The principle is > still the > same. The TD will (often) suppose that the intended meaning is the > systemic one, so the answer is still MI. > I'm only stating that I believe it is best to answer "A", rather than > "no idea". > Which law requires a guess when you have no understanding or experience? In a non-practiced partnership with no special agreement "he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience" . In law 75 general knowledge is the antithesis of (special) partnership agreement or partnership experience. And clearly there is no obligation to disclose it. Wayne From wayne@ebridgenz.com Wed Oct 22 21:10:31 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:10:31 +1300 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031022080954.02336960@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <00f801c398d8$9144a9e0$0100a8c0@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Eric Landau > Sent: Thursday, 23 October 2003 12:14 a.m. > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: RE: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] > > > At 04:11 PM 10/21/03, wayne wrote: > > >The conclusion that a variation would be using an illegal convention > >does not follow. > > > >There are a number of possibilities: > > > >1. They are in fact using an illegal convention > > > >2. They misbid a legal convention (misusing a legal convention) > > > >3. They are psyching a legal convention > > > >There may be other possibilities. > > > >While 1. is an infraction of law 2. and 3. are not. > > > >Therefore in cases 2. and 3. it is the adjustment that is illegal > >not the bid. > > Wayne's error is that he's reading L40D as it is written, overlooking > the WBF's "official interpretation", which says that the power to > "regulate the use of... conventions" goes beyond deciding what may or > may not be used to encompass any regulation whatsoever that > the writers > can find a way to get the word "convention" into. If my interpretation is wrong then L75B. Violations of Partnership Agreements A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, so long as his partner is unaware of the violation (but habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed). No player has the obligation to disclose to the opponents that he has violated an announced agreement and if the opponents are subsequently damaged, as through drawing a false inference from such violation, they are not entitled to redress. Is written of waste paper. This law is very clear "...they are not entitled to redress". Wayne > > > 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 ehaa@starpower.net Wed Oct 22 21:59:17 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:59:17 -0400 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] In-Reply-To: <00f801c398d8$9144a9e0$0100a8c0@Desktop> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031022080954.02336960@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031022164912.0238c340@pop.starpower.net> At 04:10 PM 10/22/03, wayne wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > Behalf Of Eric Landau > > > Wayne's error is that he's reading L40D as it is written, overlooking > > the WBF's "official interpretation", which says that the power to > > "regulate the use of... conventions" goes beyond deciding what may or > > may not be used to encompass any regulation whatsoever that > > the writers > > can find a way to get the word "convention" into. > >If my interpretation is wrong then > >L75B. Violations of Partnership Agreements >A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, so long as his >partner is unaware of the violation (but habitual violations within a >partnership may create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed). No >player has the obligation to disclose to the opponents that he has >violated an announced agreement and if the opponents are subsequently >damaged, as through drawing a false inference from such violation, they >are not entitled to redress. > >Is written of waste paper. > >This law is very clear "...they are not entitled to redress". It is quite clear. But the WBF has declared that the power granted to ZOs under L40D is blanket and unconstrained, that L80F in particular does not apply. Which means that regulations made under L40D *may* be "in conflict with[] these Laws", including L75B, and still be legal. Of course, one may interpret this to mean that all the laws are waste paper, and the "real" laws that we must follow when playing in a duplicate game are entirely up to individual ZOs (at least if they can manage to put the word "convention" in them), which does seem to be the WBF's real if unstated position. But that's a discussion for another thread. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From wayne@ebridgenz.com Wed Oct 22 22:22:14 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 10:22:14 +1300 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] In-Reply-To: <000001c398c4$4e58cbc0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <011301c398e2$9642d8e0$0100a8c0@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Thursday, 23 October 2003 5:46 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] > > > Ed Reppert > ............. > > > When one player makes a call which, when looking at his > cards, has a > > > clear understandable meaning, then it is very probable that there > > > exists some basis of understanding (maybe just hope) > between partners. > > > That basis of understanding needs to be explained. > > > > That depends on what the basis is. If it is "general bridge > knowledge > > (whatever that is) it does *not* need to be explained. > > I myself am not comfortable with the "general bridge knowledge" clause > although the probable foundation for this clause is both > sound and logical: > > In the days of Culbertson it was generally known that you > needed a certain > general strength (measured in honor tricks) to make certain > bids and you > needed at least 4 cards in a suit for that suit to be "biddable". > > I understand the "logic" behind the "general knowledge" > clause to be that > you need not clobber up your disclosure with such information that > "everybody" (already) knows. > > What I strongly disapprove of is the tendency we seem to have of some > players apparently "hiding" behind the "general knowledge" > clause to avoid a > full disclosure of their agreements and methods. > > When explaining a call or an auction I think we should understand this > clause so that we do not need to elaborate way into the > first-term class for > students at the game of bridge, but it is my firm opinion > that no player > shall ever be permitted to refuse answering a question (or a follow-up > question) with the words "this is general knowledge" or other > words to that > same effect. I think that I make a good effort to explain calls in response to questions and at other times when I judge that it is helpful to the opponents to know even though there has been no requirement for an alert etc. Nevertheless at times I have IMO truthfully answered questions with "we have no special partnership understanding". The longer a partnership continues the less frequent such an answer would be. I may follow up with but we have some understanding in a similar situation which may or may not apply - sometimes even with more than one possibility. Wayne From wayne@ebridgenz.com Wed Oct 22 22:26:28 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 10:26:28 +1300 Subject: [blml] Knowledge & experience In-Reply-To: <00a001c398af$d6dcd000$0f9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <011401c398e3$2d5be0a0$0100a8c0@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Nigel Guthrie > Sent: Thursday, 23 October 2003 3:19 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] Knowledge & experience > > > >>[Wayne] > >>The player actually has "no idea" > > >[Herman de Wael] > >But still he has to guess. So he does have > >"an idea". Even if it is only a guess. > > [Nigel] > > Obviously, Wayne and Tim are lucky enough to > play against people who meticulously complete > their CCs and religiously disclose their > understandings. > > It appears that Herman and I slum it in less > formal environents where the typical opponent > is less "actively ethical." > > This typical opponent takes one look at my > card and exclaims "I'm not reading all that > rubbish, just alert will you". His card is > clean or has a few illegible scribbles. > If asked about his partner's bid, his usual > answer is "undiscussed". If I have the > temerity to remark that, again, he has guessed > correctly, he feigns offence and protests that > he relies only on "general bridge knowledge > and experience" which is the literal truth. > > This opponent may be an excellent bridge > player and he is sure that he is doing nothing > wrong. Over the years, in his circle of > cronies there is no formal discussion of > agreements; but he is a sharp observer, with a > good memory, who learns by painful experience. > > For example, discussed or not, playing with > us, almost all his doubles are take-out or > "show values". In a different environment, > where penalty doubles were the norm, I am > sure that he would have assimilated the local > practice; but in either case he feels he can > answer "no agreement" with a clear conscience. > > He wouldn't occur to him to divulge a > *negative inferences* for instance, that a > double is *never* a support double. > > The strategy has little advantage against > other established club members, but it's > effective against the newer members; and > lethal against in matches and congresses, > away from the club. > > I am told that this is a common strategy > in small rubber bridge clubs, to ensure > that strangers are quickly fleeced. > > If a player is secretive, this habit is often > widely known. Hence, surely you would expect > an official to have a quiet word with him. > > On the contrary, on the only occasion that > I remember, when an exasperated opponent > called the TD, to try and extract a small > crumb of information from such a player, the > TD admonished the questioner for harassment. It is the TD who is at fault here and not the current rules. The player is entitled to a full and free explanation. However at times you must accept "no agreement" is the only information that the opponents have. Wayne From wayne@ebridgenz.com Wed Oct 22 22:28:17 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 10:28:17 +1300 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1229@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <011501c398e3$6e9b5e60$0100a8c0@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Hinden, Frances SI-PXS > Sent: Thursday, 23 October 2003 6:02 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: RE: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] > > > > > I hate the 'general bridge knowledge and experience' clause. I agree > with Nigel, it is used as a get-out by people who are trying to be > unhelpful. In particular, I don't think there can be any excuse > for a regular partnership to announce 'undiscussed' and give > no further > information based on other agreements. It is also used by honest players who are trying to be helpful. Wayne > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From svenpran@online.no Wed Oct 22 22:36:52 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:36:52 +0200 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] In-Reply-To: <011301c398e2$9642d8e0$0100a8c0@Desktop> Message-ID: <000001c398e4$9bd467e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > wayne@ebridgenz.com ........... > > What I strongly disapprove of is the tendency we seem to have of some > > players apparently "hiding" behind the "general knowledge" > > clause to avoid a > > full disclosure of their agreements and methods. > > > > When explaining a call or an auction I think we should understand this > > clause so that we do not need to elaborate way into the > > first-term class for > > students at the game of bridge, but it is my firm opinion > > that no player > > shall ever be permitted to refuse answering a question (or a follow-up > > question) with the words "this is general knowledge" or other > > words to that > > same effect. > > I think that I make a good effort to explain calls in response to > questions > and at other times when I judge that it is helpful to the opponents to > know > even though there has been no requirement for an alert etc. > > Nevertheless at times I have IMO truthfully answered questions with "we > have > no special partnership understanding". The longer a partnership > continues > the less frequent such an answer would be. > > I may follow up with but we have some understanding in a similar > situation > which may or may not apply - sometimes even with more than one > possibility. > > Wayne A position that I fully appreciate and support Regards Sven From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Oct 22 23:30:55 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:30:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Knowledge & experience References: <011401c398e3$2d5be0a0$0100a8c0@Desktop> Message-ID: <001501c398ec$297a71a0$049c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> > [Wayne] > It is the TD who is at fault here and not the > current rules. [Nigel] Why is the TD at fault? Even if he knows that the player has a secretive reputation, how can the TD force an explanation? How can the TD apply pressure without implying prevarication? > [Wayne] > However at times you must accept "no agreement" > is the only information that the opponents have. [Nigel] I accept what you say about the current law. Marvin and I are arguing for a *rule-change*: When questioned about partner's call, you must make your "best guess". If your guess turns out to be systemically wrong and opponents are damaged as a result, then you may be penalized for MI. This obviates some of the current benefit to those who deliberately conceal agreements. It is another rule simplification that is fairer and easy for players to understand. Some critics say that this "forces you to lie" but if the law says you *must guess*, who can criticise you for inadvertantly telling a lie? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 16/10/2003 From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Oct 22 23:30:01 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:30:01 +0100 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] References: <00a201c3941c$c82503d0$2b2e37d2@Desktop> <003a01c394a0$3d972660$64e87f50@Default> <000801c39619$b338f8b0$ed31e150@endicott> <001801c3962c$45579140$2af57f50@Default> <004b01c396e7$c176b560$c12a2850@multivisionoem> <00df01c397cb$fe0128f0$0883b6d4@LNV> <005101c39800$f5372640$f632e150@endicott> <005601c39877$e881d9a0$0100007f@LNV> Message-ID: <002701c398ec$3272e440$934d87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "'blml'" Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 9:38 AM Subject: Re: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors]> > Nicely said: 'equally legitimate'. This includes 'not > legitimate' .To be honest: I prefer the 'chaos' (your > words) within the Dutch Fed. above a situation > where we use references to some laws and then > need weird interpretations (infringing other laws) > to justify weird regulations. > +=+ 'Weird interpretations' means interpretations you do not agree with. But when I joined the WBFLC - of the present committee Santanu Ghose and John Wignall preceded me - the committee was already sanctioning regulations that conflicted with some parts of the laws. Historically this has been the approach and the understanding.. So I do not accept 'weird', it has long been the norm. In my opinion the interpretation is a proper view of the way the laws are currently written. Where you and I differ in principle, I believe, is that you would govern from the centre with laws that oblige all authorities to adopt the same practices, whereas my belief lies in laws which devolve anything that is not fundamental, to the levels at which the game is played. I do not believe the kind of matters discussed in the exchanges between Jaap and myself are fundamental; nor those I have mentioned in reference to various major authorities. I think variation by regulation can be accepted in them and we should not seek to impose a central view of such questions upon the world generally. Regards ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Oct 23 00:36:02 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 00:36:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Devolution References: <00a201c3941c$c82503d0$2b2e37d2@Desktop> <003a01c394a0$3d972660$64e87f50@Default> <000801c39619$b338f8b0$ed31e150@endicott> <001801c3962c$45579140$2af57f50@Default> <004b01c396e7$c176b560$c12a2850@multivisionoem> <00df01c397cb$fe0128f0$0883b6d4@LNV> <005101c39800$f5372640$f632e150@endicott> <005601c39877$e881d9a0$0100007f@LNV> <002701c398ec$3272e440$934d87d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <000901c398f5$421b4a00$119868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Grattan Endicott] Where you and I differ in principle, I believe, is that you would govern from the centre with laws that oblige all authorities to adopt the same practices, whereas my belief lies in laws which devolve anything that is not fundamental, to the levels at which the game is played. [Nigel] In government, legal devolution may make sense because of historical differences in primitive customs and religious taboos. It is hard to see how such devolution can do anything but harm to a young *game* played in a common environment (table, cards, etc..) that with sensible universal rules can unite modern civilised people in friendly fair competition, the world over. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 16/10/2003 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Oct 23 00:34:57 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:34:57 +1000 Subject: [blml] Hardening of the oughteries (was Dutch) Message-ID: Wayne: >In a non-practiced partnership with no special >agreement "he need not disclose inferences drawn >from his general knowledge and experience" . > >In law 75 general knowledge is the antithesis of >(special) partnership agreement or partnership >experience. And clearly there is no obligation >to disclose it. RJH: In my opinion, there seem to be two schools of thought on the definition of "general knowledge and experience". I prefer Wayne's (and Tim's?) interpretation of "general knowledge and experience" - defining it as the _antithesis_ of partnership agreement. The alternative school of thought interprets "general knowledge and experience" as a _subset_ of partnership agreements, such as a partnership agreement which: (a) accords with Terence Reese's recommendation, (b) which the opponents *ought* to have read about, (c) if the opponents are not aware of general Terence Reese knowledge, then (d) tough, because they are not going to be explicitly informed of the Reese-style partnership agreement. :-( Best wishes Richard James 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Oct 23 00:46:45 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:46:45 +1000 Subject: [blml] Devolution Message-ID: Nigel: >In government, legal devolution may make sense >because of historical differences in primitive >customs and religious taboos. RJH: As I recall, David Stevenson has criticised the primitive bloodbath first round of Aussie Swiss team events, due to the Aussie taboo of seeding our Swiss team events. Best wishes Crocodile 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 adam@irvine.com Thu Oct 23 00:58:30 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:58:30 -0700 Subject: [blml] Devolution In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 23 Oct 2003 00:36:02 BST." <000901c398f5$421b4a00$119868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <200310222358.QAA32141@mailhub.irvine.com> Nigel wrote: > In government, legal devolution may make sense > because of historical differences in primitive > customs and religious taboos. > > It is hard to see how such devolution can do > anything but harm to a young *game* played in a > common environment (table, cards, etc..) that > with sensible universal rules can unite modern > civilised people in friendly fair competition, > the world over. It is hard for me to see what "harm to a game" means. People can be harmed; so can animals, trees, crops, buildings (although we might call it "damage" in some cases). But a game is an abstract concept; how can an abstract concept be harmed? Clearly you mean something else here. It would be helpful to state exactly what bad or disappointing thing you think would happen, and to *whom* (i.e. some people or group of people), that would constitute "harm to the game". If it means fewer people playing the game or more people quitting the game or something like that, you'll have to explain to me how this devolution would accomplish that. If you mean some other kind of harm---what? -- Adam From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Oct 23 02:46:13 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 02:46:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Devolution References: <200310222358.QAA32141@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <008a01c39907$8c8bd160$119868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Nigel] > It is hard to see how such devolution can do > anything but harm to a young *game* played in a > common environment (table, cards, etc..) that > with sensible universal rules can unite modern > civilised people in friendly fair competition, > the world over. [Adam Beneschan] It is hard for me to see what "harm to a game" means. People can be harmed; so can animals, trees, crops, buildings (although we might call it "damage" in some cases). But a game is an abstract concept; how can an abstract concept be harmed? Clearly you mean something else here. It would be helpful to state exactly what bad or disappointing thing you think would happen, and to *whom* (i.e. some people or group of people), that would constitute "harm to the game". [Nigel] Sorry, for the confusion. Thank you for the opportunity to make my intended meaning clearer: The harm is to the people who play the game. A game with universal rules can unite people from different countries in friendly fair competition. Currently, problems are minor. For example, you may be a accustomed to an 8-10 1N opener, or a forcing pass opener, or encrypted signals or random overcalls; or your jurisdiction may treat all doubles as self-alerted; or it may insist that a Multi 2D opener has a five-point range for its weak option, in all seats; or it may or may not allow you to ask "having none" when partner discards; or it may penalise "convention disruption" by Ghestem misbidders. As rules diverge with devolution, international competition will become even less fair; depending on how different local rules become. Even if you just move from one country to another, you will be at a severe disadvantage. People will be harmed by being deprived of the opportunity to compete fairly and equally at a fascinating game in world-wide competition. But the WBFLC will be spared a lot of work and diplomacy. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 16/10/2003 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Oct 23 02:46:13 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 02:46:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Devolution References: <200310222358.QAA32141@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <008d01c39907$daca07c0$119868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Nigel] > It is hard to see how such devolution can do > anything but harm to a young *game* played in a > common environment (table, cards, etc..) that > with sensible universal rules can unite modern > civilised people in friendly fair competition, > the world over. [Adam Beneschan] It is hard for me to see what "harm to a game" means. People can be harmed; so can animals, trees, crops, buildings (although we might call it "damage" in some cases). But a game is an abstract concept; how can an abstract concept be harmed? Clearly you mean something else here. It would be helpful to state exactly what bad or disappointing thing you think would happen, and to *whom* (i.e. some people or group of people), that would constitute "harm to the game". [Nigel] Sorry, for the confusion. Thank you for the opportunity to make my intended meaning clearer: The harm is to the people who play the game. A game with universal rules can unite people from different countries in friendly fair competition. Currently, problems are minor. For example, you may be a accustomed to an 8-10 1N opener, or a forcing pass opener, or encrypted signals or random overcalls; or your jurisdiction may treat all doubles as self-alerted; or it may insist that a Multi 2D opener has a five-point range for its weak option, in all seats; or it may or may not allow you to ask "having none" when partner discards; or it may penalise "convention disruption" by Ghestem misbidders. As rules diverge with devolution, international competition will become even less fair; depending on how different local rules become. Even if you just move from one country to another, you will be at a severe disadvantage. People will be harmed by being deprived of the opportunity to compete fairly and equally at a fascinating game in world-wide competition. But the WBFLC will be spared a lot of work and diplomacy. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 16/10/2003 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Oct 23 02:46:13 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 02:46:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Devolution References: <200310222358.QAA32141@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <00d401c3990c$39315ee0$119868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Nigel] > It is hard to see how such devolution can do > anything but harm to a young *game* played in a > common environment (table, cards, etc..) that > with sensible universal rules can unite modern > civilised people in friendly fair competition, > the world over. [Adam Beneschan] It is hard for me to see what "harm to a game" means. People can be harmed; so can animals, trees, crops, buildings (although we might call it "damage" in some cases). But a game is an abstract concept; how can an abstract concept be harmed? Clearly you mean something else here. It would be helpful to state exactly what bad or disappointing thing you think would happen, and to *whom* (i.e. some people or group of people), that would constitute "harm to the game". [Nigel] Sorry, for the confusion. Thank you for the opportunity to make my intended meaning clearer: The harm is to the people who play the game. A game with universal rules can unite people from different countries in friendly fair competition. Currently, problems are minor. For example, you may be a accustomed to an 8-10 1N opener, or a forcing pass opener, or encrypted signals or random overcalls; or your jurisdiction may treat all doubles as self-alerted; or it may insist that a Multi 2D opener has a five-point range for its weak option, in all seats; or it may or may not allow you to ask "having none" when partner discards; or it may penalise "convention disruption" by Ghestem misbidders. As rules diverge with devolution, international competition will become even less fair; depending on how different local rules become. Even if you just move from one country to another, you will be at a severe disadvantage. People will be harmed by being deprived of the opportunity to compete fairly and equally at a fascinating game in world-wide competition. But the WBFLC will be spared a lot of work and diplomacy. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 16/10/2003 From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 21 11:02:31 2003 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 11:02:31 +0100 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] References: <5F7EDA18-035E-11D8-B3A8-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000701c3992c$66b3dc60$182a2850@multivisionoem> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 1:34 AM Subject: Re: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] > > Which is it, Nigel? Are irregularities crimes, subject > to punishment, or are they simply mistakes which > may entitle opponents to redress?" > +=+ The laws refer to 'offence' and 'offending'. They cite 'penalty' provisions. In the Scope there is the phrase 'primarily designed'; it may be assumed punishment is a secondary design. ~ G ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Oct 23 07:36:40 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 07:36:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Devolution References: <00a201c3941c$c82503d0$2b2e37d2@Desktop> <003a01c394a0$3d972660$64e87f50@Default> <000801c39619$b338f8b0$ed31e150@endicott> <001801c3962c$45579140$2af57f50@Default> <004b01c396e7$c176b560$c12a2850@multivisionoem> <00df01c397cb$fe0128f0$0883b6d4@LNV> <005101c39800$f5372640$f632e150@endicott> <005601c39877$e881d9a0$0100007f@LNV> <002701c398ec$3272e440$934d87d9@4nrw70j> <000901c398f5$421b4a00$119868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <001301c39930$171ea4b0$d718e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 12:36 AM Subject: [blml] Devolution > [Grattan Endicott] > Where you and I differ in principle, I believe, > is that you would govern from the centre with > laws that oblige all authorities to adopt the > same practices, whereas my belief lies in laws > which devolve anything that is not fundamental, > to the levels at which the game is played. > > [Nigel] > > In government, legal devolution may make sense > because of historical differences in primitive > customs and religious taboos. > > It is hard to see how such devolution can do > anything but harm to a young *game* played in a > common environment (table, cards, etc..) that > with sensible universal rules can unite modern > civilised people in friendly fair competition, > the world over. > +=+ 1. It is not clear to me why you should think the decisions of a central imperial power would avoid the 'harm', nor why 'harm' should not then occur to varying degrees in various parts. . 2.For civilised people uniting in fair competition internationally the international SO can devise the rules under which the game is played. This does not make those rules automatically the most beneficial for local application in both Auckland and Albuquerque, Shanghai and Stockholm. 3. Current comments received from various places include requests for powers to vary locally. ~ G ~ +=+ From wayne@ebridgenz.com Thu Oct 23 07:54:06 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 19:54:06 +1300 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] In-Reply-To: <002701c398ec$3272e440$934d87d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <008101c39932$7ad26850$c14236d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of grandeval > Sent: Thursday, 23 October 2003 10:30 a.m. > To: 'blml' > Subject: Re: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] > > > Grattan Endicott [alternatively cyaxares@lineone.net] > =============================== > "The good old rule > Sufficeth them, the simple plan, > That they should take who have the power, > And they should keep who can." > [Wordsworth] > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ton Kooijman" > To: "'blml'" > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 9:38 AM > Subject: Re: The Dutch experience [was Re: > [blml] Both Majors]> > > Nicely said: 'equally legitimate'. This includes 'not > > legitimate' .To be honest: I prefer the 'chaos' (your > > words) within the Dutch Fed. above a situation > > where we use references to some laws and then > > need weird interpretations (infringing other laws) > > to justify weird regulations. > > > +=+ 'Weird interpretations' means interpretations > you do not agree with. But when I joined the WBFLC > - of the present committee Santanu Ghose and John > Wignall preceded me - the committee was already > sanctioning regulations that conflicted with some parts > of the laws. Historically this has been the approach > and the understanding.. So I do not accept 'weird', it > has long been the norm. In my opinion the interpretation > is a proper view of the way the laws are currently written. > Where you and I differ in principle, I believe, is that > you would govern from the centre with laws that oblige > all authorities to adopt the same practices, whereas my > belief lies in laws which devolve anything that is not > fundamental, to the levels at which the game is played. It could hardly be argued that the current interpretations are aimed at preserving the fundamentals of the game. If a regulation that says "if you do A then you cannot use conventions" is equally valid with an alternative regulation that says "if you do A you must lead trumps." There are no measures in place to attempt to preserve any sort of fundamentals of the game the pronouncements that have been made state categorically that *any* regulation made under L40D powers is valid. Wayne From wayne@ebridgenz.com Thu Oct 23 07:54:06 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 19:54:06 +1300 Subject: [blml] Knowledge & experience In-Reply-To: <001501c398ec$297a71a0$049c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <008001c39932$770f1ec0$c14236d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Nigel Guthrie > Sent: Thursday, 23 October 2003 10:31 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Knowledge & experience > > > > [Wayne] > > It is the TD who is at fault here and not the > > current rules. > > [Nigel] > Why is the TD at fault? Even if he knows that > the player has a secretive reputation, how can > the TD force an explanation? How can the TD > apply pressure without implying prevarication? > > > [Wayne] > > However at times you must accept "no agreement" > > is the only information that the opponents have. > > [Nigel] > I accept what you say about the current law. > Marvin and I are arguing for a *rule-change*: > > When questioned about partner's call, you > must make your "best guess". If your guess > turns out to be systemically wrong and > opponents are damaged as a result, then you > may be penalized for MI. > > This obviates some of the current benefit to > those who deliberately conceal agreements. Whilst imposing a penalty on some otherwise law- abiding players. > > It is another rule simplification that is > fairer and easy for players to understand. I think it is neither fair nor easy to understand. How is it fair when I am made to guess that when I guess incorrectly that I am punished. And it doesn't seem easy to understand to me - to be punished for doing what you were forced to do. e.g. 1. I come up against a pair playing "Ekatahuna Twos" and my partner takes some action and the auction becomes convoluted so the opponents increase their chance of a good score by asking me what my partner's calls mean - or at least the chances of our side getting a poor score. 2. My learners come to play and BL asks them what the range of their NT rebid is and they have no idea. They are forced to guess and guess 12-15 when in fact it is 15-17 and you are going to come along and say "You are penalized for not knowing your system" and "by the way this is a fair and easy to understand rule" I certainly will not be doing that. > > Some critics say that this "forces you to lie" > but if the law says you *must guess*, who can > criticise you for inadvertantly telling a lie? The TD who imposes a penalty on you. I like the current law where you disclose your methods and are penalized only when you fail to meet your obligations to disclose. I do not like a law that creates a penalty when you simply do not know you methods in every obscure auction. There are more auctions than bridge hands how can we hope to have discussed and agreed upon meanings for every situation. Wayne From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Oct 23 07:54:57 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 07:54:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Devolution References: <200310222358.QAA32141@mailhub.irvine.com> <008d01c39907$daca07c0$119868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <000d01c39932$a6a65900$ca86403e@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 2:46 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Devolution > > But the WBFLC will be spared a lot of work and > diplomacy. > +=+ I agree with 'diplomacy' if by this you mean influence and example, as is the approach in the case of the Code of Practice. I think imposition a counterproductive approach. ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Oct 23 08:05:45 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:05:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] Knowledge & experience In-Reply-To: <00a001c398af$d6dcd000$0f9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <00ba01c39886$a4e88f90$58e436d2@Desktop> <3F967106.70104@hdw.be> <00a001c398af$d6dcd000$0f9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <3F977DC9.2070308@hdw.be> Yes, Nigel, but what's your point? Nigel Guthrie wrote: >>>[Wayne] >>>The player actually has "no idea" > > >>[Herman de Wael] >>But still he has to guess. So he does have >>"an idea". Even if it is only a guess. > > > [Nigel] > > Obviously, Wayne and Tim are lucky enough to > play against people who meticulously complete > their CCs and religiously disclose their > understandings. > > It appears that Herman and I slum it in less > formal environents where the typical opponent > is less "actively ethical." > So, Nigel, we are apparently at the same side of this debate. In an environment where good explanations are the rule, "no idea" occurs relatively infrequently and when it does, it might be true. But where we play, "no idea" is basically a cop-out and must not be tolerated. That's your point, is it ? Then why do you conclude with - see below ? > This typical opponent takes one look at my > card and exclaims "I'm not reading all that > rubbish, just alert will you". His card is > clean or has a few illegible scribbles. > If asked about his partner's bid, his usual > answer is "undiscussed". If I have the > temerity to remark that, again, he has guessed > correctly, he feigns offence and protests that > he relies only on "general bridge knowledge > and experience" which is the literal truth. > > This opponent may be an excellent bridge > player and he is sure that he is doing nothing > wrong. Over the years, in his circle of > cronies there is no formal discussion of > agreements; but he is a sharp observer, with a > good memory, who learns by painful experience. > > For example, discussed or not, playing with > us, almost all his doubles are take-out or > "show values". In a different environment, > where penalty doubles were the norm, I am > sure that he would have assimilated the local > practice; but in either case he feels he can > answer "no agreement" with a clear conscience. > > He wouldn't occur to him to divulge a > *negative inferences* for instance, that a > double is *never* a support double. > > The strategy has little advantage against > other established club members, but it's > effective against the newer members; and > lethal against in matches and congresses, > away from the club. > > I am told that this is a common strategy > in small rubber bridge clubs, to ensure > that strangers are quickly fleeced. > > If a player is secretive, this habit is often > widely known. Hence, surely you would expect > an official to have a quiet word with him. > > On the contrary, on the only occasion that > I remember, when an exasperated opponent > called the TD, to try and extract a small > crumb of information from such a player, the > TD admonished the questioner for harassment. > > So, unlike Herman, I concede that Wayne and > Tim are right about the *current* rules. > Please don't rehearse that argument again. > Not unlike Herman - I also concede that Wayne Tim are right when they state that if "no idea" is the truth, it should be allowed and we should not trigger an automatic MI ruling to this. But at the same time, Nigel, you have just stated that (in our environments) "no idea" is basically cheating. So here we should be very severe on our MI rulings. > Like Marvin, I am arguing for *change* to a > simpler fairer game. > Well, the way I understood Marvin, he was trying to get the automatic MI ruling for the "no idea" response. I think you have just shown, Nigel, why this is necessary (too many people get away with it nowadays), while at the same time you have agreed with Tim and Wayne that it is not. Are you sure I cannot tempt you to become a member of the DwS? > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system > (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: > 16/10/2003 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Oct 23 08:26:16 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:26:16 +0200 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] In-Reply-To: <63014C58-04AC-11D8-8632-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <63014C58-04AC-11D8-8632-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <3F978298.2010905@hdw.be> I really don't know if it is my English or Ed's grasp of bridge laws issues that is at fault here, because I don't seem to get through. Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Wednesday, Oct 22, 2003, at 03:47 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Ton Kooijman wrote: >> >>> I understand that Nigel wants a player to be forced by law to make a >>> guess >>> when he doesn't remember the agreement. I don't understand >>> why Marv finds this 'so obviouisly right'. I don't, it sounds obviously >>> strange (in my new approach 'strange' wil be the strongest word I use). >>> We don't need this, there is also MI when a player can't tell what the >>> agreement is (if there is one), as I tried to explain some days ago. >> >> >> I don't propose a Law change in the sense that Nigel wants, I believe >> that the current law already implies this. >> >> When one player makes a call which, when looking at his cards, has a >> clear understandable meaning, then it is very probable that there >> exists some basis of understanding (maybe just hope) between partners. >> That basis of understanding needs to be explained. > > > That depends on what the basis is. If it is "general bridge knowledge > (whatever that is) it does *not* need to be explained. > Yes it does. I believe that the exception in L75C is there so as not to have bridge lawyers saying "he did not tell me that spades were majors too". Something which is general bridge knowledge is considered explained already. So while your argument is true, I consider it nitpicking and shall skip over it. Consider my argumentation amended in this sense. We are, so far, in agreement. >> When the partner now replies "I have no idea", but then still selects >> the correct meaning, it is clear to me that opponents have been >> misinformed. > > > It's not clear to me. Aside from that, I think we need to acknowledge > that players do not always use the best phrasing in these situations. > Perhaps the law needs to specify the correct phrasing. > What correct phrasing do we need for "I have no idea"? I believe it is an out-and-out lie. A player is on the face of it on the same wavelength as his partner, yet he "has no idea"? Do you like it when your RHO bids hearts, your LHO says "no idea", but then transfers to spades correctly, depriving you of the opportunity of doubling for the heart lead? I don't. And as TD, I shall rule that "no idea" was MI. Whether it was basically true or not. You keep believing, Ed, that players are honestly saying "no idea". When they are, I won't rule against them. But most of the time it simply is not the whole truth. >> When he replies "I think it is A", and A is the correct intent, there >> has been no MI, but opponents have received AI to which they are not >> entitled to. > > > If they are not entitled to this information, how is it AI? > Have you been reading blml the last few years, Ed? I have often used the word "entitled" for information that opponents must have. There is a middle class ot information that they are not entitled to, but which is AI when they have it. If I don't add "but I'm not certain" to my "it's a transfer", I have not witheld from my opponents any information they are entitled to. If I do add it, I have given them additional information, which is AI to them (and UI to partner, yet another reason not to divulge it). >> When he replies "it is A", no MI and no AI. >> >> If, OTOH, he believes it is A, while actually it was intended as B, >> again you get: >> -if he says "I have no idea": MI > > > Maybe. Not clear to me. > Well, the TD will rule MI if he believes that the bidder had a clear intention with his bid, and this intention is not divulged to opponents. >> -"I think it is A": MI (and AI) "I think" is no excuse and the TD will >> not take it into account. > > > No? > No! If they tell me "I think it is transfer", and I double, my partner will assume that double is conventional, not TO. The "I think" does not make it less wrong. >> -"it is A": MI. The opponents cannot claim damage for not knowing they >> were uncertain, so the bad final contract will remain undoubled. > > > Okay, now you've lost me completely. > My point is that "it is A" and "I think it is A" are exactly the same, ruling-wise. Opponents have no knowledge of wheels coming off, and won't double the final contract. They cannot claim that they would have doubled if they had known that the bidders were on different wavelengths. >> >> I believe the current laws are such that it is best for a player, even >> when uncertain, to simply state "it is A". > > > IOW, you want a player to lie. Sorry, I can't buy it. > What is lying? This player is simply saying "2He is a transfer to spades". He is not saying "and I'm very certain about that" or "but I am not certain about it". Those could be lies, but the first one is just a statement. It cannot be a lie. Of course he can have guessed wrongly, in which case he has given MI. But surely you don't call that "lying"? Where did we part company, Ed? Is it that you believe opponents ARE "entitled" to the knowledge that you are uncertain about your agreements? >> No Law change needed. >> >> Which is why I agree with Ton. > > > Hm. But does Ton agree with you? :-) > I don't see why not. We are saying the same thing - no law change is needed. Do you disagree? Or are you simply Herman-bashing because that is "de rigeur" on blml? > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Oct 23 08:32:56 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:32:56 +0200 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3F978428.1050000@hdw.be> OK Tim, fair enough. But: Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>When one player makes a call which, when looking at his cards, has a >>clear understandable meaning, then it is very probable that there >>exists some basis of understanding (maybe just hope) between partners. >>That basis of understanding needs to be explained. >> >>When the partner now replies "I have no idea", but then still selects >>the correct meaning, it is clear to me that opponents have been >>misinformed. > > > I strongly disagree (unless you draw a distinction between "I have no > idea" and "undiscussed"). Last night, playing with a pick-up partner, I > held xx,KJxxxx,ATx,AK and the auction went (1D)-P-(P)-1H-(2D)-X. The > double was undiscussed and not alerted (while we had agreed to play > negative X through 2S we hadn't agreed on competitive X). My partner > intended it as "values" (alertable). I divined the intention correctly > because my diamond holding and the auction suggested it was unlikely > partner would hold a penalty double and highly likely pard would hold > 4+ spades. Opponents are *not* entitled to deductions based on my own > holding. > No they are not. But your partner does not know that you have enough diamonds to deduce that he was not doubling for penalties, does he? So where does he base his double on? General bridge sense in your environment probably. Now probably this is against opponents who have that same basis, so "no special agreement" means as much to them as to you. But if you bring that same partner to Antwerp, and the same auction occurs, I would ask you to tell us a lot more about which doubles might be "competitive" and which "penalty". So while you were probably right in your explanation of "no agreement", I consider this not a counter-argument to mine, because I believe you have (in just those two words) told your opponents a lot more than what you are telling us here. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Oct 23 08:44:03 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:44:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] Interesting claim position Message-ID: <3F9786C3.4060103@hdw.be> I was playing last night in my local drive, against my regular team mates. This is the situation from my point of view: He x Cl KJx (dummy) Sp x Sp x Cl 10xx Cl A9x He xx Cl Qx Spades is trump. I have just made the previous trick and I (stupid!) lead the small club. Partner inserts the jack and dummy wins the ace. Dummy plays the small club and declarer hopes for the king to drop. When it doesn't, he claims down one "I still have a club to lose". "No," I say, "because I have nothing but hearts to return". Three questions for the blml-lawyers: - Would I have been wrong in accepting the concession? - Would the director cancel the concession if declarer asked for it now? - Should the director change the score if this came up after the game (within the correction period)? I believe the third one is an interesting one. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Oct 23 09:00:42 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 10:00:42 +0200 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] In-Reply-To: <00da01c398cf$e727e6f0$0100a8c0@Desktop> References: <00da01c398cf$e727e6f0$0100a8c0@Desktop> Message-ID: <3F978AAA.5050906@hdw.be> wayne@ebridgenz.com wrote: > >> >>That is not another alternative either. Then too "I think it is A" is >>the truth, and "no idea" is MI unless the general bridge knowledge is >>truely general, in which case again, the information given is >>simply "A". > > > My laws are clear Herman: > > L75C > "When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to > an opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special > information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership > experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general > knowledge and experience." > > What laws do you use? > The same ones Wayne, but alse the ones that tell the TD to assume Misinformation. We are probably talking about different cases Wayne. I am talking about a player bidding hearts when he has spades. how do you solve this with "general bridge knowledge"? 1NT -(p) - p - (2He) by a player who has a series of spades. "no idea" Sorry, but I don't buy it. And General bridge knowledge will not get you out of that one, Wayne. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Oct 23 09:06:20 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 10:06:20 +0200 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] In-Reply-To: <00d901c398cd$b93f31f0$0100a8c0@Desktop> References: <00d901c398cd$b93f31f0$0100a8c0@Desktop> Message-ID: <3F978BFC.8070801@hdw.be> wayne@ebridgenz.com wrote: > >> >>Whatever the player answers, the TD will always reduce this >>to "A". > > > Not if I am the TD. > 1NT - p - p - 2He "?" - "i don't know, but I think it is transfer" X - p - p - p (it was hearts all along) Do you really believe there is any difference between this answer and a simple "transfer". Do you accept the defence "I told him I was not certain". > Wayne > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Oct 23 09:10:23 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:10:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Devolution References: <00a201c3941c$c82503d0$2b2e37d2@Desktop> <003a01c394a0$3d972660$64e87f50@Default> <000801c39619$b338f8b0$ed31e150@endicott> <001801c3962c$45579140$2af57f50@Default> <004b01c396e7$c176b560$c12a2850@multivisionoem> <00df01c397cb$fe0128f0$0883b6d4@LNV> <005101c39800$f5372640$f632e150@endicott> <005601c39877$e881d9a0$0100007f@LNV> <002701c398ec$3272e440$934d87d9@4nrw70j> <000901c398f5$421b4a00$119868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <001301c39930$171ea4b0$d718e150@endicott> Message-ID: <005e01c3993d$2fc68520$349468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Grattan Endicott] +=+ 1. It is not clear to me why you should think the decisions of a central imperial power would avoid the 'harm', nor why 'harm' should not then occur to varying degrees in various parts. . 2.For civilised people uniting in fair competition internationally the international SO can devise the rules under which the game is played. This does not make those rules automatically the most beneficial for local application in both Auckland and Albuquerque, Shanghai and Stockholm. 3. Current comments received from various places include requests for powers to vary locally. [Nigel] 1. The harm to which I allude is that players must abide by different rules under different SOs; as devolution proceeds, rules are likely to diverge more. If players move to a different country, their disadvantage will be greater. If they travel a lot, it will be worse still. If the trend is reversed, so that rules become identical everywhere, more people would be likely to take up and follow the game, knowing that their skill was a fully transferrable asset. 2. An international sponsor will have a hard task to arrive at a compromise among diverging ZO rules. Players from some competing countries will have to make more and bigger changes than those from other countries to adapt to international rules. This makes for unequal and unfair competition. 3. If you want unbiassed opinions about Christmas, maybe you shouldn't restrict your sample to turkeys. Anyway, currently ZOs *must* make up their own rules to resolve ambiguities in TFLB and to plug gaping holes in TFLB about subjects like disclosure (for example, CCs and alert rules). Were some of these deficiencies in TFLB remedied, there would more incentive for ZOs to conform. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 16/10/2003 From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Thu Oct 23 09:12:04 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 10:12:04 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Interesting claim position Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EBA3@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Herman De Wael wrote: I was playing last night in my local drive, against my regular team mates. This is the situation from my point of view: He x Cl KJx (dummy) Sp x Sp x Cl 10xx Cl A9x He xx Cl Qx Spades is trump. I have just made the previous trick and I (stupid!)=20 lead the small club. Partner inserts the jack and dummy wins the ace.=20 Dummy plays the small club and declarer hopes for the king to drop.=20 When it doesn't, he claims down one "I still have a club to lose". "No," I say, "because I have nothing but hearts to return". Three questions for the blml-lawyers: - Would I have been wrong in accepting the concession? ----- Of course you would. Law 72A2. ----- - Would the director cancel the concession if declarer asked for it now? ----- Yes he would. There was no acquience. The TD applies law 70A and gives deca= rer the last two tricks. -----=20 - Should the director change the score if this came up after the game=20 (within the correction period)? ----- Yes he should. Law 71 is quite clear. Declarer conceded a trick he couldn't= loose by any legal play of the remaining cards. Within the corection perio= d the TD shall cancel such a concession. ----- I believe the third one is an interesting one. ----- I fail to see what's interesting here. To me this is a rather straightforwa= rd ruling. Regards, Harald Skj=E6ran ----- --=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 t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Thu Oct 23 09:31:11 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 10:31:11 +0200 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] References: <00a201c3941c$c82503d0$2b2e37d2@Desktop> <003a01c394a0$3d972660$64e87f50@Default> <000801c39619$b338f8b0$ed31e150@endicott> <001801c3962c$45579140$2af57f50@Default> <004b01c396e7$c176b560$c12a2850@multivisionoem> <00df01c397cb$fe0128f0$0883b6d4@LNV> <005101c39800$f5372640$f632e150@endicott> <005601c39877$e881d9a0$0100007f@LNV> <002701c398ec$3272e440$934d87d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <003001c39943$00327070$71ebf1c3@LNV> > Subject: Re: The Dutch experience [was Re: > [blml] Both Majors]> > > Nicely said: 'equally legitimate'. This includes 'not > > legitimate' .To be honest: I prefer the 'chaos' (your > > words) within the Dutch Fed. above a situation > > where we use references to some laws and then > > need weird interpretations (infringing other laws) > > to justify weird regulations. > > > +=+ 'Weird interpretations' means interpretations > you do not agree with. almost true: interpretations my reading capabilities tell me the laws don't agree with. But when I joined the WBFLC > - of the present committee Santanu Ghose and John > Wignall preceded me - the committee was already > sanctioning regulations that conflicted with some parts > of the laws. Historically this has been the approach > and the understanding. So I do not accept 'weird', it > has long been the norm. my statement had a more general meaning than pointing to the wbf, but don't blame me for the use of he word 'weird' for an interpretation which says A when the laws say (not A), regardless how long such pratice exists. And I consider the statement in 75B as fundamental: 'making a misbid is not an infraction'. If an interpretation makes it one bridge has changed and is shaking on its fundaments. > In my opinion the interpretation > is a proper view of the way the laws are currently written. May be you can spend some minutes to explain this statement, I really don't understand it. > Where you and I differ in principle, I believe, is that > you would govern from the centre with laws that oblige > all authorities to adopt the same practices, You are wrong, that is not what I want. As far as the laws give room for 'local' decisions: go ahead. But when the laws say A, an interpretation denying A is not acceptable. We proudly have presented laws being the same all over the world, except for ...... and then two or three differences come up. Now you are suggesting that every 'local whatever' can do what it wants as long as no fundamentals are touched? And who is deciding what fundamentals are? > whereas my > belief lies in laws which devolve anything that is not > fundamental, to the levels at which the game is played. > I do not believe the kind of matters discussed in the > exchanges between Jaap and myself are fundamental; > nor those I have mentioned in reference to various > major authorities. I think variation by regulation can be > accepted in them and we should not seek to impose a > central view of such questions upon the world generally. Such approach seems only possibble when the laws of bridge are not more than a suggestion how to play the game. Which in my opinion is a huge step back in the development of what we want it to be: a world sport. If we want diversity, making it possible to cope with local habits and problems we need to make that possible in the write up of the laws. And not by simply ignoring them if they become a local burden. The wbf laws comittee as far as I know has never decided that 75B is not valid anymore, on the contrary, many decisions by TD's and AC's are still based on this principle. ton > Regards ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Thu Oct 23 09:51:38 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 10:51:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] Devolution References: <200310222358.QAA32141@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <003101c39943$00f79530$71ebf1c3@LNV> > It is hard for me to see what "harm to a game" means. People can be > harmed; so can animals, trees, crops, buildings (although we might > call it "damage" in some cases). But a game is an abstract concept; > how can an abstract concept be harmed? Clearly you mean something > else here. It would be helpful to state exactly what bad or > disappointing thing you think would happen, and to *whom* (i.e. some > people or group of people), that would constitute "harm to the game". > > If it means fewer people playing the game or more people quitting the > game or something like that, you'll have to explain to me how this > devolution would accomplish that. If you mean some other kind of > harm---what? > > -- Adam The WBF, the countries taking part in the WBF have expressed that they want to play the same game all over the world. Looking at the task f the WBF LC it aims for decades now to have universal laws. It was felt as a defeat for example that in '87 we didn't suceed in a universal approach of the treatment of 'no spades partner'. Grown up sports all over the world do have one set of rules the game is played with (I am bluffing here, this might not be true). Adam's question is a philosophical one: is it possible that the disadvantage of uniform rules is bigger than the advantage? Even for a grown up sport when the answer on such question is 'yes', it should be possible to bring in diversity. But then I prefer that to be a controled diversity. This asks for a fundamental discussion and should not be solved 'organically' by incidental deviations from the laws evolving in bridge as it is played around the world: let thousand flowers bloom, and some laws on the bookshell. ton From mamos@blueyonder.co.uk Thu Oct 23 09:59:47 2003 From: mamos@blueyonder.co.uk (mamos) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:59:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Interesting claim position References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EBA3@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <000701c39944$02a2b7b0$ae692452@mikeamos> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Skjaran, Harald" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 9:12 AM Subject: SV: [blml] Interesting claim position Herman De Wael wrote: I was playing last night in my local drive, against my regular team mates. This is the situation from my point of view: He x Cl KJx (dummy) Sp x Sp x Cl 10xx Cl A9x He xx Cl Qx Spades is trump. I have just made the previous trick and I (stupid!) lead the small club. Partner inserts the jack and dummy wins the ace. Dummy plays the small club and declarer hopes for the king to drop. When it doesn't, he claims down one "I still have a club to lose". "No," I say, "because I have nothing but hearts to return". Three questions for the blml-lawyers: - Would I have been wrong in accepting the concession? ----- Of course you would. Law 72A2. ----- - Would the director cancel the concession if declarer asked for it now? ----- Yes he would. There was no acquience. The TD applies law 70A and gives decarer the last two tricks. ----- - Should the director change the score if this came up after the game (within the correction period)? ----- Yes he should. Law 71 is quite clear. Declarer conceded a trick he couldn't loose by any legal play of the remaining cards. Within the corection period the TD shall cancel such a concession. Cannot declarer discard on the H from both hands and only win one trick ??? Nothing illegal about that ----- I believe the third one is an interesting one. ----- I fail to see what's interesting here. To me this is a rather straightforward ruling. Regards, Harald Skjæran ----- -- 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 please notify NIF at postmaster@nif.idrett.no. Abuse can be reported to abuse@nif.idrett.no This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports ************************************************************************** _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Oct 23 10:13:51 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 10:13:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Knowledge & experience References: <00ba01c39886$a4e88f90$58e436d2@Desktop> <3F967106.70104@hdw.be> <00a001c398af$d6dcd000$0f9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <3F977DC9.2070308@hdw.be> Message-ID: <008a01c39945$fa4317c0$349468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Herman De Wael] Are you sure I cannot tempt you to become a member of the DwS? [Nigel] I wish it were not so but, at the risk of misrepresenting your views, I think we differ in at least two respects... A. Under the current law, when a player has no idea what his partner's call means, you think it is OK for him to guess. As Wayne and I understand the current law, he must say "No understanding". B. You see no need to change the current law and although you would prefer a player to guess, you would still allow him to say "No understanding". Marvin and I would like the law to be changed so that he *must* guess what his agreement is, and expose himself to a potential MI penalty if a misguess damages his opponents. But it is all academic because I doubt whether either of us will see any major improvement to TFLB, in our life-time. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 16/10/2003 From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Thu Oct 23 10:09:31 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:09:31 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Interesting claim position Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EBA4@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> mamos wrote: Herman De Wael wrote: I was playing last night in my local drive, against my regular team mates. This is the situation from my point of view: He x Cl KJx (dummy) Sp x Sp x Cl 10xx Cl A9x He xx Cl Qx Spades is trump. I have just made the previous trick and I (stupid!) lead the small club. Partner inserts the jack and dummy wins the ace. Dummy plays the small club and declarer hopes for the king to drop. When it doesn't, he claims down one "I still have a club to lose". "No," I say, "because I have nothing but hearts to return". Three questions for the blml-lawyers: - Would I have been wrong in accepting the concession? ----- Of course you would. Law 72A2. ----- - Would the director cancel the concession if declarer asked for it now? ----- Yes he would. There was no acquience. The TD applies law 70A and gives decarer the last two tricks. -----=20 - Should the director change the score if this came up after the game (within the correction period)? ----- Yes he should. Law 71 is quite clear. Declarer conceded a trick he couldn't loose by any legal play of the remaining cards. Within the corection period the TD shall cancel such a concession. Cannot declarer discard on the H from both hands and only win one trick ??? Nothing illegal about that *** Sorry about that one. Of cource he can. So we must apply law 71C. And then = it comes down to whether discarding a club on the heart retur from both han= ds would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, or irrat= ional. To me, that would be irrational, so I would rule the two last tricks= to declarer. Harald *** ----- I believe the third one is an interesting one. ----- I fail to see what's interesting here. To me this is a rather straightforward ruling. Regards, Harald Skj=E6ran ----- --=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 please notify NIF at postmaster@nif.idrett.no. Abuse can be reported to abuse@nif.idrett.no This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports ************************************************************************** _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ************************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error=20 please notify NIF at postmaster@nif.idrett.no.=20 Abuse can be reported to abuse@nif.idrett.no This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports ************************************************************************** From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Thu Oct 23 10:23:52 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:23:52 +0200 Subject: [blml] Interesting claim position References: <3F9786C3.4060103@hdw.be> Message-ID: <003c01c39947$97d91560$71ebf1c3@LNV> > I was playing last night in my local drive, against my regular team mates. > > This is the situation from my point of view: > > He x > Cl KJx > Sp x Sp x > Cl 10xx Cl A9x > > He xx > Cl Qx > > Spades is trump. I have just made the previous trick and I (stupid!) > lead the small club. Partner inserts the jack and dummy wins the ace. > Dummy plays the small club and declarer hopes for the king to drop. > When it doesn't, he claims down one "I still have a club to lose". > > "No," I say, "because I have nothing but hearts to return". > > Three questions for the blml-lawyers: > - Would I have been wrong in accepting the concession? > - Would the director cancel the concession if declarer asked for it now? > - Should the director change the score if this came up after the game > (within the correction period)? > > I believe the third one is an interesting one. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL no, yes, yes I consider the first one as the most interesting. Assuming south was aware of the situation, 72A2 says accepting the trick is wrong. But then when declarer doesn't understand this position why should a defender do so? That is why my pragmatic answer is 'no'. The third question is covered by 71C under 79C where it is not normal to play both trumps in trick 12 or none of them. Though the play of a small trump from your hand falls into the category normal still the question why you didn't play the queen instead? ton From mamos@blueyonder.co.uk Thu Oct 23 10:35:10 2003 From: mamos@blueyonder.co.uk (mamos) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 10:35:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Interesting claim position References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EBA4@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <001201c39948$f3c98070$ae692452@mikeamos> I agree with your amended assessment and like you would regard it as irrational to play as I suggested mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "Skjaran, Harald" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 10:09 AM Subject: SV: [blml] Interesting claim position mamos wrote: Herman De Wael wrote: I was playing last night in my local drive, against my regular team mates. This is the situation from my point of view: He x Cl KJx (dummy) Sp x Sp x Cl 10xx Cl A9x He xx Cl Qx Spades is trump. I have just made the previous trick and I (stupid!) lead the small club. Partner inserts the jack and dummy wins the ace. Dummy plays the small club and declarer hopes for the king to drop. When it doesn't, he claims down one "I still have a club to lose". "No," I say, "because I have nothing but hearts to return". Three questions for the blml-lawyers: - Would I have been wrong in accepting the concession? ----- Of course you would. Law 72A2. ----- - Would the director cancel the concession if declarer asked for it now? ----- Yes he would. There was no acquience. The TD applies law 70A and gives decarer the last two tricks. ----- - Should the director change the score if this came up after the game (within the correction period)? ----- Yes he should. Law 71 is quite clear. Declarer conceded a trick he couldn't loose by any legal play of the remaining cards. Within the corection period the TD shall cancel such a concession. Cannot declarer discard on the H from both hands and only win one trick ??? Nothing illegal about that *** Sorry about that one. Of cource he can. So we must apply law 71C. And then it comes down to whether discarding a club on the heart retur from both hands would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, or irrational. To me, that would be irrational, so I would rule the two last tricks to declarer. Harald *** ----- I believe the third one is an interesting one. ----- I fail to see what's interesting here. To me this is a rather straightforward ruling. Regards, Harald Skjæran ----- -- 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 please notify NIF at postmaster@nif.idrett.no. Abuse can be reported to abuse@nif.idrett.no This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports ************************************************************************** _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ************************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify NIF at postmaster@nif.idrett.no. Abuse can be reported to abuse@nif.idrett.no This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports ************************************************************************** _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Oct 23 11:26:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:26 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Hardening of the oughteries (was Dutch) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: RJH wrote: > I prefer Wayne's (and Tim's?) interpretation of > "general knowledge and experience" - defining it > as the _antithesis_ of partnership agreement. Careful. Understanding - not agreement :) If I sit down with a stranger and start playing I have no special agreements - everything is undiscussed. As soon as we agree say "Acol" I have created a set of special partnership agreements (3 bids are weak, 2 bids are strong) but the range of my 1N is still undiscussed - had we agreed "Modern Acol" then the NT range would be 12-14. However if asked how weak a nv 3 club opener is in Acol then I would have to say "Normally a seven card suit and about 4-9 points". If pard had previously passed a hand like xxxx,x,x,KJTxxxx I would be able to add "probably denies a 4 card major". Each hand *may* build on the level of detail I can disclose (many won't since the bids will be "middle of the road"). OTOH if the stranger is 22 it is, IMO, likely that his low-level doubles will be take-out oriented. If he is 72 they will more likely (again IMO) be for penalties. If opps can see how hold my partner is and draw the same (or different) conclusions my opinions are not a function of partnership experience and not disclosable - but if I know how old/young partner looks and opps don't (it can happen on-line) then I should disclose that partner is likely to be playing "old-fashioned Acol" (and explain that to opps if necessary). When it comes to regular (and vaguely competent) partnerships TDs need to be extremely reluctant to accept an answer of "undiscussed" in any common sequence (and somewhat reluctant even in uncommon ones). I don't see any need for a change in law for this to happen and, while it is occasionally like squeezing blood from a stone, I have never felt that an opponent has deliberately, and successfully, hidden information from me. Hopefully that gives a feel for my position. Tim From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Thu Oct 23 11:32:49 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:32:49 +0200 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] References: <00a201c3941c$c82503d0$2b2e37d2@Desktop> <003a01c394a0$3d972660$64e87f50@Default> <000801c39619$b338f8b0$ed31e150@endicott> <001801c3962c$45579140$2af57f50@Default> <004b01c396e7$c176b560$c12a2850@multivisionoem> <00df01c397cb$fe0128f0$0883b6d4@LNV> <005101c39800$f5372640$f632e150@endicott> Message-ID: <004701c39951$0527c900$3ef63b51@Default> Grattan: I took that to be what Jaap was reporting as the situation in the Netherlands, but now he describes a nation in chaos in which there is no Dutch Laws Committee, no single Dutch Rules and Regulations Committee (but two quasi such), and a National Appeals Committee that acts unilaterally in the absence of an adequate regulatory structure. Of course this is not to be believed, except - well, er, at least it could provide an example for the phrase "alles bohmische Dorfer", or in English, as we say, "Double Dutch". :-) My dear you overdo a little. 1. Whatever is wrong with the Dutch Fed (enough like any like body) it has lots of happy members so it must be doing something right as well. And that 'chaos' in Holland is actually quite organized. 2. What is the problem with the national AC interpreting the rules and thus also interpreting the lack of rules whenever necessary. Normal procedure in any legal system. Example, in Holland we have no 'strike laws' (like in France or Germany or probably most sensible countries). This doesn't stop Dutch judges from ruling on legal aspect of strikes. And the unions and employers respect those rulings. This works well enough so parliament is not in a hurry to write those 'missing' laws. Strikes are very seldom in Holland anyway. If it ain't broken don't fix it. 3. I am quite happy with the Dutch Fed not having a committee devoted to writing regulations only. Such a committee is the best way to make sure you get too many rules. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "'blml'" Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 8:25 PM Subject: Re: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] > > Grattan Endicott (also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > and gesta@tiscali.co.uk) > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "Had laws not been, we never had been blamed, > For not to know we sin is innocence." > - Wm. D' Avenant > ================================== > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ton Kooijman" > To: "'blml'" > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 1:08 PM > Subject: Re: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] > > > > > 40D allows regulation of the actual *use* of conventions > > > - it does not talk about 'agreements as to the use of > > > conventions'. > > > You open my eyes to an aspect of the discussion about > > > "convention disruption" I had not previously considered. It > > > is never too late to learn. Perhaps we should all follow Dutch > > > leadership. Incidentally, did ton vote for it as well? > > > < > > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > No, I didn't and I am still strongly opposing this idea, since > > it is not in accordance with the laws. And I don't need more > > than L75B to know what the laws (want to) say about this. > > For the moment I am waiting for the 25 cases in which the > > Dutch AC decided to give av+/av- in cases with this kind > > of irregularity (over the last five years). But Jaap probably > > needs more time to find those. > > > > ton > > > +=+ I am, of course, well aware of the strength of your > views. However, where we are today is that it is established > that regulations may be made under 40D, 40E, 78D, 80E, at > least, which are not subject to Law 80F. On this basis: > 1. The WBF has instituted a control on natural overcalls; > 2. The EBL and the ACBL have instituted regulations > forbidding psyches of certain conventional opening bids; > 3. The ACBL and the EBU (and I think perhaps others) > have forbidden the use of conventions with natural opening > bids of less than a given strength; > 4. Competitions may have scoring arrangements that > do not conform to Law 77 through 78C. > This being so, it is quite simply the case that if your (or > any) Federation were to regulate an automatic 60%-40% > artificial score in the event of the misbid of a conventional > bid it would be equally legitimate with any of the above. > I took that to be what Jaap was reporting as the situation > in the Netherlands, but now he describes a nation in chaos > in which there is no Dutch Laws Committee, no single > Dutch Rules and Regulations Committee (but two quasi > such), and a National Appeals Committee that acts > unilaterally in the absence of an adequate regulatory > structure. Of course this is not to be believed, except - > well, er, at least it could provide an example for the > phrase "alles bohmische Dorfer", or in English, as we > say, "Double Dutch". :-) > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Oct 23 11:35:14 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:35:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] Knowledge & experience In-Reply-To: <008a01c39945$fa4317c0$349468d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <00ba01c39886$a4e88f90$58e436d2@Desktop> <3F967106.70104@hdw.be> <00a001c398af$d6dcd000$0f9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <3F977DC9.2070308@hdw.be> <008a01c39945$fa4317c0$349468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <3F97AEE2.9000409@hdw.be> OK Nigel, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Herman De Wael] > Are you sure I cannot tempt you to become a > member of the DwS? > > [Nigel] > > I wish it were not so but, at the risk of > misrepresenting your views, I think we differ in > at least two respects... > > A. Under the current law, when a player has no > idea what his partner's call means, you think > it is OK for him to guess. > Well, he needs to guess anyway - because he needs to bid something. > As Wayne and I understand the current law, he > must say "No understanding". > Well, you'd be wrong in your understanding of the current law. "No understanding" is allright between people with the same background, where it translates into "no other understandings than the ones in common use in this club". Among strangers, "no understanding" is almost always less than complete. I don't really believe we disagree on this one. > B. You see no need to change the current law and > although you would prefer a player to guess, you > would still allow him to say "No understanding". > > Marvin and I would like the law to be changed > so that he *must* guess what his agreement is, > and expose himself to a potential MI penalty if > a misguess damages his opponents. > So actually Nigel, in those cases where there really is "no understanding" (the very infrequent ones where all four of us agree there is really nothing), you still want players to guess ? Now that is a strange point of view, and yes, that requires a law change. > But it is all academic because I doubt whether > either of us will see any major improvement to > TFLB, in our life-time. > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Oct 23 11:40:23 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:40:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] Devolution In-Reply-To: <005e01c3993d$2fc68520$349468d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <00a201c3941c$c82503d0$2b2e37d2@Desktop> <003a01c394a0$3d972660$64e87f50@Default> <000801c39619$b338f8b0$ed31e150@endicott> <001801c3962c$45579140$2af57f50@Default> <004b01c396e7$c176b560$c12a2850@multivisionoem> <00df01c397cb$fe0128f0$0883b6d4@LNV> <005101c39800$f5372640$f632e150@endicott> <005601c39877$e881d9a0$0100007f@LNV> <002701c398ec$3272e440$934d87d9@4nrw70j> <000901c398f5$421b4a00$119868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <001301c39930$171ea4b0$d718e150@endicott> <005e01c3993d$2fc68520$349468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <3F97B017.4090400@hdw.be> With his last statement, Nigel has a truely great point: Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > Anyway, currently ZOs *must* make up their > own rules to resolve ambiguities in TFLB > and to plug gaping holes in TFLB about > subjects like disclosure (for example, CCs > and alert rules). > > Were some of these deficiencies in TFLB > remedied, there would more incentive for > ZOs to conform. > I don't agree with the example of alert rules, which must be bound to local custom of system, but I do agree on this with regards to such things as bidding box regulations, screens regulations and the like. Currently, these fall under SO power, while many an SO needs no changes. A common WBF policy which is deemed valid _unless_ changed by the SO would be a great thing. A few weeks ago, I had to give my opinion on a tie splitting, where the local regulations had made no provisions. It turned out that at no level higher than the actual one (Antwerp, Flanders, Belgium, Europe, WBF) there exists a set of default regulations. Such a vacuum is a bad thing. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Oct 23 11:50:54 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:50:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] Interesting claim position In-Reply-To: <003c01c39947$97d91560$71ebf1c3@LNV> References: <3F9786C3.4060103@hdw.be> <003c01c39947$97d91560$71ebf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <3F97B28E.5020504@hdw.be> Sorry to have to correct you, Ton: Ton Kooijman wrote: > >>I was playing last night in my local drive, against my regular team mates. >> >>This is the situation from my point of view: >> >> He x >> Cl KJx >> Sp x Sp x >>Cl 10xx Cl A9x >> >> He xx >> Cl Qx >> >>Spades is trump. I have just made the previous trick and I (stupid!) >>lead the small club. Partner inserts the jack and dummy wins the ace. >>Dummy plays the small club and declarer hopes for the king to drop. >>When it doesn't, he claims down one "I still have a club to lose". >> >>"No," I say, "because I have nothing but hearts to return". >> >>Three questions for the blml-lawyers: >>- Would I have been wrong in accepting the concession? >>- Would the director cancel the concession if declarer asked for it now? >>- Should the director change the score if this came up after the game >>(within the correction period)? >> >>I believe the third one is an interesting one. >> >>-- >>Herman DE WAEL > > > > > no, yes, yes > > I consider the first one as the most interesting. Assuming south was aware > of the situation, 72A2 says accepting the trick is wrong. But then when > declarer doesn't understand this position why should a defender do so? That > is why my pragmatic answer is 'no'. Thank you. > The third question is covered by 71C under 79C where it is not normal to > play both trumps in trick 12 or none of them. Sorry Ton, but in the third case (next board play started) L71A applies, not L71C. That means legal plays must be considered, and ruffing neither side (or both) is a legal play. My point was that declarer need not realize the lay-out, and I could have folded my hand and accepted the concession. > Though the play of a small trump from your hand falls into the category > normal still the question why you didn't play the queen instead? > I had no trumps (spades was trump) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Oct 23 12:02:45 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:02:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Devolution References: <200310222358.QAA32141@mailhub.irvine.com> <003101c39943$00f79530$71ebf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <017401c39955$30f469e0$349468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Grattan Endicott] My belief lies in laws which devolve anything that is not fundamental, to the levels at which the game is played. Current comments received from various places include requests for powers to vary locally. [Ton Kooijman] The WBF, the countries taking part in the WBF have expressed that they want to play the same game all over the world. Looking at the task of the WBF LC it aims for decades now to have universal laws. It was felt as a defeat for example that in '87 we didn't suceed in a universal approach of the treatment of 'no spades partner'. Grown up sports all over the world do have one set of rules the game is played with... [Nigel] Well, I suppose that one of you could be right. We can but hope that it is Ton. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 16/10/2003 From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Thu Oct 23 12:11:35 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:11:35 +0200 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] References: <00a201c3941c$c82503d0$2b2e37d2@Desktop> <003a01c394a0$3d972660$64e87f50@Default> <000801c39619$b338f8b0$ed31e150@endicott> <001801c3962c$45579140$2af57f50@Default> <004b01c396e7$c176b560$c12a2850@multivisionoem> <00df01c397cb$fe0128f0$0883b6d4@LNV> <005101c39800$f5372640$f632e150@endicott> <005601c39877$e881d9a0$0100007f@LNV> <002701c398ec$3272e440$934d87d9@4nrw70j> <003001c39943$00327070$71ebf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <005201c39956$717c13e0$3ef63b51@Default> Ton: > And I consider the statement in 75B as fundamental: 'making a misbid is not > an infraction'. I don't want to interfere in this Grattan-Ton discussion. I just want to point out that 8 years ago in Holland when we started ruling Ghestem 60/40 we have never challanged 75B directly. But what is a misbid ? A misbid caused by not knowing (or forgetting) your system might easily be classified as ME in which case 75B doesn't apply at all. I have seen so many (international) rulings that used constructs like 'habits are also part of the system' resulting in pointless discussions like 'was it really the first time this mistake was made'. And I am sure 'insufficient attention to the game' has also been used to get around laws you wanted to get around. So I agree with Ton that making a 'misbid' is not an infraction (but this doesn't mean a lot without adequate definition of a misbid and related concepts like a 'system' and a 'convention'). I don't agree that grossly 'misbidding' conventions has to be considered a misbid in the sense of 75B. Legal bullshit? Well we always ask 'was it the first time'. They always say 'yes'. We cannot proof anything. Just reverse the burden of proof (there is nowhere in the laws who has to proof what). Given one mistake it is reasonable to assume that there have been others. Let them proof this assumption is incorrect. They can not. Conclusion ME. And apart from all legal haggling (I like it as a game but I hate it because it alienates 99% of all players) there is a major argument for ruling 60/40 or so in cases like this. It works. We are discussing minor infractions. So a reasonable score adjusment works much better than the current arcane rules that often lead to either +1400/-1400 or score stands where the average players can not tell those two cases apart. Of course it would be a much better idea to drop the current rather abstract difference between misbid and ME. In most relevant cases it is hardly decidable anyway. The game has changed. We play more and more conventions, not only specific ones but also generalised conventions. An infamous example is good-bad 2NT. Nobody knows exactly when it apllies and when not. The rules are from the good old time when 2H meant 'I have hearts' or 'I want to play 2H' 99% of the time. Those times are no more. The rules have to adapt to the new reality. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "grandeval" ; "'blml'" Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 10:31 AM Subject: Re: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] > > Subject: Re: The Dutch experience [was Re: > > [blml] Both Majors]> > > > Nicely said: 'equally legitimate'. This includes 'not > > > legitimate' .To be honest: I prefer the 'chaos' (your > > > words) within the Dutch Fed. above a situation > > > where we use references to some laws and then > > > need weird interpretations (infringing other laws) > > > to justify weird regulations. > > > > > +=+ 'Weird interpretations' means interpretations > > you do not agree with. > > almost true: interpretations my reading capabilities tell me the laws don't > agree with. > > > > > But when I joined the WBFLC > > - of the present committee Santanu Ghose and John > > Wignall preceded me - the committee was already > > sanctioning regulations that conflicted with some parts > > of the laws. Historically this has been the approach > > and the understanding. So I do not accept 'weird', it > > has long been the norm. > > my statement had a more general meaning than pointing to the wbf, but don't > blame me for the use of he word 'weird' for an interpretation which says A > when the laws say (not A), regardless how long such pratice exists. > And I consider the statement in 75B as fundamental: 'making a misbid is not > an infraction'. > If an interpretation makes it one bridge has changed and is shaking on its > fundaments. > > > In my opinion the interpretation > > is a proper view of the way the laws are currently written. > > May be you can spend some minutes to explain this statement, I really don't > understand it. > > > > Where you and I differ in principle, I believe, is that > > you would govern from the centre with laws that oblige > > all authorities to adopt the same practices, > > You are wrong, that is not what I want. As far as the laws give room for > 'local' decisions: go ahead. > But when the laws say A, an interpretation denying A is not acceptable. > We proudly have presented laws being the same all over the world, except for > ...... and then two or three differences come up. > Now you are suggesting that every 'local whatever' can do what it wants as > long as no fundamentals are touched? And who is deciding what fundamentals > are? > > > > > whereas my > > belief lies in laws which devolve anything that is not > > fundamental, to the levels at which the game is played. > > I do not believe the kind of matters discussed in the > > exchanges between Jaap and myself are fundamental; > > nor those I have mentioned in reference to various > > major authorities. I think variation by regulation can be > > accepted in them and we should not seek to impose a > > central view of such questions upon the world generally. > > Such approach seems only possibble when the laws of bridge are not more than > a suggestion how to play the game. > Which in my opinion is a huge step back in the development of what we want > it to be: a world sport. > If we want diversity, making it possible to cope with local habits and > problems we need to make that possible in the write up of the laws. And not > by simply ignoring them if they become a local burden. The wbf laws comittee > as far as I know has never decided that 75B is not valid anymore, on the > contrary, many decisions by TD's and AC's are still based on this principle. > > ton > > > > > > Regards ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Thu Oct 23 12:44:49 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:44:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Devolution References: <200310222358.QAA32141@mailhub.irvine.com> <003101c39943$00f79530$71ebf1c3@LNV> <017401c39955$30f469e0$349468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <007d01c3995b$13f1e740$3ef63b51@Default> Ton: > The WBF, the countries taking part in the WBF > have expressed that they want to play the same > game all over the world. In case of the ACBL does this mean 'as long as the rest of the world plays according to the ACBL rules' ? In case of the French does this mean 'according to the French text' (which contains some interesting 'translations'). Don't make me laugh. Ton: > It was felt as a defeat for example that in > '87 we didn't suceed in a universal approach of > the treatment of 'no spades partner'. I think the current geographical split is ridiculous. It would have been a much better idea to have the split on playing level. In serious competition the rule is OK. But please let the LOL's play their game. The rule might well have been acceptable for the ACBL if it only applied to the top level. This is but an example of a frequent problem. Certain rules we need and like for serious championships are disgusting for LOL application. But I don't see the feeling of defeat here. It is such an unimportant rule, who cares such a detail might differ from country to country. The current alert reality is 100 times worse, to mention just one example. I prefer the WBFLC to spend their limited and thus valuable time on more important issues. Nigel: > Well, I suppose that one of you could be right. > We can but hope that it is Ton. I don't see this black and white. Grattan also has a point. I wish the WBFLC went down to business to define those fundementals in a adequate way rather than being bogged down in conflicts over whether or not a European/American LOL can ask partner something. Anyway I have played bridge in at least 20 countries and so far the local variations are quite managable. Everywhere we still play the same game as long as you use a practical definition of the 'same game'. Cards have different symbols. Bidding systems and habits are different. And yes there are some minor rules variations. Is this really a big deal? Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 1:02 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Devolution > [Grattan Endicott] > > My belief lies in laws which devolve anything > that is not fundamental, to the levels at which > the game is played. > > Current comments received from various places > include requests for powers to vary locally. > > [Ton Kooijman] > > The WBF, the countries taking part in the WBF > have expressed that they want to play the same > game all over the world. > > Looking at the task of the WBF LC it aims for > decades now to have universal laws. > > It was felt as a defeat for example that in > '87 we didn't suceed in a universal approach of > the treatment of 'no spades partner'. > Grown up sports all over the world do have one > set of rules the game is played with... > > [Nigel] > > Well, I suppose that one of you could be right. > > We can but hope that it is Ton. > > > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system > (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: > 16/10/2003 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Oct 23 13:16:11 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 08:16:11 -0400 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] In-Reply-To: <011301c398e2$9642d8e0$0100a8c0@Desktop> References: <000001c398c4$4e58cbc0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031023080506.023425b0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:22 PM 10/22/03, wayne wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > Behalf Of Sven Pran > > > > Ed Reppert > > ............. > > > > When one player makes a call which, when looking at his > > cards, has a > > > > clear understandable meaning, then it is very probable that there > > > > exists some basis of understanding (maybe just hope) > > between partners. > > > > That basis of understanding needs to be explained. > > > > > > That depends on what the basis is. If it is "general bridge > > knowledge > > > (whatever that is) it does *not* need to be explained. > > > > I myself am not comfortable with the "general bridge knowledge" clause > > although the probable foundation for this clause is both > > sound and logical: > > > > In the days of Culbertson it was generally known that you > > needed a certain > > general strength (measured in honor tricks) to make certain > > bids and you > > needed at least 4 cards in a suit for that suit to be "biddable". > > > > I understand the "logic" behind the "general knowledge" > > clause to be that > > you need not clobber up your disclosure with such information that > > "everybody" (already) knows. > > > > What I strongly disapprove of is the tendency we seem to have of some > > players apparently "hiding" behind the "general knowledge" > > clause to avoid a > > full disclosure of their agreements and methods. > > > > When explaining a call or an auction I think we should understand this > > clause so that we do not need to elaborate way into the > > first-term class for > > students at the game of bridge, but it is my firm opinion > > that no player > > shall ever be permitted to refuse answering a question (or a follow-up > > question) with the words "this is general knowledge" or other > > words to that > > same effect. > >I think that I make a good effort to explain calls in response to >questions >and at other times when I judge that it is helpful to the opponents to >know >even though there has been no requirement for an alert etc. > >Nevertheless at times I have IMO truthfully answered questions with "we >have >no special partnership understanding". The longer a partnership >continues >the less frequent such an answer would be. > >I may follow up with but we have some understanding in a similar >situation >which may or may not apply - sometimes even with more than one >possibility. There are only two kinds of players out there: those that try to be as helpful to their opponents as they can, and those that don't. All of the laws and regulations about disclosure are simply attempts to define what it is that those in the first category do, and require it of all. That definition, however, is, and always will be, too fuzzy to really achieve its objective. In the end, there's no substitute for inculcating players with the right attitude. In the meantime, whatever the rules say, TDs and ACs are still going to be swayed in their rulings by their judgments as to whether alleged violators were or were not trying to be as helpful as they can. I'm not at all sure that there's anything wrong with that. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Oct 23 13:23:37 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:23:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Interesting claim position In-Reply-To: <003c01c39947$97d91560$71ebf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: On Thursday, October 23, 2003, at 10:23 am, Ton Kooijman wrote: > > >> I was playing last night in my local drive, against my regular team >> mates. >> >> This is the situation from my point of view: >> >> He x >> Cl KJx >> Sp x Sp x >> Cl 10xx Cl A9x >> >> He xx >> Cl Qx >> >> Spades is trump. I have just made the previous trick and I (stupid!) >> lead the small club. Partner inserts the jack and dummy wins the ace. >> Dummy plays the small club and declarer hopes for the king to drop. >> When it doesn't, he claims down one "I still have a club to lose". >> >> "No," I say, "because I have nothing but hearts to return". >> >> Three questions for the blml-lawyers: >> - Would I have been wrong in accepting the concession? >> - Would the director cancel the concession if declarer asked for it >> now? >> - Should the director change the score if this came up after the game >> (within the correction period)? >> >> I believe the third one is an interesting one. >> >> -- >> Herman DE WAEL > > > > no, yes, yes > > I consider the first one as the most interesting. Assuming south was > aware > of the situation, 72A2 says accepting the trick is wrong. But then when > declarer doesn't understand this position why should a defender do so? > That > is why my pragmatic answer is 'no'. *This* defender clearly did understand the position, so why do you judge the situation according to some other mythical defender who didn't? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Oct 23 13:40:48 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 08:40:48 -0400 Subject: SV: [blml] Interesting claim position In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EBA3@exchange.idrettsfor bundet.no> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031023083828.023426f0@pop.starpower.net> At 04:12 AM 10/23/03, Skjaran wrote: >Herman De Wael wrote: > > He x > Cl KJx > (dummy) >Sp x Sp x >Cl 10xx Cl A9x > > He xx > Cl Qx > >Spades is trump. I have just made the previous trick and I (stupid!) >lead the small club. Partner inserts the jack and dummy wins the ace. >Dummy plays the small club and declarer hopes for the king to drop. >When it doesn't, he claims down one "I still have a club to lose". > >"No," I say, "because I have nothing but hearts to return". > >----- >- Should the director change the score if this came up after the game >(within the correction period)? >----- >Yes he should. Law 71 is quite clear. Declarer conceded a trick he >couldn't loose by any legal play of the remaining cards. Within the >corection period the TD shall cancel such a concession. How is ruffing the forced heart return in both hands not a "legal play of the remaining cards"? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Oct 23 13:43:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:43 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Interesting claim position In-Reply-To: <3F97B28E.5020504@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > My point was that declarer need not realize the lay-out, and I could > have folded my hand and accepted the concession. You could. Of course you take the risk that dummy will dispute the concession and that everybody will lose respect for either your ability or your ethics (perhaps both). Still some people are happy playing the game that way and there is little that can be done about it (if nobody notices what they do there is nothing any law can do about it). Tim From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Thu Oct 23 13:11:28 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:11:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] Interesting claim position References: <3F9786C3.4060103@hdw.be> <003c01c39947$97d91560$71ebf1c3@LNV> <3F97B28E.5020504@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000201c39967$1af3c390$70faf1c3@LNV> > Sorry to have to correct you, Ton: > > Ton Kooijman wrote: > > > > >>I was playing last night in my local drive, against my regular team mates. > >> > >>This is the situation from my point of view: > >> > >> He x > >> Cl KJx > >> Sp x Sp x > >>Cl 10xx Cl A9x > >> > >> He xx > >> Cl Qx > >> > >>Spades is trump. I have just made the previous trick and I (stupid!) > >>lead the small club. Partner inserts the jack and dummy wins the ace. > >>Dummy plays the small club and declarer hopes for the king to drop. > >>When it doesn't, he claims down one "I still have a club to lose". > >> > >>"No," I say, "because I have nothing but hearts to return". > >> > >>Three questions for the blml-lawyers: > >>- Would I have been wrong in accepting the concession? > >>- Would the director cancel the concession if declarer asked for it now? > >>- Should the director change the score if this came up after the game > >>(within the correction period)? > >> > >>I believe the third one is an interesting one. > >> > >>-- > >>Herman DE WAEL > > > > > > > > > > no, yes, yes > > > > I consider the first one as the most interesting. Assuming south was aware > > of the situation, 72A2 says accepting the trick is wrong. But then when > > declarer doesn't understand this position why should a defender do so? That > > is why my pragmatic answer is 'no'. > > Thank you. > > > The third question is covered by 71C under 79C where it is not normal to > > play both trumps in trick 12 or none of them. > > Sorry Ton, but in the third case (next board play started) L71A > applies, not L71C. That means legal plays must be considered, and > ruffing neither side (or both) is a legal play. > My point was that declarer need not realize the lay-out, and I could > have folded my hand and accepted the concession. > > > Though the play of a small trump from your hand falls into the category > > normal still the question why you didn't play the queen instead? > > > > I had no trumps (spades was trump) You too, Herman???? You are right, the word trump should have been club, but the question remains: why didn't you play the queen? You are wrong concerning the main issue: the answers on your questions. You should know that all what is said in 71C after the first sentence is voided. Main reason is that there is a contradiction regarding the time periods as named. 71C falls under the heading of 71 where the 79C period is named, but then 71C itself restricts this period. Anyway: the words after ' ...remaining cards.' don't exist. So indeed 71C applies and the answer is '' yes''. ton From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Thu Oct 23 13:27:54 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:27:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] Knowledge & experience References: <00ba01c39886$a4e88f90$58e436d2@Desktop> <3F967106.70104@hdw.be> <00a001c398af$d6dcd000$0f9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <3F977DC9.2070308@hdw.be> <008a01c39945$fa4317c0$349468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <000301c39967$1bcb37d0$70faf1c3@LNV> Nigel > But it is all academic because I doubt whether > either of us will see any major improvement to > TFLB, in our life-time. > Realistic doubt if (or should I say as long as) you yourself are the main examiner of what improvement is. ton From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Oct 23 16:27:29 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 17:27:29 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Devolution In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EBA6@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EBA6@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <3F97F361.8090802@hdw.be> Skjaran, Harald wrote: > ----- > The norwegian bridgefederation has it's own set of regulations, includi= ng tie splitting. These regulations are default regulations. They apply t= o all affiliated districts and clubs if they don't have their own regulat= ions. If they have own regulations, these applies, not the federation's r= egulations. >=20 Good on the Norwegians. Now why doesn't the WBF write regulations like this, so that the silly=20 Belgians, who have not doen the work that the Norwegians have, also=20 have default regulations? > Regards, > Harald Skj=E6ran, Oslo > ----- >=20 >=20 >> >=20 --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Oct 23 17:54:58 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 17:54:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Interesting claim position References: <3F9786C3.4060103@hdw.be> Message-ID: <002b01c39986$78c43da0$519c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Herman De Wael] He x Cl KJx [Dummy] Sp x Sp x Cl 10xx Cl A9x [Herman] He xx Cl Qx Spades is trump. I have just made the previous trick and I (stupid!) lead the small club. Partner inserts the jack and dummy wins the ace. Dummy plays the small club and declarer hopes for the king to drop. When it doesn't, he claims down one "I still have a club to lose". "No," I say, "because I have nothing but hearts to return". Three questions for the blml-lawyers: (1) Would I have been wrong in accepting the concession? (2) Would the director cancel the concession if declarer asked for it now? (3) Should the director change the score if this came up after the game (within the correction period)? [Nigel] (1) Legally it is OK to accept the claim. Morally and legally, you should call the TD. What is quite wrong to decide, on your own, to concede, presenting friends with an undeserved bonus. (2) If I am TD, I rule that declarer sticks to his claim and ruffs in both hands. A TD like you, Herman, might rule for declarer. The law encourages each TD to use his individual subjective "judgement" to ensure that different TDs rule differently. The law is an Ass. (3) IMO No. But again if you were TD, you might rule differently. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.530 / Virus Database: 325 - Release Date: 22/10/2003 From john@asimere.com Thu Oct 23 19:59:54 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 19:59:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Interesting claim position In-Reply-To: <3F9786C3.4060103@hdw.be> References: <3F9786C3.4060103@hdw.be> Message-ID: In article <3F9786C3.4060103@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes >I was playing last night in my local drive, against my regular team mates. > >This is the situation from my point of view: > > He x > Cl KJx > (dummy) >Sp x Sp x >Cl 10xx Cl A9x > > He xx > Cl Qx > >Spades is trump. I have just made the previous trick and I (stupid!) >lead the small club. Partner inserts the jack and dummy wins the ace. >Dummy plays the small club and declarer hopes for the king to drop. >When it doesn't, he claims down one "I still have a club to lose". > >"No," I say, "because I have nothing but hearts to return". > >Three questions for the blml-lawyers: >- Would I have been wrong in accepting the concession? >- Would the director cancel the concession if declarer asked for it now? >- Should the director change the score if this came up after the game >(within the correction period)? Yes, Yes and Yes (I have some difficulty about "any play of the cards" though) > >I believe the third one is an interesting one. > -- 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 Oct 23 20:04:23 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 20:04:23 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Interesting claim position In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EBA4@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EBA4@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: In article <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EBA4@exchange.idrettsforbu ndet.no>, Skjaran, Harald writes >mamos wrote: > >*** >Sorry about that one. Of cource he can. So we must apply law 71C. And th= en it=20 >comes down to whether discarding a club on the heart retur from both han= ds would=20 >be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, or irrational.= To me,=20 >that would be irrational, so I would rule the two last tricks to declare= r. > wrong Law. cheers john >Harald >*** > >----- > >I believe the third one is an interesting one. the third one *is* the interesting one. I think the answer is to say No, but award an adjustment to make it work as yes. >----- >I fail to see what's interesting here. To me this is a rather >straightforward ruling. > >Regards, >Harald Skj=E6ran >----- > --=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 john@asimere.com Thu Oct 23 20:06:28 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 20:06:28 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Devolution In-Reply-To: <3F97F361.8090802@hdw.be> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EBA6@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> <3F97F361.8090802@hdw.be> Message-ID: In article <3F97F361.8090802@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Skjaran, Harald wrote: > >> ----- >> The norwegian bridgefederation has it's own set of regulations, includ= ing tie=20 >splitting. These regulations are default regulations. They apply to all=20 >affiliated districts and clubs if they don't have their own regulations.= If they=20 >have own regulations, these applies, not the federation's regulations. >>=20 > >Good on the Norwegians. > >Now why doesn't the WBF write regulations like this, so that the silly=20 >Belgians, who have not doen the work that the Norwegians have, also=20 >have default regulations? because the silly WBF imagines that its NOs would already have worked out that they *should* have? Homogeneity, anyone? In yer dreams. > >> Regards, >> Harald Skj=E6ran, Oslo >> ----- >>=20 >>=20 >>> >>=20 > --=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 guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Oct 23 20:15:25 2003 From: guthrie@ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 20:15:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: HCP Ranges References: Message-ID: <014101c3999a$0cad4080$519c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> >>[Nigel] >>When a Bridge-player asks you "how many points?" >>he usually wants to know how many HCP you hold. [Julian Lighton] If you're using a method of evaluation other than Work points, giving answers in Work points has little meaning. [Nigel] You cannot be serious! (copyright John MacEnroe) Anyway why would an answer in normal HCP have little meaning to the average *questioner*? [Julian] Because of these factors, no answer to the question can be anything more than an approximation. And most players understand this. Aunt Tillie and Walter the Walrus may not, but there is nothing one can do to convey the nature of the approximation to them. If you try to explain your 15-17 NT as being from "exceptional 14 to terrible 18", they're going to treat it as 14-18, and also not realize that it excludes some 15s and 17s. If they get a close approximation, they're better off. [Nigel] If an opponent is interested in other requirements he can ask or you can tell him; but for most of us (not just Walter, but even you, I am sure) high card strength *is* an important determinant in defensive strategy; like Walter, we all count A=4 K=3 Q=2 J=1. [Julian] Because the cure to this non-problem is worse than the disease. [Nigel] Well at least we agree that the "non-problem" *is* a disease. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.530 / Virus Database: 325 - Release Date: 22/10/2003 From wayne@ebridgenz.com Thu Oct 23 20:36:05 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 08:36:05 +1300 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] In-Reply-To: <3F978BFC.8070801@hdw.be> Message-ID: <00b601c3999c$ec259620$e0e436d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Thursday, 23 October 2003 8:06 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] > > > wayne@ebridgenz.com wrote: > > > > >> > >>Whatever the player answers, the TD will always reduce this > >>to "A". > > > > > > Not if I am the TD. > > > > 1NT - p - p - 2He > "?" - "i don't know, but I think it is transfer" > X - p - p - p (it was hearts all along) > > Do you really believe there is any difference between this answer and > a simple "transfer". Do you accept the defence "I told him I was not > certain". Herman you say "Whatever" and "always" and then give a specific case. Of course in some situations I will reduce it to "A" as you say but certainly not "Whatever" is said or "always". In the case you have given I would want to know the basis for the uncertainty but most likely for that agreement I would agree that the answer is equivalent to "transfer" or more correctly "showing spades". Wayne > > > Wayne > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From svenpran@online.no Thu Oct 23 22:00:56 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 23:00:56 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Interesting claim position In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c399a8$c130eb70$6900a8c0@WINXP> John (MadDog) Probst ............. > >Sorry about that one. Of cource he can. So we must apply law 71C. > >And then it comes down to whether discarding a club on the heart > >retur from both hands would be careless or inferior for the class > >of player involved, or irrational. To me, that would be irrational, > >so I would rule the two last tricks to declarer. > > > wrong Law. >=20 > cheers john >=20 > >Harald Please elaborate. I see nothing wrong in using Law 71C. (Harald first referred to Law 71A = but overlooked the fact that discarding clubs from both declarer and dummy = on the forced heart return in the second last trick would be "legal", = therefore Law 71C is the only available law on this question). Sven From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Oct 23 21:52:41 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 21:52:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Hardening of the oughteries (was Dutch) References: Message-ID: <000501c399aa$ff92d9d0$cd16e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 12:34 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Hardening of the oughteries (was Dutch) < In my opinion, there seem to be two schools of thought on the definition of "general knowledge and experience". < +=+ As with defining 'convention' the attempt to define 'general knowledge and experience' is like eating soup with a fork. 'General' suggests to me that it should be equally available to all, but very little is. I incline to think that we might be better off without attempts to "correct" explanations before the end of the play. But if we want them I would think we could do better than talk about 'general knowledge and experience". Perhaps the dividing line is between what is alertable and what is not, with a simple statement enough for the latter but a full explanation needed of the former, in each case only if asked. Qualify that. Where alertable meanings are exactly as set out in a standard list (like the WBF Conventions Booklet) perhaps add them to the second set and permit players simply to say "standard Holbein". ~ G ~ +=+ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Oct 23 22:51:41 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 22:51:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Interesting claim position References: <3F9786C3.4060103@hdw.be> Message-ID: <01cd01c399af$f3589060$519c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> Herman, cunning fox! I see what you're getting at! (1) If a concession is queried before the end of the round, then declarer gets contested tricks that he would make by "normal" play (L71C); but (2) If a concession is queried after the end of the round but within the correction period, then he only gets contested tricks that he cannot lose by any "legal" play (L71A). Hence, here, a TD may rule for *declarer* before the end of the round; but for *defenders* just afterwards. Is that really the correct interpretation? If so, TFLB equity strikes again! --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.530 / Virus Database: 325 - Release Date: 22/10/2003 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Oct 24 00:06:13 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:06:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] Devolution Message-ID: Ton: [snip] >Grown up sports all over the world do have one set >of rules the game is played with (I am bluffing here, >this might not be true). [snip] RJH: The national sport of the USA, baseball, does *not* have one set of rules. In North America, half the teams use the Designated Hitter rule, the other half of the teams do not. The presence or absence of the Designated Hitter rule fundamentally affects a team manager's strategy. However, since baseball is "cricket on valium", Ton's assertion is correct - baseball is not a grown up sport. :-) Best wishes Richard James 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 svenpran@online.no Fri Oct 24 00:35:59 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 01:35:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Interesting claim position In-Reply-To: <01cd01c399af$f3589060$519c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <000001c399be$6d0b7810$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Nigel Guthrie > Herman, cunning fox! I see what you're getting at! >=20 > (1) If a concession is queried before the end of > the round, then declarer gets contested tricks > that he would make by "normal" play (L71C); but >=20 > (2) If a concession is queried after the end of > the round but within the correction period, then > he only gets contested tricks that he cannot lose > by any "legal" play (L71A). >=20 > Hence, here, a TD may rule for *declarer* before the > end of the round; but for *defenders* just > afterwards. >=20 > Is that really the correct interpretation? No, it is not! Quote from: W B F Laws Committee Meeting in Hammamet, Tunisia, October 19th 1997 6: The Chairman turned the committee's attention to Law 71C. He pointed = to the confusion created by the wording as it had been published. Mr. = Kooijman added that if the intention expressed by Mr. Kaplan were given effect = there would be a notable difference of treatment as between Law 71 and Law 69. = Mr. Endicott read out the proposal circulated by Mr. Kaplan and the aim he = had indicated.=20 The committee adopted the opinion put forward by Mr Bavin that the = sentence in 71C beginning "Until the conceding side..." does in fact make a = provision that is incorporated within the wider provision existing in the = immediately preceding words of the law. The Director is to cancel an implausible concession as defined in Law 71C at any time within the correction = period established under Law 79C. (As proposed by Mr Kaplan this "changes the = time period ... from the start of the next board to the usual protest = period.") End quote. The net effect of this is that the entire sentence in L71C beginning = with the words "Until the conceding side..." has been stricken from L71C as = of 1997. Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Oct 24 00:40:50 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:40:50 +1000 Subject: [blml] Interesting claim position Message-ID: Ton: >no, yes, yes > >I consider the first one as the most interesting. Assuming >south was aware of the situation, 72A2 says accepting the >trick is wrong. But then when declarer doesn't understand >this position why should a defender do so? That is why my >pragmatic answer is 'no'. [snip] RJH: And that is why I believe (as discussed on the "Philadelphia appeal #36" thread) that Law 72A2 is an unenforcable dead letter of a Law. If Ton will not now rule an infraction of Law 72A2, then when will there be a blue moon? :-( Best wishes Richard James 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 nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Oct 24 01:32:00 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 01:32:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Interesting claim position References: <000001c399be$6d0b7810$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000f01c399c6$3e43a220$0e9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Sven Pran] No, it is not! [Nigel] ....As every schoolboy knows... *********************** * BEWARE OF THE TIGER * *********************** [SMASH OPEN LOCKED BOX] [Wade through long Obscure Quote from: W B F Laws Committee Meeting in Hammamet Tunisia, October 19th 1997] [Nigel] *sigh* Why oh Why *sigh* whenever the WBFLC decides to cancel an existing law or make a new one that clashes with an existing law, don't they insert it, in place, into TFLB and publish a new edition so that the average TD has a chance of becoming aware of its existence? They could also take the opportunity to remove a few more solecisms and ambiguities, each time they produced a new edition. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.530 / Virus Database: 325 - Release Date: 22/10/2003 From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Oct 24 02:11:49 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 02:11:49 +0100 Subject: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] References: <00a201c3941c$c82503d0$2b2e37d2@Desktop> <003a01c394a0$3d972660$64e87f50@Default> <000801c39619$b338f8b0$ed31e150@endicott> <001801c3962c$45579140$2af57f50@Default> <004b01c396e7$c176b560$c12a2850@multivisionoem> <00df01c397cb$fe0128f0$0883b6d4@LNV> <005101c39800$f5372640$f632e150@endicott> <005601c39877$e881d9a0$0100007f@LNV> <002701c398ec$3272e440$934d87d9@4nrw70j> <003001c39943$00327070$71ebf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <000d01c399cb$e0fa80b0$3651e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "grandeval" ; "'blml'" Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 9:31 AM Subject: Re: The Dutch experience [was Re: [blml] Both Majors] > > If we want diversity, making it possible to cope > with local habits and problems we need to make > that possible in the write up of the laws. < +=+ In this we agree; such is my aim, in explicit language. +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Oct 24 02:15:09 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 02:15:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Interesting claim position References: <000001c399be$6d0b7810$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000f01c399c6$3e43a220$0e9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <000901c399cc$57a36510$093ce150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 1:32 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Interesting claim position > > [SMASH OPEN LOCKED BOX] > > [Wade through long Obscure Quote from: W B F > Laws Committee Meeting in Hammamet Tunisia, > October 19th 1997] > +=+ The minute was sent to every NBO. +=+ From svenpran@online.no Fri Oct 24 02:24:46 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 03:24:46 +0200 Subject: [blml] Interesting claim position In-Reply-To: <000f01c399c6$3e43a220$0e9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <000601c399cd$9c9e95d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Nigel Guthrie > Sent: 24. oktober 2003 02:32 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Interesting claim position > > [Sven Pran] > No, it is not! > > [Nigel] > > ....As every schoolboy knows... > > *********************** > * BEWARE OF THE TIGER * > *********************** > > [SMASH OPEN LOCKED BOX] > > [Wade through long Obscure Quote from: W B F > Laws Committee Meeting in Hammamet Tunisia, > October 19th 1997] > > [Nigel] > *sigh* Why oh Why *sigh* whenever the WBFLC decides > to cancel an existing law or make a new one that > clashes with an existing law, don't they insert it, > in place, into TFLB and publish a new edition so > that the average TD has a chance of becoming aware > of its existence? They could also take the > opportunity to remove a few more solecisms and > ambiguities, each time they produced a new edition. Sustained! And realizing the problems I have had due to the WBFLC minutes not being readily available when I needed them I did some time ago take the effort to building my own personal bridge laws by downloading both the laws and the minutes to my personal PC and inserting links within every affected paragraph in the laws to each applicable minute affecting that paragraph. It took me some hours, but it has already proven its value. (No, sorry. In respect of the copyright notice in the laws I dare not "publish" this private set of the laws). Regards Sven From john@asimere.com Fri Oct 24 02:31:02 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 02:31:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Interesting claim position In-Reply-To: <01cd01c399af$f3589060$519c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <3F9786C3.4060103@hdw.be> <01cd01c399af$f3589060$519c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: In article <01cd01c399af$f3589060$519c68d5@tinyhrieuyik>, Nigel Guthrie writes >Herman, cunning fox! I see what you're getting at! yep and that's what I said. I might find a reason for adjusting though cheers john > >(1) If a concession is queried before the end of >the round, then declarer gets contested tricks >that he would make by "normal" play (L71C); but > >(2) If a concession is queried after the end of >the round but within the correction period, then >he only gets contested tricks that he cannot lose >by any "legal" play (L71A). > >Hence, here, a TD may rule for *declarer* before the > end of the round; but for *defenders* just >afterwards. > >Is that really the correct interpretation? > >If so, TFLB equity strikes again! > > >--- >Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system >(http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.530 / Virus Database: 325 - Release Date: >22/10/2003 > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Oct 24 02:58:44 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:58:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] Beware of the Leopard Message-ID: Nigel: >> [SMASH OPEN LOCKED BOX] >> >>[Wade through long Obscure Quote from: W B F >>Laws Committee Meeting in Hammamet Tunisia, >>October 19th 1997] Grattan: >+=3D+ The minute was sent to every NBO. +=3D+ Richard: A regulation was on the noticeboard of the Lindpaddock Bridge Club, advising that the cage of the club's pet leopard was unlocked. The Secretary of the Lindpaddock Regulations Committee argued that that noticeboard was all that was needed to protect the safety of Lindpaddock Bridge Club members. Best wishes Zaphod Beeblebrox -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- 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 Oct 24 07:41:51 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 07:41:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Beware of the Leopard References: Message-ID: <001d01c399fa$143ea770$9d17e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 2:58 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Beware of the Leopard Nigel: >> [SMASH OPEN LOCKED BOX] >> >>[Wade through long Obscure Quote from: W B F >>Laws Committee Meeting in Hammamet Tunisia, >>October 19th 1997] Grattan: >+=+ The minute was sent to every NBO. +=+ Richard: A regulation was on the noticeboard of the Lindpaddock Bridge Club, advising that the cage of the club's pet leopard was unlocked. The Secretary of the Lindpaddock Regulations Committee argued that that noticeboard was all that was needed to protect the safety of Lindpaddock Bridge Club members. Best wishes Zaphod Beeblebrox < +=+ Dear Zaphod, It is not possible in practice to republish the law book annually. If the publication were all in one place, and in its original language only, it might be a little easier - although I doubt easy enough. I did hear that one NBO was using the 1987 Laws because they had not managed, maybe for want of time or perhaps for lack of funds, to acquire a translation of the 1997 book. ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Oct 24 07:58:40 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 08:58:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] Interesting claim position In-Reply-To: <000201c39967$1af3c390$70faf1c3@LNV> References: <3F9786C3.4060103@hdw.be> <003c01c39947$97d91560$71ebf1c3@LNV> <3F97B28E.5020504@hdw.be> <000201c39967$1af3c390$70faf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <3F98CDA0.4020401@hdw.be> Ton Kooijman wrote: >> >>>Though the play of a small trump from your hand falls into the category >>>normal still the question why you didn't play the queen instead? >>> >> >>I had no trumps (spades was trump) > > > > You too, Herman???? > > You are right, the word trump should have been club, but the question > remains: why didn't you play the queen? > Maybe because we would not have an interesting case to tell later? Anyway, this is hardly important, as the claim occurred two tricks later. I don't see the reason for your question then, unless it is to rub it in once more that I made a silly play. Back to the important issues: > You are wrong concerning the main issue: the answers on your questions. > You should know that all what is said in 71C after the first sentence is > voided. Main reason is that there is a contradiction regarding the time > periods as named. 71C falls under the heading of 71 where the 79C period is > named, but then 71C itself restricts this period. Anyway: the words after ' > ...remaining cards.' don't exist. So indeed 71C applies and the answer is '' > yes''. > > ton > Oh yes, now I remember there was a change in this law. Forgot which way, though. Good, this makes far more sense. I wouldn't want to have been the TD when that well-known bridge-lawyer HDW puts his cards back in the board and tells after the first bid on the next board: "you realize you would always make those two tricks ...". With this law, I don't mind. Thanks Ton ! > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Fri Oct 24 08:01:25 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:01:25 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Beware of the Leopard Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB279900A32EF7@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 2:58 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Beware of the Leopard Nigel: >> [SMASH OPEN LOCKED BOX] >> >>[Wade through long Obscure Quote from: W B F >>Laws Committee Meeting in Hammamet Tunisia, >>October 19th 1997] Grattan: >+=3D+ The minute was sent to every NBO. +=3D+ Richard: A regulation was on the noticeboard of the Lindpaddock Bridge Club, advising that the cage of the club's pet leopard was unlocked. The Secretary of the Lindpaddock Regulations Committee argued that that noticeboard was all that was needed to protect the safety of Lindpaddock Bridge Club members. Best wishes Zaphod Beeblebrox < +=3D+ Dear Zaphod, It is not possible in practice to republish the law book annually. If the publication were=20 all in one place, and in its original language only, it might be a little easier - although I doubt easy enough. I did hear that one NBO was using the=20 1987 Laws because they had not managed, maybe for want of time or perhaps for lack of=20 funds, to acquire a translation of the 1997=20 book. ~ G ~ +=3D+ ----- No, I believe most people understand that. But the WBF has got a website, where TFLB is published. It would be quite easy to update this publication continously and keep a re= cord (on the site) of changes made subsequent to the last printed version o= f TFLB. That would make it much easier for TD's to keep themselves updated. Regards, Harald Skj=E6ran, Oslo =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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Oct 24 08:02:42 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:02:42 +1000 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia appeal #21 Message-ID: NABC Open Pairs I, 08 Mar 03, First Final Session Dlr: South Vul: E/W The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1NT(1) Pass Pass Double(2) Pass 2S 2NT 3C Double ? (1) Announced; 12-14 hcp (2) Penalty double You, West, hold: J98543 J87 765 5 What call would you make? What other calls would you consider making? Best wishes Richard James 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 hermandw@hdw.be Fri Oct 24 08:05:00 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:05:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] Interesting claim position In-Reply-To: <002b01c39986$78c43da0$519c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <3F9786C3.4060103@hdw.be> <002b01c39986$78c43da0$519c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <3F98CF1C.6060101@hdw.be> Thanks to Nigel for reformatting, but: Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Herman De Wael] > He x > Cl KJx > [Dummy] dummy is there: [Dummy] > Sp x Sp x > Cl 10xx Cl A9x > [Herman] > He xx > Cl Qx further comments below: > Spades is trump. I have just made the previous > trick and I (stupid!) lead the small club. > Partner inserts the jack and dummy wins the ace. > Dummy plays the small club and declarer hopes > for the king to drop. When it doesn't, he claims > down one "I still have a club to lose". > "No," I say, "because I have nothing but hearts > to return". > Three questions for the blml-lawyers: > (1) Would I have been wrong in accepting the > concession? > (2) Would the director cancel the concession if > declarer asked for it now? > (3) Should the director change the score if > this came up after the game > (within the correction period)? > > [Nigel] > > (1) Legally it is OK to accept the claim. Morally > and legally, you should call the TD. What is > quite wrong to decide, on your own, to concede, > presenting friends with an undeserved bonus. > You really should realize that in this tournament I am the director, so it was the TD who decided to allow the retraction of the concession. > (2) If I am TD, I rule that declarer sticks to his > claim and ruffs in both hands. A TD like you, > Herman, might rule for declarer. The law > encourages each TD to use his individual > subjective "judgement" to ensure that different > TDs rule differently. The law is an Ass. > Sorry Nigel, but L71 is very clear in stating that a concession is cancelled if the trick cannot be lost by "normal" play. Surely you don't suggest ruffing in both sides or on neither side is normal? > (3) IMO No. But again if you were TD, you might > rule differently. > Well, you cannot rule (3) harsher than (2), so your answer was to be expected. See the mails from Ton telling us that this should also be Yes. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From H.W.Pieters@gasunie.nl Fri Oct 24 08:46:06 2003 From: H.W.Pieters@gasunie.nl (Pieters H.W.) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:46:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia appeal #21 Message-ID: In order of preference: pass, pass, pass and redouble (SOS) Henk Pieters -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]Namens richard.hills@immi.gov.au Verzonden: vrijdag 24 oktober 2003 09:03 Aan: blml@rtflb.org Onderwerp: Re: [blml] Philadelphia appeal #21 NABC Open Pairs I, 08 Mar 03, First Final Session Dlr: South Vul: E/W The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1NT(1) Pass Pass Double(2) Pass 2S 2NT 3C Double ? (1) Announced; 12-14 hcp (2) Penalty double You, West, hold: J98543 J87 765 5 What call would you make? What other calls would you consider making? Best wishes Richard James Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advi= se the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This em= ail, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and/o= r 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 vie= w of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the Pri= vacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------------- _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _________________________________________________________________________= ___ This communication is intended only for use by the addressee. It may cont= ain=20 confidential or privileged information. If you receive this communication= =20 unintentionally, please let us know by reply immediately. Gasunie does no= t =20 guarantee that the information sent with this E-mail is correct and does = not=20 accept any liability for damages related thereto. = =20 _________________________________________________________________________= ___ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Oct 24 10:36:03 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:36:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Devolution References: Message-ID: <003401c39a12$3f29d1e0$469468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Ton Kooijman] > If we want diversity, making it possible to cope > with local habits and problems we need to make > that possible in the write up of the laws. [Grattan Endicott] +=+ In this we agree; such is my aim, in explicit language. +=+ [Nigel] A retrograde step IMHO. I simply can't imagine any intractible "local habit or problem" catering to which would need devolution of legal power? Can you give some examples? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.530 / Virus Database: 325 - Release Date: 22/10/2003 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Oct 24 10:48:33 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:48:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Knowledge & experience References: <00ba01c39886$a4e88f90$58e436d2@Desktop> <3F967106.70104@hdw.be> <00a001c398af$d6dcd000$0f9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <3F977DC9.2070308@hdw.be> <008a01c39945$fa4317c0$349468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <000301c39967$1bcb37d0$70faf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <003a01c39a13$fda65b60$469468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Ton Kooijman] ..if (or should I say as long as) you yourself are the main examiner of what improvement is. [Nigel] You are *dead* right Ton, I expect that none of the law changes, which I would like, will be implemented in my life-time. Partially as a corollary, I expect attrition in numbers of players to continue, until the laws are subject to some legal simplification, clarification, and convergence. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.530 / Virus Database: 325 - Release Date: 22/10/2003 From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Fri Oct 24 10:52:39 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:52:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Devolution References: <003401c39a12$3f29d1e0$469468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <007f01c39a14$a7a0c2e0$7583b6d4@LNV> > [Ton Kooijman] > > If we want diversity, making it possible to cope > > with local habits and problems we need to make > > that possible in the write up of the laws. > > [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ In this we agree; such is my aim, in explicit > language. +=+ > > [Nigel] > A retrograde step IMHO. I simply can't imagine > any intractible "local habit or problem" > catering to which would need devolution of > legal power? Can you give some examples? > L12(C3), L40, L41A(already achieved), L61B (already achieved), L 68 - 71, L75B, L92, L93 just some examples of laws we are discussing regularly in which we keep up our different opinions. and yes the interesting question is whether the bridge world is waiting for more diversity. ton From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Fri Oct 24 10:17:33 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:17:33 +0200 Subject: [blml] Interesting claim position References: Message-ID: <007501c39a13$1dd859c0$7583b6d4@LNV> Ton: >no, yes, yes > >I consider the first one as the most interesting. Assuming >south was aware of the situation, 72A2 says accepting the >trick is wrong. But then when declarer doesn't understand >this position why should a defender do so? That is why my >pragmatic answer is 'no'. [snip] RJH: And that is why I believe (as discussed on the "Philadelphia appeal #36" thread) that Law 72A2 is an unenforcable dead letter of a Law. *****Not completely. Given the high moral standard of the average bridge player the TD has to assume 'south' in this case did not realise that declarer conceded a trick he would have made. If south makes clear he did realise, L72A2 should be used to penalize him. And 'my' TD has the right to challenge the bridge quality of a south player saying he didn't realise (if he is known to be a good player) , very polite of course. No blue moon, but red cheeks, which should be satisfying enough. ton ***** If Ton will not now rule an infraction of Law 72A2, then when will there be a blue moon? :-( Best wishes Richard James Hills ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- 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 t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Fri Oct 24 10:23:19 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:23:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] Interesting claim position References: <000001c399be$6d0b7810$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000f01c399c6$3e43a220$0e9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <007601c39a13$1ed5f3a0$7583b6d4@LNV> > [Nigel] > *sigh* Why oh Why *sigh* whenever the WBFLC decides > to cancel an existing law or make a new one that > clashes with an existing law, don't they insert it, > in place, into TFLB and publish a new edition so > that the average TD has a chance of becoming aware > of its existence? They could also take the > opportunity to remove a few more solecisms and > ambiguities, each time they produced a new edition. > We published this one of course. I told it again a day ago, but who reads it? Herman for sure should have known. And we do remove sentences and words on paper with every new edition, which is approximately once in ten years. ton From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Fri Oct 24 11:03:10 2003 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:03:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia appeal #21 Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB123C@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> NABC Open Pairs I, 08 Mar 03, First Final Session Dlr: South Vul: E/W The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1NT(1) Pass Pass Double(2) Pass 2S 2NT 3C Double ? (1) Announced; 12-14 hcp (2) Penalty double You, West, hold: J98543 J87 765 5 What call would you make? What other calls would you consider making? Best wishes Richard James Hills [Frances] Pass. Cannot conceive of an alternative. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Oct 24 11:14:27 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:14:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Interesting claim position References: Message-ID: <004201c39a17$9c450480$469468d5@tinyhrieuyik> >[Richard James Hills] >no, yes, yes >I consider the first one as the most interesting. >Assuming south was aware of the situation, 72A2 >says accepting the trick is wrong. But then when >declarer doesn't understand this position why >should a defender do so? That is why my pragmatic >answer is 'no'. [Richard commenting on his earliear answer] And that is why I believe (as discussed on the "Philadelphia appeal #36" thread) that Law 72A2 is an unenforcable dead letter of a Law. If Ton will not now rule an infraction of Law 72A2, then when will there be a blue moon? [Nigel] Yes, in Herman's first case, if a defender realises that declarer has made a doubtful claim, there are *two* reasons why he may decide not to call the TD. He may judge that... (1) "Normal" play for this class of obviously confused and befuddled declarer *is* to ruff or discard in both hands. *OR* (2) Normal play would result in another trick for declarer but if he cynically keeps quiet, then perhaps nobody will notice. The *second line* of reasoning is immoral and arguably illegal ... except that as the law stands the poor TD cannot really penalize the defender for "knowing that an infraction occurred and failing to call the TD. This may well give gratuitous offence. If as Richard sensibly suggests, such laws are changed to "could have known" it would give TDs a chance to encourage more active ethics without making unjustifiable accusations. BTW, Richard, sorry for using your BEWARE OF THE TIGER joke (copyright you and Douglas Adams) without attribution. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.530 / Virus Database: 325 - Release Date: 22/10/2003 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Oct 24 11:43:46 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:43:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia appeal #21 References: Message-ID: <008601c39a1b$b447ba60$469468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Richard James Hills] NABC Open Pairs I, 08 Mar 03, First Final Session Dlr: South Vul: E/W WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1NT(1) Pass Pass Double(2) Pass 2S 2NT 3C Double ? (1) Announced; 12-14 hcp (2) Penalty double You, West, hold: J98543 J87 765 5 What call would you make? What other calls would you consider making? [Nigel] IMO XX=10 3S=9 P=8 ...All very close --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.530 / Virus Database: 325 - Release Date: 22/10/2003 From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Fri Oct 24 10:58:06 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:58:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Knowledge & experience References: <00ba01c39886$a4e88f90$58e436d2@Desktop> <3F967106.70104@hdw.be> <00a001c398af$d6dcd000$0f9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <3F977DC9.2070308@hdw.be> <008a01c39945$fa4317c0$349468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <000301c39967$1bcb37d0$70faf1c3@LNV> <003a01c39a13$fda65b60$469468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <009101c39a1d$72bc0680$7583b6d4@LNV> > [Ton Kooijman] > ..if (or should I say as long as) you yourself > are the main examiner of what improvement is. > > [Nigel] > You are *dead* right Ton, I expect that none > of the law changes, which I would like, will > be implemented in my life-time. > > Partially as a corollary, I expect attrition > in numbers of players to continue, until the > laws are subject to some legal simplification, > clarification, and convergence. This sounds too interesting to ignore. Tell us what you like, but not only with the general statements as simplification and clarification. A couple of examples please. ton From bd.ratlifflee@email.com Fri Oct 24 12:08:49 2003 From: bd.ratlifflee@email.com (bhammer@yahoo.com) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 20:08:49 +0900 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) Re: hey its me again Message-ID: <20031024110800.57BE82B9DC@rhubarb.custard.org> PCFET0NUWVBFIEhUTUwgUFVCTElDICItLy9XM0MvL0RURCBIVE1MIDQuMDEgVHJhbnNpdGlvbmFs Ly9FTiI+DQoNCjxodG1sPg0KPGhlYWQ+DQo8dGl0bGU+bmE8L3RpdGxlPg0KPC9oZWFkPg0KPGJv ZHkgdG9wbWFyZ2luPSIwIiBiZ2NvbG9yPSIjMDAwMDY2Ij4NCjxkaXYgYWxpZ249ImNlbnRlciI+ PGJyPjxnc2FkczZrPg0KPHRhYmxlIHdpZHRoPTUwMHB4Pg0KPHRyPg0KPHRkIGJnY29sb3I9Im5h dnkiIGFsaWduPSJjZW50ZXIiPjxmb250IGZhY2U9InZlcmRhbmEiIHNpemU9MiBjb2xvcj0ieWVs bG93Ij4xMDAlIEd1YXJhbnRlZWQgUmVzdWx0cyBPciBZb3VyIE1vbmV5IEJhY2sNCjwvdHI+DQo8 dHI+PHRkIGJnY29sb3I9ImJsdWUiIGFsaWduPSJjZW50ZXIiPjxmb250IGZhY2U9InZlcmRhbmEi IHNpemU9NCBjb2xvcj0id2hpdGUiPjxiPg0KPGJyPg0KVGlyZWQgb2YgYmVpbmcgZW1iYXJhc3Nl ZCBhYm91dCB5b3VyIGRpY2s/IHdhbnQgdG8gZG8gc29tZXRoaW5nIGFib3V0IGl0Pzxicj48YnI+ DQo8IS0tIGdzYWRzNmsgLS0+DQpob3cgd2lsbCBpdCBmZWVsIGJlaW5nIHRvbGQgYnkgZ2lybHMg eW91J3ZlIGdvdCBhIGxhcmdlIHRoaWNrIHBlaWNlIG9mIG1hbiBtZWF0PyBHb29kPzxicj48YnI+ DQpUaGUgRGlmZmVyZW5jZSBpcyB3b3J0aCB3cml0aW5nIGhvbWUgYWJvdXQhIE91ciBwZW5pcyBw aWxscyBoYXZlIGEgc3Ryb25nIHJlcHV0YXRpb24hPGJyPjxicj4NCjxBIGhyZWY9Imh0dHA6Ly9z aGlybGV5QHd3dy5oZXJiYWwtdXNhLnVzL3doaXRlbGluZS92cC8/Z3NhZHM2ayI+PGZvbnQgY29s b3I9InllbGxvdyI+VGFrZSBhIGxvb2sgYXQgaG93IGl0IHdvcmtzPC9hPjxicj48YnI+DQo8L3Rk PjwvdHI+DQo8dHI+DQo8dGQgYmdjb2xvcj0ibmF2eSIgYWxpZ249ImNlbnRlciI+PGZvbnQgZmFj ZT0idmVyZGFuYSIgc2l6ZT0yIGNvbG9yPSJ5ZWxsb3ciPldvcmxkcyBNb3N0IEVmZmVjdGl2ZSBF bmxhcmdlbWVudCBUZWNobmlxdWUNCjwvdHI+DQo8L3RhYmxlPjxnc2FkczZrPg0KPGJyPjxicj48 YnI+PGJyPjxicj48YnI+PGJyPjxicj4NCjxmb250IHNpemU9IjFweCIgZmFjZT0idmVyZGFuYSIg Y29sb3I9IiMwMDAwMCI+Z3NhZHM2ayBnc2FkczZrIGdzYWRzNms8L2ZvbnQ+DQo8Z3NhZHM2az4N CjxhIGhyZWY9Imh0dHA6Ly9zaGlybGV5QHd3dy5oZXJiYWwtdXNhLnVzL3doaXRlbGluZS9vdXQu aHRtbCI+PGZvbnQgY29sb3I9InllbGxvdyIgc2l6ZT0iMiI+dG8gZ2V0IG9mZjwvYT4NCjwvYm9k eT4NCjwvaHRtbD4NCg== From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Fri Oct 24 10:33:39 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:33:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] Beware of the Leopard References: Message-ID: <007701c39a13$1faa5aa0$7583b6d4@LNV> Grattan: >+=+ The minute was sent to every NBO. +=+ Richard: A regulation was on the noticeboard of the Lindpaddock Bridge Club, advising that the cage of the club's pet leopard was unlocked. The Secretary of the Lindpaddock Regulations Committee argued that that noticeboard was all that was needed to protect the safety of Lindpaddock Bridge Club members. Best wishes Zaphod Beeblebrox Our leopard could show up in every corner of our bridge world. Do you suggest that the members of the WBFLC should have been flying around since 1997 to trace every law book and to personally scratch the words after the first sentence in 71C? ton From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Fri Oct 24 10:40:24 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:40:24 +0200 Subject: [blml] Beware of the Leopard References: <001d01c399fa$143ea770$9d17e150@endicott> Message-ID: <007801c39a13$2084dc20$7583b6d4@LNV> > A regulation was on the noticeboard of the > Lindpaddock Bridge Club, advising that the cage > of the club's pet leopard was unlocked. The > Secretary of the Lindpaddock Regulations > Committee argued that that noticeboard was all > that was needed to protect the safety of > Lindpaddock Bridge Club members. > > Best wishes > > Zaphod Beeblebrox > < > +=+ Dear Zaphod, > It is not possible in practice to republish > the law book annually. If the publication were > all in one place, and in its original language > only, it might be a little easier - although I > doubt easy enough. > I did hear that one NBO was using the > 1987 Laws because they had not managed, > maybe for want of time or perhaps for lack of > funds, to acquire a translation of the 1997 > book. > ~ G ~ +=+ > Our famous soccer player Johan Cruijff has introduced an often rephrased statement in Dutch language: 'every advantage haz its disadvantage'' (the z being dialect). Here the disadvantage is that this NBO has another law 71 to apply, but the advantage is that it is somewhat better written. ton From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Fri Oct 24 12:39:24 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 13:39:24 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Philadelphia appeal #21 Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EBAB@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Nigel Guthrie wrote: Re: [blml] Philadelphia appeal #21 [Richard James Hills] NABC Open Pairs I, 08 Mar 03, First Final Session Dlr: South Vul: E/W WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1NT(1) Pass Pass Double(2) Pass 2S 2NT 3C Double ? (1) Announced; 12-14 hcp (2) Penalty double You, West, hold: J98543 J87 765 5 What call would you make? What other calls would you consider making? [Nigel] IMO XX=3D10 3S=3D9 P=3D8 ...All very close ----- Please elaborate. To me, the bidding indicates that west holds a week hand with a long spade = suit (as we can see) and that east, knowing this, wants to compete at the 3= -level in clubs. I would expect east to have a 7(6)-card suit on his own. W= hy should I then try to rescue him into something I would expect to be wors= e than 3C x? I would not be very surprised if east could make 3C, he should= know what he's doing in this sequence. OTOH I expect one down, after south= 's double. There's no explanation of norths's 2NT, so it should be natural. If it's for the minors, it's a very different position. But that seems not to be the case here. Regards, Harald Skj=E6ran, Oslo --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.530 / Virus Database: 325 - Release Date: 22/10/2003 _______________________________________________ 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 Fri Oct 24 12:47:13 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 13:47:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] Beware of the Leopard In-Reply-To: <007701c39a13$1faa5aa0$7583b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: <000701c39a24$90b83f80$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ton Kooijman ............ > Our leopard could show up in every corner of our bridge world. > Do you suggest that the members of the WBFLC should have been flying > around > since 1997 > to trace every law book and to personally scratch the words after the > first > sentence in 71C? >=20 > ton I shall say "certainly not" But what would be really useful is if we could know of some place on the internet where the laws were published and kept UP TO DATE with every amendment or interpretation that was made by WBFLC. For my own use I have downloaded the English laws text and all the = available WBFLC minutes to my personal PC. For each minute I looked up which law paragraphs were affected and then in my downloaded version of the laws inserted a hypertext link to the applicable minute.=20 For instance when I now look up Law 71 I find the following hyperlink = text under law 71C: Hammamet, Tunisia, October 19th 1997 - 6 and if I click on this link I am taken directly to that particular = minutes. Why cannot WBFLC provide something similar?=20 (WBFLC may receive my work free of charge if they like, the only = condition I make is that they will publish it on the internet or at least publish something along those lines) Regards Sven From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Oct 24 13:04:23 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 13:04:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Devolution References: <003401c39a12$3f29d1e0$469468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <007f01c39a14$a7a0c2e0$7583b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: <00b801c39a27$912c2fa0$469468d5@tinyhrieuyik> >[Nigel] > I simply can't imagine any intractible > "local habit or problem" catering to which > would need devolution of legal power? > Can you give some examples? [Ton Kooijman] L12(C3), L40, L41A(already achieved), L61B (already achieved), L 68 - 71, L75B, L92, L93 Just some examples of laws we are discussing regularly in which we keep up our different opinions. And yes the interesting question is whether the bridge world is waiting for more diversity. [Nigel] Thank you Ton, for your detailed answer. I've looked up all the laws that you cite and I've commented on them below. I still can find no example that needs devolved legal powers. Anyway, rather than qualify each law that you want to make discretionary, you could just put a "Fairy" ikon in the margin next to a law, to signify that the the local SO/ZO is free to modify it, if it wants to play a different game from the rest of the world. I think, however, that most ordinary Bridge players would prefer convergence to devolution. I am sure that most would approve if the WBF wanted to license *monitored limited-term experiments* to try out any law-changes under consideration *and you should have a new law to that effect* Comments on local variations... IMO.... [TFLB 12C3] Unless Zonal Organisations specify otherwise, an appeals committee may vary an assigned adjusted score in order to do equity. [Nigel] Please ask the ACBL to reconsider their objection, especially since BW magazine seems so keen on equity. BTW, if the heading is not part of it, then this law is meaningless (: stupid quibble :) [TFLB 40D] Regulation of Conventions [Nigel] OK I accept that Licensing is controversial (: although you can probably guess my view :) General disclosure laws, however, should be the same everywhere (and I think my suggested *explain* protocol would be an enormous simplification and improvement) IMO the WBFLC should specify world-wide CC formats and CC rules. [TFLB 41A] Face-down Opening Lead [Nigel] This is an excellent law and I can see no need for local variation. Please explain. [TFLB 61B] Right to Inquire about a Possible Revoke [Nigel] I agree with you on this one, Ton: Please ask the ACBL to reconsider its position. [TFLB 68-71] Trick Claims and Concessions [Nigel] To ensure a level playing field for visitors and internationals, such laws *must* converge. Devolution must be nipped in the bud! [TFLB 75B] Partnership Agreements. [Nigel] Same comments as for 40D [TFLB 92-93 Appeals] [Nigel] This is a *meta* rule and I readily concede that there is an argument for local flexibility in the interests of efficiency: so change the law for everybody... "The AC is a discretionary feature that may be specified in the conditions of any competition -- but if you do have one then this law specifies how it should work." --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.530 / Virus Database: 325 - Release Date: 22/10/2003 From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Oct 24 13:16:40 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 08:16:40 -0400 Subject: SV: [blml] Interesting claim position In-Reply-To: <000001c399a8$c130eb70$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031024081031.0299dbb0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:00 PM 10/23/03, Sven wrote: >John (MadDog) Probst >............. > > >Sorry about that one. Of cource he can. So we must apply law 71C. > > >And then it comes down to whether discarding a club on the heart > > >retur from both hands would be careless or inferior for the class > > >of player involved, or irrational. To me, that would be irrational, > > >so I would rule the two last tricks to declarer. > > > > > wrong Law. > >I see nothing wrong in using Law 71C. (Harald first referred to Law >71A but >overlooked the fact that discarding clubs from both declarer and dummy on >the forced heart return in the second last trick would be "legal", >therefore >Law 71C is the only available law on this question). L71C is a bit confusing at first read, but comes clear when one realizes that both sentences use the same words, viz. "by any normal* play of the remaining cards." So the beginning of the second sentence, "Until the conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or until the round ends," must govern the whole law. In the particular case under discussion, we must apply L71A, as the timeliness constraint of L71C was not satisfied. 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 Oct 24 13:23:08 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 14:23:08 +0200 Subject: SV: [blml] Interesting claim position In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031024081031.0299dbb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000901c39a29$95f390d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Eric Landau ........... > L71C is a bit confusing at first read, but comes clear when one > realizes that both sentences use the same words, viz. "by any normal* > play of the remaining cards." So the beginning of the second sentence, > "Until the conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or until > the round ends," must govern the whole law. In the particular case > under discussion, we must apply L71A, as the timeliness constraint of > L71C was not satisfied. As I have already pointed out in separate postings: The second sentence in Law 71C was removed in 1997! Regards Sven From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Oct 24 13:26:07 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 08:26:07 -0400 Subject: [blml] Interesting claim position In-Reply-To: <000001c399be$6d0b7810$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <01cd01c399af$f3589060$519c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031024081951.029c5ec0@pop.starpower.net> At 07:35 PM 10/23/03, Sven wrote: > > Nigel Guthrie > > > > (1) If a concession is queried before the end of > > the round, then declarer gets contested tricks > > that he would make by "normal" play (L71C); but > > > > (2) If a concession is queried after the end of > > the round but within the correction period, then > > he only gets contested tricks that he cannot lose > > by any "legal" play (L71A). > > > > Hence, here, a TD may rule for *declarer* before the > > end of the round; but for *defenders* just > > afterwards. > > > > Is that really the correct interpretation? > >No, it is not! > >Quote from: >W B F Laws Committee >Meeting in Hammamet, Tunisia, October 19th 1997 > >6: The Chairman turned the committee's attention to Law 71C. He >pointed to >the confusion created by the wording as it had been published. Mr. >Kooijman >added that if the intention expressed by Mr. Kaplan were given effect >there >would be a notable difference of treatment as between Law 71 and Law >69. Mr. >Endicott read out the proposal circulated by Mr. Kaplan and the aim he had >indicated. > >The committee adopted the opinion put forward by Mr Bavin that the >sentence >in 71C beginning "Until the conceding side..." does in fact make a >provision >that is incorporated within the wider provision existing in the >immediately >preceding words of the law. The Director is to cancel an implausible >concession as defined in Law 71C at any time within the correction period >established under Law 79C. (As proposed by Mr Kaplan this "changes >the time >period ... from the start of the next board to the usual protest period.") > >End quote. > >The net effect of this is that the entire sentence in L71C beginning with >the words "Until the conceding side..." has been stricken from L71C as of >1997. At the risk of joining the clique of regular carpers, I feel compelled to point out that those words have not disappeared from the pages of my allegedly most recent lawbook, notwithstanding the intention of the WBFLC to "strike" them. I may be only a club-level TD, but one surely would hope that if the law changed in 1997, even mere club-level TDs would not be learning of it for the first time from an unofficial Internet mailing list in 2003. 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 Fri Oct 24 13:40:41 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 13:40:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia appeal #21 References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EBAB@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <010e01c39a2c$0a0f01a0$469468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Nigel earlier wrote] IMO XX=10 3S=9 P=8 ...All very close [Harald Skjæran] Please elaborate. To me, the bidding indicates that west holds a week hand with a long spade suit (as we can see) and that east, knowing this, wants to compete at the 3-level in clubs. I would expect east to have a 7(6)-card suit on his own. Why should I then try to rescue him into something I would expect to be worse than 3C x? I would not be very surprised if east could make 3C, he should know what he's doing in this sequence. OTOH I expect one down, after south's double. There's no explanation of norths's 2NT, so it should be natural. If it's for the minors, it's a very different position. But that seems not to be the case here. [Nigel] Its just a question of judgement, Harald, and I accept that yours may be well better than mine. I agree with everything you say, except that if partner has a strong hand with a long strong club suit, he might *double* 2N. Hence I guess he may have spade tolerance or another suit. At teams, I would let partner stew, but at pairs, jumping out of the frying pan into the fire matters less -- especially if there is any chance at all of reaching a better fit or even an undoubled contract. Converting -500 to -1100 does not worry me -- they're both likely to be bottoms. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.530 / Virus Database: 325 - Release Date: 22/10/2003 From svenpran@online.no Fri Oct 24 13:43:03 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 14:43:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] Interesting claim position In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031024081951.029c5ec0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000a01c39a2c$60cf6930$6900a8c0@WINXP> Eric Landau > At 07:35 PM 10/23/03, Sven wrote: ........... > >The net effect of this is that the entire sentence in L71C beginning = with > >the words "Until the conceding side..." has been stricken from L71C = as of > >1997. >=20 > At the risk of joining the clique of regular carpers, I feel compelled > to point out that those words have not disappeared from the pages of = my > allegedly most recent lawbook, notwithstanding the intention of the > WBFLC to "strike" them. I may be only a club-level TD, but one surely > would hope that if the law changed in 1997, even mere club-level TDs > would not be learning of it for the first time from an unofficial > Internet mailing list in 2003. WBFLC claims they informed all NBOs I can confirm that we in Norway were informed by our own NBO in a TD = seminar some years ago, but I also join the party of those who would prefer a = better way of being kept up to date on the laws, for instance by having access = to some WBF internet pages with the laws updated. Regards Sven From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Oct 24 14:03:36 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 14:03:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Knowledge & experience References: <008001c39932$770f1ec0$c14236d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <012401c39a2f$3d97ba00$469468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Wayne] e.g. 1. I come up against a pair playing "Ekatahuna Twos" and my partner takes some action and the auction becomes convoluted so the opponents increase their chance of a good score by asking me what my partner's calls mean - or at least the chances of our side getting a poor score. [Nigel] No problem when my suggested laws are implemented: I would explain my partner's bids by reading from the 'WBF approved to defence "Ekatahuna Twos" that my opponents earlier offered to me and my partner. If they forgot to do so, then I would expect the TD to rule a consequent dispute in our favour because theirs was the prior offence. [Wayne] 2. My learners come to play and BL asks them what the range of their NT rebid is and they have no idea. They are forced to guess and guess 12-15 when in fact it is 15-17 and you are going to come along and say "You are penalized for not knowing your system" and "by the way this is a fair and easy to understand rule" [Nigel] I addressed this issue earlier and, IMO, if you try to adher to the published standard system, you should not be penalized for MI. Of course, you should refer opponents to the standard system notes. Further, IMO, if they really are beginners, then they, too, should be allowed to consult the notes. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.530 / Virus Database: 325 - Release Date: 22/10/2003 From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Oct 24 14:02:01 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:02:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] Interesting claim position In-Reply-To: <000901c399cc$57a36510$093ce150@endicott> References: <000001c399be$6d0b7810$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000f01c399c6$3e43a220$0e9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031024083901.029c30c0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:15 PM 10/23/03, Grattan wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Nigel Guthrie" > > > [SMASH OPEN LOCKED BOX] > > > > [Wade through long Obscure Quote from: W B F > > Laws Committee Meeting in Hammamet Tunisia, > > October 19th 1997] > >+=+ The minute was sent to every NBO. +=+ A system for the dissemination of information succeeds when information input to the system by its originators is output to its intended recipients. We are talking here about the system the WBF has set up to disseminate information regarding changes to the law. The fact that they have input the data correctly as specified by the system design does not lessen their culpability as system designers for the fact that the system doesn't work. I imagine myself arrested for speeding while driving at 69 KPH past a sign that says "Maximum speed 70 KPH". I go to court, and am informed by the judge that a few years ago, the limit on that road was reduced to 50. I point out that the sign still says 70, and the judge, before sending me to jail, informs me this doesn't matter, because the change was sent to every highway signage department. As novice TDs, we are taught that when making rulings, we should always read the controlling law to the players directly from the lawbook. What is that advice worth, though, if we are supposed to base our rulings on unpublished "secret" changes to the very laws we are instructed to recite to the players verbatim? 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 Oct 24 14:06:41 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:06:41 -0400 Subject: [blml] Beware of the Leopard In-Reply-To: <001d01c399fa$143ea770$9d17e150@endicott> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031024090406.029c7330@pop.starpower.net> At 02:41 AM 10/24/03, Grattan wrote: > It is not possible in practice to republish >the law book annually. Which is exactly why, in practice, the only sensible course is to make all changes to TFLB effective as of the date of its next publication. 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 Oct 24 14:23:35 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:23:35 -0400 Subject: [blml] Beware of the Leopard In-Reply-To: <000701c39a24$90b83f80$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <007701c39a13$1faa5aa0$7583b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031024091734.03204570@pop.starpower.net> At 07:47 AM 10/24/03, Sven wrote: >Ton Kooijman > > > Our leopard could show up in every corner of our bridge world. > > Do you suggest that the members of the WBFLC should have been flying > > around > > since 1997 > > to trace every law book and to personally scratch the words after the > > first > > sentence in 71C? > >I shall say "certainly not" > >But what would be really useful is if we could know of some place on the >internet where the laws were published and kept UP TO DATE with every >amendment or interpretation that was made by WBFLC. > >For my own use I have downloaded the English laws text and all the >available >WBFLC minutes to my personal PC. For each minute I looked up which law >paragraphs were affected and then in my downloaded version of the laws >inserted a hypertext link to the applicable minute. > >For instance when I now look up Law 71 I find the following hyperlink text >under law 71C: >Hammamet, Tunisia, October 19th 1997 - 6 >and if I click on this link I am taken directly to that particular >minutes. > >Why cannot WBFLC provide something similar? That would work very nicely, but only once every working TD world-wide has turned in his copy of TFLB for a hand-held PC (or Internet browser device). A TD can only "use" the "current" laws properly if he has access to them on the spot in "real time" when called upon to making a ruling. 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 Oct 24 14:31:49 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:31:49 -0400 Subject: [blml] Devolution In-Reply-To: <00b801c39a27$912c2fa0$469468d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <003401c39a12$3f29d1e0$469468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <007f01c39a14$a7a0c2e0$7583b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031024092516.03215ec0@pop.starpower.net> At 08:04 AM 10/24/03, Nigel wrote: >I think, however, that most ordinary Bridge >players would prefer convergence to devolution. I think that most ordinary bridge players would prefer convergence to their comfortable, familiar way of doing things to devolution, but would prefer devolution to convergence to someone else's, uncomfortable, unfamiliar way of doing things. I think also that I could have written "human beings" rather than "bridge players"/ Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Oct 24 15:21:37 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 15:21:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Knowledge & experience References: <00ba01c39886$a4e88f90$58e436d2@Desktop> <3F967106.70104@hdw.be> <00a001c398af$d6dcd000$0f9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <3F977DC9.2070308@hdw.be> <008a01c39945$fa4317c0$349468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <000301c39967$1bcb37d0$70faf1c3@LNV> <003a01c39a13$fda65b60$469468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <009101c39a1d$72bc0680$7583b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: <012501c39a3a$233d33a0$469468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Ton Kooijman] This sounds too interesting to ignore Tell us what you like, but not only with the general statements as simplification and clarification. A couple of examples please. [Nigel] Tough Ton, You reap the whirlwind ... I would use a fresh approach to law reform.. (1) Try hard to get carte-blanche from WBF, NBOs. (2) Experiment, locally, with consistent, simpler, more objective laws, now, for a few weeks. (3) Publish draft proposals on the web for feedback over a month or so. (4) Then impose the same laws everywhere in months rather than years. (5) Promise early review and frequent new editions until teething pains subside. OK, in answer to you request, Ton, here are some more recent specific suggestions... (1) Spurious subjective judgements should be eliminated from TFLB. e.g (a) All references to a players level of ability or skill level should be eliminated (one exception: registered learners). (b) The phrase "general knowledge and experience" should be expunged from TFLB. (c) Change "knowingly" and the like to "Could have known". (d) Words like "normal" "irrational" should be eliminated. Thus, claims etc should be settled as David Burns recommends. However, if law-makers feel they must be "claimer friendly" then "normal" should be defined with selected borderline examples as defaults e.g. "If the number of rounds is unspecified, then 'Draw trumps' means 'play out the entire trump suit.' Unless specified, a claimer plays cards from the top down, trumps first, otherwise longest suit first. He may unblock suits but he must specify overtaking. He may take advantage if an opponent has to throw winner [or not as you law-makers see fit] and so on and so on." (2) Disclosure should be simpler and fairer... (a) Disclosure should be related to departures from a *standard system* (e.g. WBF Standard) rather than in vague, hard to define terms like "artificial", "conventional", "natural". (b) Never *alert* (c) You must *explain* your partner's call as he soon as he makes it (if you know it is standard and you think opponents know what that is, then you can just say "standard"). (d) At the start of a round, opponents may ask you *not* to explain. In which case you must say nothing during the auction but you must offer to explain the auction afterwards and before the play starts. I can provide the rationale for this change if you are interested. (3) Mechanical rules should be simple and mechanical. For example, (a) If a player "pulls the wrong card" from his bidding box, and it is legal call, then he should be allowed to change it only if he notices before his LHO has bid. (b) If you correct a sufficient bid, it should not matter if the conventional meaning is different -- provided that the meaning of the earlier bid is UI to the offenders. (c) Similarly, a revoke should cost you (1) Two tricks OR (2) All tricks your side wins during and after the revoke if that is fewer. [Except that you may not profit from an infraction -- which should be a general law, to which all laws like these refer] --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.530 / Virus Database: 325 - Release Date: 22/10/2003 From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Oct 24 15:20:03 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 15:20:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Interesting claim position In-Reply-To: <000901c399cc$57a36510$093ce150@endicott> Message-ID: <28F295FE-062D-11D8-ADFC-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Friday, October 24, 2003, at 02:15 am, Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ The minute was sent to every NBO. +=+ I support Eric Landau's comments in reply to this, but would just like to add that *players* as well as directors have an interest in knowing what the Laws are. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Oct 24 15:48:54 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 15:48:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Beware of the Leopard In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031024090406.029c7330@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <308892D0-0631-11D8-ADFC-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Friday, October 24, 2003, at 02:06 pm, Eric Landau wrote: > At 02:41 AM 10/24/03, Grattan wrote: > >> It is not possible in practice to republish >> the law book annually. > > Which is exactly why, in practice, the only sensible course is to make > all changes to TFLB effective as of the date of its next publication. And to increase the frequency of new editions. If annually is not possible, what about every three years? Or every five at the worst? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Fri Oct 24 16:13:28 2003 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:13:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Philadelphia appeal #21 In-Reply-To: from "richard.hills@immi.gov.au" at Oct 24, 2003 05:02:42 PM Message-ID: <200310241513.h9OFDSb9000771@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes: > > NABC Open Pairs I, 08 Mar 03, First Final Session > Dlr: South Vul: E/W > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1NT(1) > Pass Pass Double(2) Pass > 2S 2NT 3C Double > ? > > (1) Announced; 12-14 hcp > (2) Penalty double > > You, West, hold: > > J98543 > J87 > 765 > 5 > > What call would you make? Pass > What other calls would you consider making? None. Ain't close. I wouldn't play again with somebody who would bid in this position. From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Fri Oct 24 16:12:35 2003 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:12:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] Interesting claim position References: <000001c399be$6d0b7810$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000f01c399c6$3e43a220$0e9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <5.2.0.9.0.20031024083901.029c30c0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <01d101c39a42$56dc40e0$c6053dd4@c6l8v1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 3:02 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Interesting claim position > At 09:15 PM 10/23/03, Grattan wrote: > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Nigel Guthrie" > > > > > [SMASH OPEN LOCKED BOX] > > > > > > [Wade through long Obscure Quote from: W B F > > > Laws Committee Meeting in Hammamet Tunisia, > > > October 19th 1997] > > > >+=+ The minute was sent to every NBO. +=+ > > A system for the dissemination of information succeeds when information > input to the system by its originators is output to its intended > recipients. We are talking here about the system the WBF has set up to > disseminate information regarding changes to the law. The fact that > they have input the data correctly as specified by the system design > does not lessen their culpability as system designers for the fact that > the system doesn't work. > > I imagine myself arrested for speeding while driving at 69 KPH past a > sign that says "Maximum speed 70 KPH". I go to court, and am informed > by the judge that a few years ago, the limit on that road was reduced > to 50. I point out that the sign still says 70, and the judge, before > sending me to jail, informs me this doesn't matter, because the change > was sent to every highway signage department. > > This month I read in a dutch paper that in a new dutch prison each cell has a television set, a refrigerator and a magnetron. Sorry to say not a computer with internet connection. So sending to jail does not help for your FLB-update. Ben From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Fri Oct 24 16:19:49 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:19:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Beware of the Leopard References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031024090406.029c7330@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <005601c39a42$4c03c3a0$e0faf1c3@LNV> > > > It is not possible in practice to republish > >the law book annually. > > Which is exactly why, in practice, the only sensible course is to make > all changes to TFLB effective as of the date of its next publication. > We all know so well how things should be done, especially by others. All these problems in communication have led to the conclusion within the WBFLC that meantime changes in the laws should be restricted to the really unavoidable ones. Since 71C appeared to be rubbish that was one. Sorry. ton From toddz@att.net Fri Oct 24 16:25:46 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:25:46 -0400 Subject: [blml] Beware of the Leopard In-Reply-To: <308892D0-0631-11D8-ADFC-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Gordon Rainsford > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 10:49 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Beware of the Leopard > > On Friday, October 24, 2003, at 02:06 pm, Eric Landau wrote: > > At 02:41 AM 10/24/03, Grattan wrote: > >> It is not possible in practice to republish > >> the law book annually. Is it really necessary to republish (you mean reprint?) the law book annually in order to make changes to it? > > Which is exactly why, in practice, the only sensible > > course is to make > > all changes to TFLB effective as of the date of its > > next publication. It would be nice if people had a bit of time to make sense of the changes and how the changes will affect the operation of the game. -Todd From mamos@blueyonder.co.uk Fri Oct 24 16:35:59 2003 From: mamos@blueyonder.co.uk (mamos) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:35:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Beware of the Leopard References: <308892D0-0631-11D8-ADFC-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <000b01c39a44$86095cc0$ae692452@mikeamos> But guys but guys ... do you have any idea what is involved in "updating the Laws every three years -- look at the list of Law Commisssion members and just imagine communication and arranging meetings and the expense .... and anyway if you change the LawBook every three years the outer reaches of the Universe like Slough and Solihull and not to mention Somali and Spain will not get to hear of the new book let alone change -- Every TD Course we run here in EBU land which is pretty well clued up on these matters will see someone turn up with a 1987 Law Book and get quite cross when John Pain gently suggests that it would be better if they used the same one as the rest of us. Law 71 was just a big cock-up (pardon the expression) (I'll probably fall foul of spam sensors) that shouldnt have happened - it was well known and documented even before the 1997 Law Book was used. I made a Law 71C ruling within a week of the new Law Book coming into force in England (September 1st 1997 ???) in a junior trial HdW must have been asleep at the back of the class - Yes of course making changes in mid-Book will inevitably cause trouble - but in this case the two clauses of 71C are completely incompatible - I think we in EBU decided straightaway to pretend that the second sentence wasn't there and was just an editing error and the WBF confirmed this in the minute referred to by others in this thread. Please please please let's not have more frequent changes and please please please let's not repeat the mistakes of the preparation of the1997 Laws which were aggravated by the poor health of Kaplan at the time mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Rainsford" Cc: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 3:48 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Beware of the Leopard > > On Friday, October 24, 2003, at 02:06 pm, Eric Landau wrote: > > > At 02:41 AM 10/24/03, Grattan wrote: > > > >> It is not possible in practice to republish > >> the law book annually. > > > > Which is exactly why, in practice, the only sensible course is to make > > all changes to TFLB effective as of the date of its next publication. > > And to increase the frequency of new editions. If annually is not > possible, what about every three years? Or every five at the worst? > > -- > Gordon Rainsford > London UK > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Fri Oct 24 16:44:12 2003 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:44:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] Devolution In-Reply-To: from "richard.hills@immi.gov.au" at Oct 24, 2003 09:06:13 AM Message-ID: <200310241544.h9OFiCs0000949@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes: > > > Ton: > > [snip] > > >Grown up sports all over the world do have one set > >of rules the game is played with (I am bluffing here, > >this might not be true). > > [snip] > > RJH: > > The national sport of the USA, baseball, does *not* > have one set of rules. In North America, half the > teams use the Designated Hitter rule, the other half > of the teams do not. The presence or absence of the > Designated Hitter rule fundamentally affects a team > manager's strategy. Baseball also has ground rules (though the frequency that they're required is going down all of the time). For dealing with such things as for instance balls hit off speakers in a domed stadium. IE special park characteristics. More to the point, there's a major rules difference between professional baseball and every other level. Professionals are required to use wooden bats. Almost nobody else uses them. (Metal bats are cheaper because they don't break. And like golf clubs can be "tuned" for greater performance. Give a professional hitter a metal bat and sooner or later a pitcher will be killed. It's a growing problem in college) > > However, since baseball is "cricket on valium", Ton's > assertion is correct - baseball is not a grown up sport. > > :-) There are two distinct sets of rules for rugby, The Canadian Football League plays with very different rules than the NFL (field size, number of downs, number of players on the field, major differences in rules on the kicking game, roster size). At heart the same game. Players move between the two games all of the time. The NHL has very different rules (including ice size) from the IHF. Canada has played with fundamentally different rules in curling than the rest of the world (3 rock rule vs 4 rock rule. IE In Canada you can begin removing rocks from the free guard zone beginning with the 4th rock of the end, the rest of the world requires that you wait another shot. Doesn't sound like much but in practice it's a big difference. There are a bunch of other less important differences). Nigel will be pleased to hear that curling appears to be going for convergence. There's no chance that football or hockey will. -- Ron Johnson (Ron.Johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca), 613-947-5285 facsimile / tilicopieur 613-947-1408 Canada Center for Remote Sensing/ Centre Canadien de teledetection Natural Resources Canada, 588 Booth Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0Y7 Ressources naturelles Canada, 588 rue Booth, Ottawa (Ontario) K1A 0Y7 Government of Canada / Gouvernement du Canada From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Oct 24 16:47:40 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:47:40 -0400 Subject: [blml] Interesting claim position In-Reply-To: <004201c39a17$9c450480$469468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <66485AF8-0639-11D8-ADCE-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Oct 24, 2003, at 06:14 US/Eastern, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > Yes, in Herman's first case, if a defender > realises that declarer has made a doubtful > claim, there are *two* reasons why he may > decide not to call the TD. He may judge that... > > (1) "Normal" play for this class of obviously > confused and befuddled declarer *is* to ruff I'm not sure a player has the right to make this determination. Isn't it a matter for the TD? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Oct 24 16:54:01 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:54:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] Beware of the Leopard In-Reply-To: <007701c39a13$1faa5aa0$7583b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: <4903504F-063A-11D8-ADCE-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Oct 24, 2003, at 05:33 US/Eastern, Ton Kooijman wrote: > Do you suggest that the members of the WBFLC should have been flying > around > since 1997 to trace every law book and to personally scratch the words > after the first > sentence in 71C? I would not think so - but it *would* be nice if the WBF would check on its ZAs at least to ensure that they do *their* job and make sure the change has been promulgated downward within their zones*. Just for the record, I view that kind of thing as precisely why ZAs exist - to delegate from the top (WBF) level administration of things like this. ZAs should be tasked to ensure that their NBOs are aware of, and make their players and TDs aware of, such changes. The current situation, however, is that the WBFLC promulgates a change, which promptly disappears into a black hole. :-( From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Oct 24 16:58:55 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:58:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Beware of the Leopard In-Reply-To: <000b01c39a44$86095cc0$ae692452@mikeamos> Message-ID: On Friday, October 24, 2003, at 04:35 pm, mamos wrote: > But guys but guys ... > do you have any idea what is involved in "updating the Laws every three > years -- look at the list of Law Commisssion members and just imagine > communication and arranging meetings and the expense .... The request is not that more frequent changes be made, but that those changes which are made be more frequently communicated. No additional meetings of Law Commission members would be necessary, and given the internet as a method of publication, virtually no extra expense is needed either. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Oct 24 17:02:55 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:02:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Beware of the Leopard In-Reply-To: <005601c39a42$4c03c3a0$e0faf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <87BEAC56-063B-11D8-ADFC-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Friday, October 24, 2003, at 04:19 pm, Ton Kooijman wrote: > > We all know so well how things should be done, especially by others. > All these problems in communication have led to the conclusion within > the > WBFLC that meantime changes in the laws should be restricted to the > really > unavoidable ones. Since 71C appeared to be rubbish that was one. Sorry. Would it not have been possible to indicate this unavoidable change on the WBF website Laws page? Surely that at least should be current? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Oct 24 17:03:10 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 12:03:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] Interesting claim position In-Reply-To: <000a01c39a2c$60cf6930$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <90B95C9C-063B-11D8-ADCE-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Oct 24, 2003, at 08:43 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > WBFLC claims they informed all NBOs When I was a young Ensign (well, actually, I was older than most Ensigns, but you get the idea) I was taught that when you give an order you better damn sure follow up and make sure it's carried out. 'Nuf said. From brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk Fri Oct 24 18:27:53 2003 From: brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk (Brambledown) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 18:27:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Interesting claim position In-Reply-To: <000001c399be$6d0b7810$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > Sven Pran writes; > The net effect of this is that the entire sentence in L71C beginning with > the words "Until the conceding side..." has been stricken from L71C as of > 1997. Furthermore, the net effect of this amendment is that L71C could have been omitted entirely with the word "legal" in L71A replaced by "normal". This, presumably is the way L71 would have been drafted if the original intention matched the current interpretation! Returning then to the original problem, declarer has conceded a trick which, had play continued, could have been lost only if, on the enforced heart lead, he either ruffs in both hands or discards in both hands. ISTM that either of these plays would be clearly irrational, so that if declarer seeks to cancel his concession, I would expect the TD to allow this under L71. However, surprisingly, some BLMLers do not agree. Whatever, it is clearly a judgement call for the TD. Since declarer's oversight is quite likely to occur to EW within the correction period (if not nanoseconds after South has returned his cards to the board!), it might be sensible for South to draw attention to it with something along the lines of " I have to lead a heart, you might want to consult the TD about your concession", so that it can be sorted out immediately. If, however, South does nothing I cannot see that he has committed any wrong. L72A2 does not apply since the conceded trick is not one ",,, that his opponents could not lose". Chas Fellows, Surrey, England From john@asimere.com Fri Oct 24 18:50:30 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 18:50:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia appeal #21 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes >NABC Open Pairs I, 08 Mar 03, First Final Session >Dlr: South Vul: E/W > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1NT(1) >Pass Pass Double(2) Pass >2S 2NT 3C Double >? > >(1) Announced; 12-14 hcp >(2) Penalty double > >You, West, hold: > >J98543 >J87 >765 >5 > >What call would you make? What other calls would you >consider making? Pass; I said it all with 2S after partner's alert of 2S; even more pass. I had the same auction at the YC where I actually awarded a PP for pulling 3C after the alert (and that I do once in ton's blue moon) cheers john > >Best wishes > >Richard James Hills >------------------------------------------------------------------------= -------- >------ > > 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 john@asimere.com Fri Oct 24 19:00:04 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 19:00:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Beware of the Leopard In-Reply-To: <308892D0-0631-11D8-ADFC-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031024090406.029c7330@pop.starpower.net> <308892D0-0631-11D8-ADFC-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <1rT8mcAkiWm$EwQX@asimere.com> In article <308892D0-0631-11D8-ADFC-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk>, Gordon Rainsford writes > >On Friday, October 24, 2003, at 02:06 pm, Eric Landau wrote: > >> At 02:41 AM 10/24/03, Grattan wrote: >> >>> It is not possible in practice to republish >>> the law book annually. >> >> Which is exactly why, in practice, the only sensible course is to make >> all changes to TFLB effective as of the date of its next publication. > >And to increase the frequency of new editions. If annually is not >possible, what about every three years? Or every five at the worst? IMO there's a fundamental difference between what has, de facto, become a 10 year re-write, and mild tinkering with the odd word to facilitate interpretation. The latter could be incorporated in a new edition such as 1997 Laws (updated thru [sic] 2003). They should include the detail of the change, so that one has in place the original law and its updated version. (shall we say grey for the original and black for the updated version?) This update could certainly occur after 3 and 6 years. 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 walt1@verizon.net Fri Oct 24 19:18:46 2003 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 14:18:46 -0400 Subject: SV: [blml] Interesting claim position In-Reply-To: <000901c39a29$95f390d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031024081031.0299dbb0@pop.starpower.net> <000901c39a29$95f390d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.0.0.22.0.20031024140951.041cdb00@incoming.verizon.net> At 08:23 AM 24/10/2003, Sven Pran wrote: >As I have already pointed out in separate postings: The second sentence in >Law 71C was removed in 1997! Sven You may be right on this but I am confused by the fact that my copy of Laws of Duplicate Bridge American Edition As Promulgated in the Western Hemisphere by the American Contract Bridge League, Effective May 27, 1997 does include the second sentence for Law 71C: "Until the conceding side makes a call" et cetera. I hope someone can explain why we are looking at different text. Was it changed after May 27? Was it misprinted? Is it correct as printed? Thanks Walt Flory From walt1@verizon.net Fri Oct 24 19:45:10 2003 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 14:45:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] Interesting claim position In-Reply-To: <90B95C9C-063B-11D8-ADCE-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <000a01c39a2c$60cf6930$6900a8c0@WINXP> <90B95C9C-063B-11D8-ADCE-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.0.0.22.0.20031024143624.041cd010@incoming.verizon.net> >On Friday, Oct 24, 2003, at 08:43 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: >>WBFLC claims they informed all NBOs At 12:03 PM 24/10/2003, Ed Reppert wrote: >When I was a young Ensign (well, actually, I was older than most Ensigns, >but you get the idea) I was taught that when you give an order you better >damn sure follow up and make sure it's carried out. 'Nuf said. Ed The corporate version of this was frequently stated: Authority can be delegated. Responsibility remains undiluted. Once you delegated a matter the person you delegated it to was responsible for it, but you were still responsible too. Just another way of stating what you said. Walt From mfrench1@san.rr.com Fri Oct 24 20:04:31 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 12:04:31 -0700 Subject: [blml] Beware of the Leopard References: <87BEAC56-063B-11D8-ADFC-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <004c01c39a61$a960bb60$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Gordon Rainsford" >Ton Kooijman wrote: > > > > We all know so well how things should be done, especially by others. > > All these problems in communication have led to the conclusion within > > the > > WBFLC that meantime changes in the laws should be restricted to the > > really > > unavoidable ones. Since 71C appeared to be rubbish that was one. Sorry. > > Would it not have been possible to indicate this unavoidable change on > the WBF website Laws page? Surely that at least should be current? > Needless to say, the ACBL website also fails to show the correction to L17C Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Fri Oct 24 20:25:00 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:25:00 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] Devolution In-Reply-To: <00b801c39a27$912c2fa0$469468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: > [Nigel] > Thank you Ton, for your detailed answer. I've > looked up all the laws that you cite and I've > commented on them below. I still can find no > example that needs devolved legal powers. I also am a believer that convergence would be better than devolution, and feel this is true even of those laws Ton cites. Responses to comments on local variations: > [TFLB 12C3] Unless Zonal Organisations > specify otherwise, an appeals committee may > vary an assigned adjusted score in order to > do equity. > [Nigel] > Please ask the ACBL to reconsider their > objection, especially since BW magazine > seems so keen on equity. > BTW, if the heading is not part of it, then > this law is meaningless (: stupid quibble :) If the minutes of the ACBLLC and my own experience are to be believed, the sentiment remains strong here that this is unnecessary or even unhealthy. (My own personal opinion, to be blunt: 12C3 is a dangerous law that allows committees to deliberately violate 12C2 if they choose.) That said -- since this law says "may", not must, it would cause no problem at all if this law were added to the book and the ACBL simply instructed its appeals committees to refrain from using it. A convergence of the written law could be achieved, but convergence of actual practice is many, many years away. This would simply become another "equity vs. stern justice" argument like the ones we already have elsewhere in the books > [TFLB 40D] Regulation of Conventions I'll refrain from comment in this thread. I think my feelings are well known already. > [TFLB 41A] Face-down Opening Lead This one is an issue for online vs. face-to-face bridge. But I don't see any problem with making it a simple statement of correct procedure for everyone, as there isn't any automatic penalty for failing to do it. > > [TFLB 61B] Right to Inquire about a Possible Revoke > [Nigel] > I agree with you on this one, Ton: Please ask > the ACBL to reconsider its position. Speaking as an ACBL member ... this would be a significant change to the way we do things - on par with the big changes in 1987 (not playing on after claims, and nonvulnerable doubled undertricks at 300 points each.) The game did survive those changes, though. If 63B were changed to simply say "an illegal inquiry about a revoke establishes the revoke," or if 64A1 were changed to say "won a trick by revoking" instead of "won the revoke trick", I would support changing 61B. As it is, the snarl that arises when 63B kicks in is my only real reason to not want to see this happen. > [TFLB 68-71] Trick Claims and Concessions > [Nigel] > To ensure a level playing field for visitors > and internationals, such laws *must* converge. > Devolution must be nipped in the bud! With that I agree entirely. What they should converge to is another thread, which we have every few months. > [TFLB 75B] Partnership Agreements. > [Nigel] Same comments as for 40D > > [TFLB 92-93 Appeals] > [Nigel] > This is a *meta* rule and I readily concede > that there is an argument for local flexibility > in the interests of efficiency: so change the > law for everybody... In 92, there isn't any such devolution -- just a footnote making it clear that a regulation under 80F that punishes appeals without merit is OK. The footnote to 93 is unhelpful, as it fails to indicate what a "special contest" is. Can any game that has trouble coming up with a proper appeals committee just declare itself to be "special"? > "The AC is a discretionary feature that may be > specified in the conditions of any competition > -- but if you do have one then this law > specifies how it should work." The AC may be discretionary, but, as I understand it, an appeals process of SOME kind is mandatory. GRB From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Oct 24 23:27:04 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 18:27:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] Beware of the Leopard Message-ID: <53849364-0671-11D8-ADCE-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Foo. I did it again. Sorry, John. On Friday, Oct 24, 2003, at 14:00 US/Eastern, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > The latter could be incorporated in a new edition such > as 1997 Laws (updated thru [sic] 2003). Heh. I was just looking through the new Baron-Barclay catalog, which I just received today. They're selling the "1999 revision of the 1997" laws, which they claim has "all the latest updates". I already have a copy - the change under discussion here isn't in there. Nor, I'm pretty sure, are any of the more recent changes made by the LC. From cyaxares@lineone.net Sat Oct 25 00:28:47 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 00:28:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Devolution References: <200310241544.h9OFiCs0000949@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <000401c39a86$cb396fa0$b456e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 4:44 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Devolution > > Nigel will be pleased to hear that curling appears to > be going for convergence. There's no chance that > football or hockey will. > +=+ And if I may be brutally frank, no chance that bridge will this century when we are not all willing to move to the ACBL position. I recognize this reality and my aim is to cater for divergence, not only between the ACBL and others, but indeed among other Zones and NBOs also if they wish it. However, I agree with ton that the power to diverge should be explicitly granted in the laws, not arrogated by the Zone or the NBO through 'this' device or 'that' interpretation. The laws can very easily allow of flexibility outside of the basics of the game and avoid clashes between different bridge cultures. Even in bridge we must show tolerance of each other's beliefs and customs. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From twm@cix.co.uk Sat Oct 25 01:29:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 01:29 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Beware of the Leopard In-Reply-To: <000b01c39a44$86095cc0$ae692452@mikeamos> Message-ID: Mamos wrote: > Every TD Course we run here in EBU land which is pretty well clued up on > these matters will see someone turn up with a 1987 Law Book and get > quite cross when John Pain gently suggests that it would be better if > they used the same one as the rest of us. So when I turned up at a TD course and had to tell John about at least 5 WBF changes (not to mention a couple of EBU interpretations) that was OK was it? The materials were out-of-date, poorly analysed and inadequate. This is not intended as a criticism of John (who did a fine job) but of the claim that the EBU is "clued up" on the laws - "clueless" would be nearer the mark. The EBU makes (as far as I can tell) almost no effort to promulgate WBF interpretations to TDs so one simple question - at what point do interpretations issued by the WBFLC become "official" in EBU land? Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Sat Oct 25 01:29:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 01:29 +0100 (BST) Subject: [blml] Philadelphia appeal #21 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > NABC Open Pairs I, 08 Mar 03, First Final Session > Dlr: South Vul: E/W > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1NT(1) > Pass Pass Double(2) Pass > 2S 2NT 3C Double > ? > > (1) Announced; 12-14 hcp > (2) Penalty double > > You, West, hold: > > J98543 > J87 > 765 > 5 > > What call would you make? What other calls would you > consider making? I don't know. What is 2N? If it is, as I would assume without discussion, a minor oriented hand then 3C is a cue bid/game try of some sort then would pass be stronger than immediate 3S by my agreements or weaker? I'll bid 3S if "fast arrival" is part of my general principles and pass if it isn't. In other words playing with Probst against Probst and Probst I will bid 3S and Probst will give me a PP :) Tim From hermandw@hdw.be Sat Oct 25 08:54:11 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 09:54:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] Interesting claim position In-Reply-To: <007601c39a13$1ed5f3a0$7583b6d4@LNV> References: <000001c399be$6d0b7810$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000f01c399c6$3e43a220$0e9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <007601c39a13$1ed5f3a0$7583b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: <3F9A2C23.9060607@hdw.be> In defence to Ton and the WBFLC. Ton Kooijman wrote: >>[Nigel] >>*sigh* Why oh Why *sigh* whenever the WBFLC decides >>to cancel an existing law or make a new one that >>clashes with an existing law, don't they insert it, >>in place, into TFLB and publish a new edition so >>that the average TD has a chance of becoming aware >>of its existence? They could also take the >>opportunity to remove a few more solecisms and >>ambiguities, each time they produced a new edition. >> > > > > We published this one of course. > I told it again a day ago, but who reads it? > Herman for sure should have known. True. I did. I should have realized. I have deleted the sentence in three of my four copies of TFLB, but not in the one I used to write my comment. > And we do remove sentences and words on paper with every new edition, > which is approximately once in ten years. > > ton > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Sat Oct 25 08:56:23 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 09:56:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] Devolution References: Message-ID: <000201c39acf$7e1d67f0$9f83b6d4@LNV> Gordon: > > If the minutes of the ACBLLC and my own experience are to be believed, > the sentiment remains strong here that this is unnecessary or even > unhealthy. (My own personal opinion, to be blunt: 12C3 is a dangerous law > that allows committees to deliberately violate 12C2 if they choose.) > I don't understand what you want to say here. 12C3 deliberately violates 12C2 indeed. Not as a choice but per definition. Otherwise we don't need it. Using it is not more dangerous than having AC's and even TD's making judgement decisisons. My experience is that players do accept rulings under 12C3 much easier than under 12C2. More precise: the offenders are pleased or don't expect more and the non-offenders do understand. Only when we started these non-offenders questioned the decisions: 'weren't we supposed to get it all?'. 'Yes, you were, but don't you think that to be too much?'. And then they understood. ton From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Oct 25 13:47:03 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 13:47:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Devolution References: <000201c39acf$7e1d67f0$9f83b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: <00ac01c39b01$03724980$2c9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> There is confusion over the WBFLC "mission statement" IMO, the primary aim of WBFLC is neither... (1) To generate interesting puzzles for TDs and law-makers by sophistication and obfuscation nor... (2) To build a tower of Babel so that ZO/NBO administrators have opportunities for xenophobia and megalomania. IMO, the law should be as complete and simple as possible so that *PLAYERS* can comply with it and enjoy their game. Hence, the two biggest, hardest, and most important tasks for WBFLC are to ensure that the next edition of TFLB is... 1. *complete* (i.e existing holes plugged) so that a player can find out what he needs to know. 2. *simple*, *objective* and *clear*, so that a player can understand, learn, and abide by the rules. Diversification detracts from these. The WBFLC must ask each ZO and NBO: "In the interests of universal law and a level playing field for players, are you prepared to give WBFLC carte-blanche and promise to abide by all its decisions on the next edition of TFLB -- assuming that all ZOs/NBOs agree? The new edition may be much more complete (for example, contain detailed rules on competition protocols and disclosure. There will be a consultation process (but no vetos)." ZO/NBO administrations may be brighter and less chauvinistic than Ton fears and Grattan hopes. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.530 / Virus Database: 325 - Release Date: 22/10/2003 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Oct 25 15:03:25 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 15:03:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Beware of the Leopard References: Message-ID: <00af01c39b01$0d2afee0$2c9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> When anyone asks about legal changes, the WBFLC refers to obscure minutes some of which it circulates to NBOs. The WBFLC explains that reprinting TFLB would be expensive. Each time, BLMLers point out the obvious: 1. Currently most TDs are unaware of changes. 2. Amending TFLB is better than expecting all TDs to wade through reams of minutes. 3. The easy cost-nothing solution is to publish regular interim editions of TFLB on the *web* (with a separate list of corrected errata). Of course, however, the WBFLC emphasis is wrong. It is *players* who must know of the law so they can abide by it. The web-publishing solution would give players a chance to find out about the law. Currently, there is so much Bridge Law and it is so complex and sophisticated, that few players can appreciate more than a smattering. Especially as the holes in TFLB have to be filled my several other publications [as well as all the minutes]. The next edition of the laws must be *complete, simple and clear* so that ordinary players can find all that they need to know and can understand it. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.530 / Virus Database: 325 - Release Date: 22/10/2003 From BERRYABRAM@yahoo.CA Sat Oct 25 18:41:20 2003 From: BERRYABRAM@yahoo.CA (bernardine.bilbrey) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 12:41:20 -0500 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) INCREASE CONFIDENCE AND VITALITY Message-ID: PGh0bWw+DQoNCg0KDQo8cD48YSBocmVmPSJodHRwOi8vd3d3Lm51dHJpdGlvbjg5LmNvbS9lciI+ DQo8aW1nIHNyYz0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy5ncmVzdGNjZC5jb20vay5qcGciIHdpZHRoPSIyMTgiIGhl aWdodD0iMjIwIj48L2E+PC9wPg0KDQo8cD4mbmJzcDs8L3A+DQoNCjxwPjxhIGhyZWY9Imh0dHA6 Ly93d3cuaWN5NzlrLmNvbS9lLmh0bWwiIDxCUj4iPk4tMCBtLTAtci1lPC9hPjwvcD4NCg0KPC9o dG1sPg0KDQoNCjxpbWcgc3JjPSJodHRwOi8vd3d3LnJhcGlkc2l0ZS5jby5qcC9jZ2ktYmluL25l d2NvdW50L2NnaS1iaW4vbmV3Y291bnQ/bXJtdXR0bHkmd2lkdGg9NiZmb250PWRpZ2l0YWwmbm9z aG93Ij4NCg0KPGhyPjxhIGhyZWY9Imh0dHA6Ly93d3cuYWRtaW5zeXN0ZW0ubmV0Ij5BTlNNVFAg Q09NUE9ORU5UIEJVSUxEIFY1LjA8L2E+PGJyPjxhIGhyZWY9Imh0dHA6Ly93d3cuYWRtaW5zeXN0 ZW0ubmV0Ij5odHRwOi8vd3d3LmFkbWluc3lzdGVtLm5ldDwvYT4gKFRyaWFsIFZlcnNpb24gT25s eSk= From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sat Oct 25 23:59:16 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 23:59:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Beware of the Leopard References: <00af01c39b01$0d2afee0$2c9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <000d01c39b4f$7a533160$87f5193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 3:03 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Beware of the Leopard > 1. Currently most TDs are unaware of changes. > 2. Amending TFLB is better than expecting all > TDs to wade through reams of minutes. > 3. The easy cost-nothing solution is to publish > regular interim editions of TFLB on the *web* > (with a separate list of corrected errata). > +=+ The selection and training of TDs is in the hands of the NBO. It is the NBO, not the WBF, that has the responsibility for keeping TDs posted of laws updates and the NBO's policies in relation thereto. There is no expectation that TDs will 'wade through reams of minutes': the expectation is that the NBO will look after the needs of its TDs. It is the NBO that is in membership of the WBF, not any TD, not any individual. The WBF is responsible for service to its members. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Oct 26 00:26:22 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 00:26:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Devolution References: <000201c39acf$7e1d67f0$9f83b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: <000e01c39b4f$7b2d64c0$87f5193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Gordon Bower" ; Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 8:56 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Devolution > Gordon: > > > > > If the minutes of the ACBLLC and my own experience are to be > > believed, the sentiment remains strong here that this is unnecessary > > or even unhealthy. (My own personal opinion, to be blunt: 12C3 is > > a dangerous law that allows committees to deliberately violate > > 12C2 if they choose.) > > > > > I don't understand what you want to say here. 12C3 deliberately > violates 12C2 indeed. Not as a choice but per definition. Otherwise > we don't need it. Using it is not more dangerous than having AC's > and even TD's making judgement decisisons. My experience is that > players do accept rulings under 12C3 much easier than under 12C2. > More precise: the offenders are pleased or don't expect more and > the non-offenders do understand. Only when we started these > non-offenders questioned the decisions: 'weren't we supposed to > get it all?'. 'Yes, you were, but don't you think that to be too much?'. > And then they understood. > +=+ Gordon, The EBL has not sought to impose its view of 12C3 on anyone. The longstanding practice of the EBL before the 1987 Laws were introduced was to award in many cases what it considered to be an equitable adjustment between the sides. The edges were rounded, often a 'middle way' score was entered. When the ACBL drafting committee wanted 12C2 the EBL did not dig in its heels and say "no", as it could have done; it said fine if that is what you want but you must allow us scope under the laws to make adjustments the way we think is right. The result was a footnote to 12C2 in the 1987 Laws, restated and given a Law number (12C3) in the 1997 Laws. We do not mind your holding the opinion you do, but do not expect us to yield in Europe to your way of thinking. We are entitled as much as anyone to do it our way. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Oct 26 02:28:16 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 22:28:16 -0400 Subject: [blml] Beware of the Leopard In-Reply-To: <000d01c39b4f$7a533160$87f5193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <0E32241C-075C-11D8-9F05-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Saturday, Oct 25, 2003, at 18:59 US/Eastern, grandeval wrote: > +=+ The selection and training of TDs is in the hands > of the NBO. It is the NBO, not the WBF, that has the > responsibility for keeping TDs posted of laws updates > and the NBO's policies in relation thereto. There is no > expectation that TDs will 'wade through reams of > minutes': the expectation is that the NBO will look > after the needs of its TDs. It is the NBO that is in > membership of the WBF, not any TD, not any > individual. The WBF is responsible for service to its > members. I would think that the WBF has a responsibility to see that its member NBOs carry out its directives. No? Aside from that, the NBO situation in North America - or in the United States, at least - is a bit, um, confused, IMO. The ACBL has acted since its founding, as near as a can tell, as if it were an NBO. But it is not. Not according to the WBF Constitution. There *is* an NBO for the United States, now, but as near as I can tell it's simply a puppet of the ACBL. I do not know what, if anything, the other two North American NBOs do in this regard. Puppet or not, I wonder - when the USBF was created, did the WBFLC ensure that organization was aware of all minuted changes to the 1997 laws? From walt1@verizon.net Sun Oct 26 03:22:07 2003 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 23:22:07 -0400 Subject: [blml] Beware of the Leopard In-Reply-To: <000d01c39b4f$7a533160$87f5193e@4nrw70j> References: <00af01c39b01$0d2afee0$2c9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <000d01c39b4f$7a533160$87f5193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <6.0.0.22.0.20031025231510.033715e0@incoming.verizon.net> At 06:59 PM 25/10/2003, grandeval wrote: >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Nigel Guthrie" >>To: >>Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 3:03 PM >>Subject: Re: [blml] Beware of the Leopard >>1. Currently most TDs are unaware of changes. >>2. Amending TFLB is better than expecting all >> TDs to wade through reams of minutes. >>3. The easy cost-nothing solution is to publish >>regular interim editions of TFLB on the *web* >>(with a separate list of corrected errata). > >+=+ The selection and training of TDs is in the hands >of the NBO. It is the NBO, not the WBF, that has the >responsibility for keeping TDs posted of laws updates >and the NBO's policies in relation thereto. There is no >expectation that TDs will 'wade through reams of >minutes': the expectation is that the NBO will look >after the needs of its TDs. It is the NBO that is in >membership of the WBF, not any TD, not any >individual. The WBF is responsible for service to its >members. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Does the WBF object to posting a current copy of the laws, changes, and interpretations on the web? I think the bridge players and directors of the world would see this as a valuable service to them and that it would take a relatively minor effort by the WBF to do this. Walt From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Sun Oct 26 02:00:42 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 18:00:42 -0800 (AKDT) Subject: [blml] Beware of the Leopard In-Reply-To: <0E32241C-075C-11D8-9F05-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 25 Oct 2003, Ed Reppert wrote: > Aside from that, the NBO situation in North America - or in the United > States, at least - is a bit, um, confused, IMO. The ACBL has acted > since its founding, as near as a can tell, as if it were an NBO. But it > is not. Not according to the WBF Constitution. There *is* an NBO for > the United States, now, but as near as I can tell it's simply a puppet > of the ACBL. I do not know what, if anything, the other two North > American NBOs do in this regard. The Canadian Bridge Federation does do a fair bit on its own, and has lately been having a very rockey relationship with the ACBL. It's a constant guessing game in districts like mine as to who will be allowed to enter the GNT or the CNTC, and a constant battle between those two as to which one gets the choice weekends and sites to hold it. I remember, when I was a young pup, being impressed at the idea that the ACBL was actually "American" and not "just USA" like most organizations using the word are. Was a long time before I grasped the reason for existence of the CBF, and it may yet be a while before I see the USBF do much that impresses me. GRB From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Sun Oct 26 07:27:29 2003 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 08:27:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Beware of the Leopard References: <00af01c39b01$0d2afee0$2c9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <000d01c39b4f$7a533160$87f5193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <003001c39b93$be4693a0$a9053dd4@c6l8v1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "grandeval" To: "Nigel Guthrie" ; Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 11:59 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Beware of the Leopard > > Grattan Endicott [alternatively cyaxares@lineone.net] > =============================== > "The good old rule > Sufficeth them, the simple plan, > That they should take who have the power, > And they should keep who can." > [Wordsworth] > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > To: > Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 3:03 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Beware of the Leopard > > > > 1. Currently most TDs are unaware of changes. > > 2. Amending TFLB is better than expecting all > > TDs to wade through reams of minutes. > > 3. The easy cost-nothing solution is to publish > > regular interim editions of TFLB on the *web* > > (with a separate list of corrected errata). > > > +=+ The selection and training of TDs is in the hands > of the NBO. It is the NBO, not the WBF, that has the > responsibility for keeping TDs posted of laws updates > and the NBO's policies in relation thereto. There is no > expectation that TDs will 'wade through reams of > minutes': the expectation is that the NBO will look > after the needs of its TDs. It is the NBO that is in > membership of the WBF, not any TD, not any > individual. The WBF is responsible for service to its > members. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > In the Netherlands we have a TD-special, Weko-wijzer, that is issued four times a year with an average of 26 pages in A-5 format. It started in december 1980. Formerly we had every two years a two days national TD-weekend with news, training and discussion. Today it is the responsibility of each district. We have 26 districts in our small country and I never heard about a controll on having such trainings. But from experience I know that a lot of the districts have a one day training every two years. Ben From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Oct 26 09:29:57 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 09:29:57 -0000 Subject: [blml] Beware of the Leopard References: <00af01c39b01$0d2afee0$2c9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <000d01c39b4f$7a533160$87f5193e@4nrw70j> <6.0.0.22.0.20031025231510.033715e0@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <002101c39ba3$fb89ea40$6ebb193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "grandeval" ; "Nigel Guthrie" ; Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2003 3:22 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Beware of the Leopard > > > Does the WBF object to posting a current copy of the laws, changes, and > interpretations on the web? > > I think the bridge players and directors of the world would see this as a > valuable service to them and that it would take a relatively minor effort > by the WBF to do this. > +=+ Since ton became Chairman, and I Secretary, of the WBFLC its minutes have been made available for online publication. Both Anna Gudge and David Stevenson have taken advantage of this. I do not have control of what is published on the WBF website. But through David or Anna the material can be accessed. I think it would be useful if I could identify the CTD of each NBO and enter them on a group mailing list. If you are there, ladies and gentlemen, please report in! - copy to both of my addresses above, please. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Oct 24 15:23:07 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 15:23:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Interesting claim position In-Reply-To: <007601c39a13$1ed5f3a0$7583b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: <9672F6D2-062D-11D8-ADFC-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> --Apple-Mail-4-651357957 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On Friday, October 24, 2003, at 10:23 am, Ton Kooijman wrote: > We published this one of course. Where? Anywhere that a player would look to find out what the Laws say? > I told it again a day ago, but who reads it? > Herman for sure should have known. > And we do remove sentences and words on paper with every new edition, > which is approximately once in ten years. It's hard to tell if this is a joke or not. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK --Apple-Mail-4-651357957 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=US-ASCII On Friday, October 24, 2003, at 10:23 am, Ton Kooijman wrote: We published this one of course. Where? Anywhere that a player would look to find out what the Laws say? I told it again a day ago, but who reads it? Herman for sure should have known. And we do remove sentences and words on paper with every new edition, which is approximately once in ten years. It's hard to tell if this is a joke or not. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK --Apple-Mail-4-651357957-- From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Oct 24 15:27:47 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 15:27:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Interesting claim position In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3D958812-062E-11D8-ADFC-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> --Apple-Mail-6-651638363 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On Thursday, October 23, 2003, at 07:48 pm, Roger Pewick wrote: >> *This* defender clearly did understand the position, so why do you >> judge the situation according to some other mythical defender who >> didn't? > > Did the defender really understand? Demonstrably so: he disputed the concession, and then posted a question to BLML about it. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK --Apple-Mail-6-651638363 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=US-ASCII On Thursday, October 23, 2003, at 07:48 pm, Roger Pewick wrote: *This* defender clearly did understand the position, so why do you judge the situation according to some other mythical defender who didn't? Did the defender really understand? Demonstrably so: he disputed the concession, and then posted a question to BLML about it. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK --Apple-Mail-6-651638363-- From Jerrijt@cs.com Sat Oct 25 05:24:15 2003 From: Jerrijt@cs.com (Jerrijt@cs.com) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 00:24:15 EDT Subject: [blml] Re: ACBL Laws book Message-ID: <44.36e4fb09.2ccb54ef@cs.com> --part1_44.36e4fb09.2ccb54ef_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit My current copy of Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, American Edition, effective May 27, 1997, is the 1999 Revised Authorized Edition, fourth printing, December, 2002. Following page XXIV is a two page listing of Elections by the ACBL board of directors. There is no mention of a change to Law 71, and on page 77, Law 71 C. "lmplausible Concession" includes the full second sentence, "Until the conceding side......play of the remaining cards." Anneka --part1_44.36e4fb09.2ccb54ef_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable My current copy of Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, American Edition, effective May 27,=20= 1997, is the 1999 Revised Authorized Edition, fourth printing, December, 200= 2.  Following page XXIV is a two page listing of Elections by the ACBL=20= board of directors.  There is no mention of a change to Law 71, and on=20= page 77, Law 71 C. "lmplausible Concession" includes the full second sentenc= e, "Until the conceding side......play of the remaining cards."

Anneka

--part1_44.36e4fb09.2ccb54ef_boundary-- From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Oct 26 20:01:29 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 20:01:29 -0000 Subject: [blml] Communication difficulties Message-ID: <000901c39bfc$04e6e310$b58c403e@endicott> Grattan Endicott <000201c39acf$7e1d67f0$9f83b6d4@LNV> <000e01c39b4f$7b2d64c0$87f5193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <00e001c39c02$d7174540$a59868d5@tinyhrieuyik> I thought legal devolution was a deliberate policy but recent disclosures make it seem like a laziness. Grattan says the WBFLC is promoting deversification. If so, IMO, it is exceeding its brief and flouting its terms of reference: I feel that the job of the WBFLC is to define the laws of bridge: the *complete* laws, including rules about disclosure, bidding boxes, screens, VP scales, deciding matches and so on. Refusing to do so seems a clear dereliction of duty and leaves ZOs, NBO, and SOs with no choice but to make up their own stop-gap rules. If the WBFLC defined defaults at least SOs would have the option to conform to universal laws. Some SOs might still decide to opt out but at least they'd be exercising a choice. Similarly, sporadic circulation of legal corrections in the form of minutes to NBOs is a device to encourage different formulations and interpretations. Obviously, publishing an official new *web* edition of TFLB incorporating each such amendment would be cheaper and more accessible to the ordinary TD and player. In the short term, refusing to keep the laws complete and consistent may save work for the WBFLC; but in the long term the resulting Tower of Babel may be the death of bridge. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.530 / Virus Database: 325 - Release Date: 22/10/2003 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Oct 26 22:35:36 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 08:35:36 +1000 Subject: [blml] Beware of the Leopard Message-ID: Tim asked: [snip] >The EBU makes (as far as I can tell) almost no >effort to promulgate WBF interpretations to TDs >so one simple question - at what point do >interpretations issued by the WBFLC become >"official" in EBU land? RJH revealed: Emphasis on "as far as you can tell". The EBU has, in fact, been making a big effort to promulgate WBF interpretations to TDs. The new White Book will be released in the next month or so, with relevant WBF interpretations attached to EBU discussions/regulations of each Law. Best wishes Richard James 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 siegmund@mosquitonet.com Sun Oct 26 20:46:56 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 11:46:56 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] Devolution In-Reply-To: <000201c39acf$7e1d67f0$9f83b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: Just for the record.... could someone fill us younger folk in on whether the process of 'devolution' began in 1975 or 1987? I don't have a copy of the full 1975 laws, only summaries of them in other books. I *do* have a copy of the 1963 laws, and the preface to those says that "the first duplicate laws published under this joint agreement [between the ACBL and the Whist Club of NEw York] were issued in 1949; and since they also had the collaboration of the Portland Club of London, the British Bridge League, and the European Bridge League, they became the first International Duplicate Contract Bridge Code. The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, 1963, as presented in this book, supersede all of the above codes." In other words, there were no 'zonal options' in 1949 or 1963 - though there was also no legal requirement to lead face down, and any player was allowed to ask any other player about a revoke, and there wasn't as much specific guidance in L12 as there is now. Speaking of L12, I do find it interesting that the infamous 1987 footnote is omitted entirely in the North American version, while the various zonal-option clauses are all printed in their entirely, with notes added to indicate the ACBL's elections. However long it may take to achieve a consensus on this point, it will take several years longer because of noone here (OK, few here) knowing the alternative viewpoint even existed for so long. I first became seriously involved in the game, and first directed from and studied, the 1987 North American laws. I think that is a big part of why, to me, 12C2 is THE fundamental rule about the handling of irregularities, almost all of the specific rules later in the book just being ways to achieve a similar goal without having to wait until the end of the hand to do it. I wonder how much difference it would have made to me then, to know it wasn't universally seen that way... even a greyed-out footnote would have made it look a lot less like a truth engraved upon a stone tablet. GRB From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Sun Oct 26 20:50:07 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 11:50:07 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] Beware of the Leopard In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Tim asked: > > >The EBU makes (as far as I can tell) almost no > >effort to promulgate WBF interpretations to TDs > >so one simple question - at what point do > >interpretations issued by the WBFLC become > >"official" in EBU land? > > RJH revealed: > > Emphasis on "as far as you can tell". The EBU > has, in fact, been making a big effort to > promulgate WBF interpretations to TDs. The new > White Book will be released in the next month or > so, with relevant WBF interpretations attached > to EBU discussions/regulations of each Law. > Forgive me for making light of a serious issue, but... I find it absolutely hilarious that the EBU has been so successful in promulgating these interpretations to Australian directors while leaving the British in the dark! GRB From john@asimere.com Sun Oct 26 22:52:50 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 22:52:50 +0000 Subject: [blml] Beware of the Leopard In-Reply-To: <003001c39b93$be4693a0$a9053dd4@c6l8v1> References: <00af01c39b01$0d2afee0$2c9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <000d01c39b4f$7a533160$87f5193e@4nrw70j> <003001c39b93$be4693a0$a9053dd4@c6l8v1> Message-ID: In article <003001c39b93$be4693a0$a9053dd4@c6l8v1>, Ben Schelen writes > snip >> >> >> >In the Netherlands we have a TD-special, Weko-wijzer, that is issued four >times a year with an average of 26 pages in A-5 format. It started in >december 1980. >Formerly we had every two years a two days national TD-weekend with news, >training and discussion. >Today it is the responsibility of each district. We have 26 districts in our >small country and I never heard about a controll on having such trainings. >But from experience I know that a lot of the districts have a one day >training every two years. > >Ben > In the UK, the EBU TDs have to attend a full weekend each year, where we do role plays on actual TD situations (I recognised one of my own efforts as a player on one occasion) and discuss any changes in interpretation of the Law. Then we spend a couple of hours arguing with DWS and Max Bavin - but it does have the effect of making us all fairly consistent. Even with all that input, it's not clear that we understand it properly (although we have a much better chance than most) cheers John > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Sun Oct 26 22:54:04 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 22:54:04 +0000 Subject: [blml] Beware of the Leopard In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > >Tim asked: > >[snip] > >>The EBU makes (as far as I can tell) almost no >>effort to promulgate WBF interpretations to TDs >>so one simple question - at what point do >>interpretations issued by the WBFLC become >>"official" in EBU land? > >RJH revealed: > >Emphasis on "as far as you can tell". The EBU >has, in fact, been making a big effort to >promulgate WBF interpretations to TDs. The new >White Book will be released in the next month or >so, with relevant WBF interpretations attached >to EBU discussions/regulations of each Law. > >Best wishes > >Richard James Hills ... and we'll all owe a huge debt of gratitude to DWS for his *enormous* effort in producing it. 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 adam@tameware.com Sun Oct 26 23:30:54 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 23:30:54 +0000 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia appeal #21 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 1:29 AM +0100 10/25/03, Tim West-Meads wrote: > > What call would you make? What other calls would you >> consider making? > >I don't know. What is 2N? "N/S explained their 2NT bid as passable but with takeout implications." Now what would you do? For those who have previously posted an answer, if this information would change your call please chime in. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Oct 27 01:51:37 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:51:37 +1000 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia appeal #21 Message-ID: Tim West-Meads asked: >>I don't know. What is 2N? Adam Wildavsky: >"N/S explained their 2NT bid as passable but with >takeout implications." > >Now what would you do? For those who have previously >posted an answer, if this information would change >your call please chime in. Animal Farm: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." Richard James Hills: All 2NT bids are takeout, but some 2NT bids are more takeout than others? If N/S actually meant that 2NT showed values only for a partscore with relatively balanced shape and mild shortness in the enemy suit, N/S should say so, rather than N/S indulging in Orwellian doublespeak. :-( Best wishes RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- 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 Mon Oct 27 01:01:10 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 01:01:10 -0000 Subject: [blml] Beware of the Leopard References: Message-ID: <007701c39c26$f3b19e20$139468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Richard James Hills] Emphasis on "as far as you can tell The EBU has, in fact, been making a big effort to promulgate WBF interpretations to TDs. The new White Book will be released in the next month or so, with relevant WBF interpretations attached to EBU discussions/regulations of each Law. [Nigel Guthrie] "Send reinforcements we're going to advance" There's a party game where a message is passed down a line of children, whispered from one child to the next. The message is often mangled. "Send three and fourpence, we're going to a dance" Sending legal minutes all over the place so that each SO can publish its own re-interpretation is manifestly a futile waste of time and effort and encourages divergent rules. It is more efficient and effective to change TFLB directly and to publish it on the web. If the WBFLC asked politely, would the WBF let the WBFLC use the WBF site? Then each NBO could provide a link to the latest version that it recognised. An advantage would be that we *ordinary players* would then have some chance to learn the laws that we are expected to comply with. Is there a flaw in this argument, Grattan? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.530 / Virus Database: 325 - Release Date: 22/10/2003 From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Oct 27 06:40:39 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 22:40:39 -0800 Subject: [blml] Re: ACBL Laws book References: <44.36e4fb09.2ccb54ef@cs.com> Message-ID: <000f01c39c55$3da543a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Anneka wrote: > My current copy of Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, American Edition, > effective May 27, 1997, is the 1999 Revised Authorized Edition, fourth printing, > December, 2002. > Following page XXIV is a two page listing of Elections by the > ACBL board of directors. As in the 1997 edition. > There is no mention of a change to Law 71, and on > page 77, Law 71 C. "lmplausible Concession" includes the full second sentence, > "Until the conceding side......play of the remaining cards." It seems probable that the "Revised Authorized Edition" is not a revision at all, but is identical to the 1997 edition. I do not think that the ACBLLC has the gall to make unilateral changes to the published Laws, despite its assertion that it is the sole determiner of the Laws in ACBL-land. I can't remember all the Laws changes approved by the WBFLC. There was something about a comma, and the footnote to the claims laws was revised a bit. Perhaps someone can provide Anneka with all the approved changes to the 1997 Laws, to see if any have been incorporated in the 1999 edition. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From karel@esatclear.ie Mon Oct 27 05:42:51 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 05:42:51 -0000 Subject: [blml] Time limit on appeal Message-ID: Playing in a butler scoring event, 12 board match, with screens (W/N & E/S) the following board occured Dealer South E/W Vul West S AQxx H x D Kx C AQTxxx S N 2D(1) 3C 4H(2) P(3) P 4S All pass (1) 5+ hearts 2-10 weak or any acol 2 big hand. (2) To play (3) Pause on the S/E side about 7/8 seconds. Dummy comes down with S KJxx H xx D Jxxx C KJx After the hand was over S asked to see Wests cards but did nothing further. Before the next round (during the break) S consulted with some of his peers and decided West's action was dubious. He went to the TD and asked to appeal the result. The Td told him he was too late and that he should have called the TD at the table. South explained he didn't call the Td at the time because he didn't want to cause an unnecessary fuss. He thought he had until the start of the next round (or up to 30 mins) to appeal and if his peers felt the bid was not justified then he could launch an appeal. (1) Did South have a case ?? (2) Is there some time limit specified in the laws for an appeal ?? K. From svenpran@online.no Mon Oct 27 07:55:20 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 08:55:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Time limit on appeal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c39c5f$ab901ac0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Karel ............ > After the hand was over S asked to see Wests cards but did nothing > further. > Before the next round (during the break) S consulted with some of his > peers > and > decided West's action was dubious. He went to the TD and asked to = appeal > the result. >=20 > The Td told him he was too late and that he should have called the TD = at > the > table. >=20 >=20 > South explained he didn't call the Td at the time because he didn't = want > to > cause an > unnecessary fuss. He thought he had until the start of the next round = (or > up to 30 mins) > to appeal and if his peers felt the bid was not justified then he = could > launch an appeal. >=20 > (1) Did South have a case ?? No, Law 9 > (2) Is there some time limit specified in the laws for an appeal ?? Yes, Law 92 South was in error when he believed he could "appeal" an incident which occurred at the table. What can be appealed is a Director's ruling and nothing else. Here, South had not secured any Director's ruling so there = was nothing to appeal. Regards Sven From mamos@blueyonder.co.uk Mon Oct 27 10:13:21 2003 From: mamos@blueyonder.co.uk (mamos) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:13:21 -0000 Subject: [blml] Time limit on appeal References: <000001c39c5f$ab901ac0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001b01c39c72$f34a6650$ae692452@mikeamos> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 7:55 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Time limit on appeal > Karel ............ > After the hand was over S asked to see Wests cards but did nothing > further. > Before the next round (during the break) S consulted with some of his > peers > and > decided West's action was dubious. He went to the TD and asked to appeal > the result. > > The Td told him he was too late and that he should have called the TD at > the > table. > > > South explained he didn't call the Td at the time because he didn't want > to > cause an > unnecessary fuss. He thought he had until the start of the next round (or > up to 30 mins) > to appeal and if his peers felt the bid was not justified then he could > launch an appeal. > > (1) Did South have a case ?? No, Law 9 Yes Players may ask for a ruling during the correction period The player has (as they often do) asked for an appeal where no ruling has been made but I see no reason to deny him a ruling of first instance. 92B I dont understand the reference to the SE side of the screen - was the screen incorrectly positioned ? Requests for Rulings on Ui should normally come from the other side of the screen - I may not rule in South's favour but I think I should colect evidence - the passage of time may weaken his case if there is any dispute as to facts I see no reason to deny the player a ruling here - he was not sure at the time that an irregularity had occurred - to apply Law 9 seems draconian. > (2) Is there some time limit specified in the laws for an appeal ?? Yes, Law 92 South was in error when he believed he could "appeal" an incident which occurred at the table. What can be appealed is a Director's ruling and nothing else. Here, South had not secured any Director's ruling so there was nothing to appeal. Regards Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Oct 27 10:25:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:25 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Beware of the Leopard In-Reply-To: <000d01c39b4f$7a533160$87f5193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ The selection and training of TDs is in the hands > of the NBO. It is the NBO, not the WBF, that has the > responsibility for keeping TDs posted of laws updates > and the NBO's policies in relation thereto. There is no > expectation that TDs will 'wade through reams of > minutes': the expectation is that the NBO will look > after the needs of its TDs. It is the NBO that is in > membership of the WBF, not any TD, not any > individual. The WBF is responsible for service to its > members. Can I then take it that WBF interpretations become "official" within an NBO at the point when such interpretations are announced in TD training materials/updates but that until that point TDs/players should continue with the laws as written? Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Oct 27 10:25:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:25 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Beware of the Leopard In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > > >The EBU makes (as far as I can tell) almost no > >effort to promulgate WBF interpretations to TDs > >so one simple question - at what point do > >interpretations issued by the WBFLC become > >"official" in EBU land? > > RJH revealed: > > Emphasis on "as far as you can tell". The EBU > has, in fact, been making a big effort to > promulgate WBF interpretations to TDs. The new > White Book will be released in the next month or > so, with relevant WBF interpretations attached > to EBU discussions/regulations of each Law. At which point we should start using the new interpretations? Some of these date from 1998 (and possibly before) - 5 years is an awfully long time for things to be in limbo. But OK - I will change it to "the EBU has, until now, made little effort to promulgate these changes". Tim From Martin.Sinot@Micronas.com Mon Oct 27 10:57:55 2003 From: Martin.Sinot@Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:57:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Time limit on appeal Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E6437@rama.micronas.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of > Karel > Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 6:43 > To: Blm > Subject: [blml] Time limit on appeal >=20 >=20 >=20 > Playing in a butler scoring event, 12 board match, with=20 > screens (W/N & E/S) > the following board occured >=20 > Dealer South E/W Vul >=20 > West > S AQxx > H x > D Kx > C AQTxxx >=20 > S N > 2D(1) 3C 4H(2) P(3) > P 4S All pass >=20 > (1) 5+ hearts 2-10 weak or any acol 2 big hand. > (2) To play > (3) Pause on the S/E side about 7/8 seconds. >=20 > Dummy comes down with >=20 > S KJxx > H xx > D Jxxx > C KJx >=20 >=20 > After the hand was over S asked to see Wests cards but did=20 > nothing further. > Before the next round (during the break) S consulted with=20 > some of his peers > and > decided West's action was dubious. He went to the TD and=20 > asked to appeal > the result. >=20 > The Td told him he was too late and that he should have=20 > called the TD at the > table. >=20 >=20 > South explained he didn't call the Td at the time because he=20 > didn't want to > cause an > unnecessary fuss. He thought he had until the start of the=20 > next round (or > up to 30 mins) > to appeal and if his peers felt the bid was not justified=20 > then he could > launch an appeal. >=20 > (1) Did South have a case ?? If you mean, did South have a right to a ruling, I think yes. But if South and East are on the same side of the screen, I would not adjust. First, a hesitation of 7/8 seconds can hardly be called a hesitation, where 10-15 seconds would still be considered normal playing speed. And second, of course South knows East was the one thinking (since they are on the same side of the screen), but the question is whether West knows. And I didn't hear North complain about a hesitation. > (2) Is there some time limit specified in the laws for an appeal ?? Yes (92B) Martin Sinot martin.sinot@nospam.micronas.com From svenpran@online.no Mon Oct 27 11:16:36 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 12:16:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Time limit on appeal In-Reply-To: <001b01c39c72$f34a6650$ae692452@mikeamos> Message-ID: <000001c39c7b$c9156980$6900a8c0@WINXP> > mamos > ............ > > After the hand was over S asked to see Wests cards but did nothing > > further. > > Before the next round (during the break) S consulted with some of = his > > peers > > and > > decided West's action was dubious. He went to the TD and asked to > appeal > > the result. > > > > The Td told him he was too late and that he should have called the = TD at > > the > > table. > > > > > > South explained he didn't call the Td at the time because he didn't = want > > to > > cause an > > unnecessary fuss. He thought he had until the start of the next = round > (or > > up to 30 mins) > > to appeal and if his peers felt the bid was not justified then he = could > > launch an appeal. > > > > (1) Did South have a case ?? >=20 > No, Law 9 >=20 >=20 > Yes Players may ask for a ruling during the correction period > The player has (as they often do) asked for an appeal where no ruling = has > been made but I see no reason to deny him a ruling of first instance. = 92B I understand that South based his claim on Law 16A. This law stipulates = that the Director should be called when the play ended (or when he should = have become aware of the possibility of an infraction by opponent if earlier = - laws 9 and 11). As I director I would see no excuse for South when he after inspecting West's cards immediately following the play, and even although being = aware of the alleged hesitation he could claim to have created UI still did = not at the time summon the Director with a request for a ruling. Anybody can until the end of the correction period ask for a ruling on = any alleged irregularity in which they have been involved; but this limit is = an absolute limit, not an exempt from the rule that the Director shall be called immediately when a player has (or should have) reason to suspect = that an irregularity has occurred. > I dont understand the reference to the SE side of the screen - was the > screen incorrectly positioned ? > Requests for Rulings on Ui should normally come from the other side of = the > screen - I may not rule in South's favour but I think I should colect > evidence - the passage of time may weaken his case if there is any = dispute > as to facts >=20 > I see no reason to deny the player a ruling here - he was not sure at = the > time that an irregularity had occurred - to apply Law 9 seems = draconian. Exactly what must we assume changed South's mind from "no irregularity = has occurred" to "an irregularity has occurred"? Certainly nothing while = they were still seated at the table. Remember that it is not the business of any player to decide whether an irregularity has occurred, that is the job for the Director. I do however agree that in a case where no doubt exists then a Director should make a ruling even on a late complaint. Law 81C6 specifically instructs him on such cases; this case is not one of them. =20 > > (2) Is there some time limit specified in the laws for an appeal ?? >=20 > Yes, Law 92 >=20 >=20 > South was in error when he believed he could "appeal" an incident = which > occurred at the table. What can be appealed is a Director's ruling and > nothing else. Here, South had not secured any Director's ruling so = there > was > nothing to appeal. >=20 Regards Sven From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Oct 27 12:54:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 12:54 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Time limit on appeal In-Reply-To: <000001c39c7b$c9156980$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > I understand that South based his claim on Law 16A. This law stipulates > that the Director should be called when the play ended (or when he The law actually says "When a player has substantial reason to believe.." Although the footnote indicates when this would normally be I would not criticise (or deny a ruling to) a player who felt that he needed to discuss the hand with others in order to substantiate his reason. I would prefer such a player to reserve his rights and agree the facts at the table. Of course on the facts as stated I wouldn't be ruling in the players favour so he would probably want to appeal (although I would advise him against it). Tim From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Oct 27 13:08:58 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 08:08:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] Devolution In-Reply-To: <000401c39a86$cb396fa0$b456e150@endicott> References: <200310241544.h9OFiCs0000949@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031027080329.009f02f0@pop.starpower.net> At 06:28 PM 10/24/03, Grattan wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Ron Johnson" > > > Nigel will be pleased to hear that curling appears to > > be going for convergence. There's no chance that > > football or hockey will. > > >+=+ And if I may be brutally frank, no chance that >bridge will this century when we are not all willing to >move to the ACBL position. At least Grattan recognizes the reality on the ground in ACBL-land, unlike those who preach that those of us who are unhappy with the way the ACBL is run should get involved in ACBL politics and work to bring about change "from the inside". He is quite correct to suggest that if we start doing this now, we might manage some substantive changes by the start of the 22nd century or so. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From svenpran@online.no Mon Oct 27 13:22:22 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:22:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Time limit on appeal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c39c8d$5c57de10$6900a8c0@WINXP> Tim West-Meads > Sven wrote: >=20 > > I understand that South based his claim on Law 16A. This law = stipulates > > that the Director should be called when the play ended (or when he >=20 > The law actually says "When a player has substantial reason to = believe.." > Although the footnote indicates when this would normally be I would = not > criticise (or deny a ruling to) a player who felt that he needed to > discuss the hand with others in order to substantiate his reason. I = would > prefer such a player to reserve his rights and agree the facts at the > table. Exactly. I would normally deny him a ruling. Every footnote is to be considered = an integral part of the law to which it is connected. He has so many ways of securing his interests at the table from saying = words to the effect: "Do we agree that there was a significant hesitation = here?" to actually calling the Director right away. With decent players at the table there is no reason not to do so in order to "avoid fuss". When the idea of an irregularity apparently did not strike him until = long after the play was completed I shall find it very difficult to = ascertaining what really happened. > Of course on the facts as stated I wouldn't be ruling in the players > favour so he would probably want to appeal (although I would advise = him > against it). Well, at least I have the impression that we agree on the result? Regards Sven From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Mon Oct 27 15:33:12 2003 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:33:12 -0000 Subject: [blml] Beware of the Leopard Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1260@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> [John wrote] > > In the UK, the EBU TDs have to attend a full weekend each=20 > year, where we > do role plays on actual TD situations (I recognised one of my own > efforts as a player on one occasion) and discuss any changes in > interpretation of the Law. Then we spend a couple of hours=20 > arguing with > DWS and Max Bavin - but it does have the effect of making us=20 > all fairly > consistent. Even with all that input, it's not clear that we=20 > understand > it properly (although we have a much better chance than most) > cheers John >=20 [Frances] This sounds eminently well organised for the 'real' EBU directors. However, in the past I have passed both the EBU club & EBU County directors' courses. I subsequently did a fair amount of directing club & county-level events. As far as I can remember, I never heard anything about changes to the law book or WBFLC minutes. I got a copy of the 'white book', but as a birthday present from my=20 husband not from any official marketing. I may be doing the EBU an injustice as I haven't done any directing since leaving Cambridge in 1994, but have things changed? From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Mon Oct 27 15:45:28 2003 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:45:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Devolution In-Reply-To: <000401c39a86$cb396fa0$b456e150@endicott> from "Grattan Endicott" at Oct 25, 2003 12:28:47 AM Message-ID: <200310271545.h9RFjS8F011872@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Grattan Endicott writes: > > > Grattan Endicott (also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > and gesta@tiscali.co.uk) > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "I don't try to guess what a million people will > like. It's hard enough to know what I like." > ~ John Huston. > ================================== > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ron Johnson" > To: > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 4:44 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Devolution > > > > > > Nigel will be pleased to hear that curling appears to > > be going for convergence. There's no chance that > > football or hockey will. > > > +=+ And if I may be brutally frank, no chance that > bridge will this century when we are not all willing to > move to the ACBL position. Interestingly curling was in a somewhat similar situation. On the rules front it was basically Canada against the rest of the world and the Canadian Curling Federation wasn't willing to move. (Governed by two factors. The belief that the Canadian rules made for a more interesting game and that Canada was by far the largest "Zone or NBO" -- though of course different sports use different words) Again, Nigel will be pleased to know that a mere decade and a half after the rest of the world came to an agreement, Canada appears to be (very grudgingly) joining the fold. (For pragmatic reasons. The only time Canadain team were playing by the rules in use at the World Championships was at the World Championships and that's a tough way to get used to the rules) From john@asimere.com Mon Oct 27 16:47:14 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:47:14 +0000 Subject: [blml] Beware of the Leopard In-Reply-To: References: <000d01c39b4f$7a533160$87f5193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <3J$cufBSwUn$Ew7m@asimere.com> In article , Tim West-Meads writes >Grattan wrote: > >> +=+ The selection and training of TDs is in the hands >> of the NBO. It is the NBO, not the WBF, that has the >> responsibility for keeping TDs posted of laws updates >> and the NBO's policies in relation thereto. There is no >> expectation that TDs will 'wade through reams of >> minutes': the expectation is that the NBO will look >> after the needs of its TDs. It is the NBO that is in >> membership of the WBF, not any TD, not any >> individual. The WBF is responsible for service to its >> members. > >Can I then take it that WBF interpretations become "official" within an >NBO at the point when such interpretations are announced in TD training >materials/updates but that until that point TDs/players should continue >with the laws as written? fraid not Tim, you use the new methods once you become aware of them; now that could be me telling you that I've been told by Max, or I've discussed it with DWS or even from reading it here .... chaos dear boy, what a way to run a railway :) > >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 john@asimere.com Mon Oct 27 16:56:19 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:56:19 +0000 Subject: [blml] Time limit on appeal In-Reply-To: <000001c39c8d$5c57de10$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c39c8d$5c57de10$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <1ZXcq1Bz4Un$Ew7L@asimere.com> In article <000001c39c8d$5c57de10$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >Tim West-Meads >> Sven wrote: >> >> > I understand that South based his claim on Law 16A. This law stipulates >> > that the Director should be called when the play ended (or when he >> >> The law actually says "When a player has substantial reason to believe.." >> Although the footnote indicates when this would normally be I would not >> criticise (or deny a ruling to) a player who felt that he needed to >> discuss the hand with others in order to substantiate his reason. I would >> prefer such a player to reserve his rights and agree the facts at the >> table. > >Exactly. > >I would normally deny him a ruling. Every footnote is to be considered an >integral part of the law to which it is connected. > >He has so many ways of securing his interests at the table from saying words >to the effect: "Do we agree that there was a significant hesitation here?" >to actually calling the Director right away. With decent players at the >table there is no reason not to do so in order to "avoid fuss". > >When the idea of an irregularity apparently did not strike him until long >after the play was completed I shall find it very difficult to ascertaining >what really happened. > >> Of course on the facts as stated I wouldn't be ruling in the players >> favour so he would probably want to appeal (although I would advise him >> against it). > >Well, at least I have the impression that we agree on the result? Our screen regulations state that 15 seconds for the tray is considered normal. since there was a 7 to 8 second delay, I expect it all happened pretty much in tempo. On that basis, I'd rule no UI, and leave the player to appeal it. I certainly wouldn't deny him his ruling - players say "appeal" meaning ruling, no problem at all. cheers john > >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 adam@irvine.com Mon Oct 27 18:25:27 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:25:27 -0800 Subject: [blml] Beware of the Leopard In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:33:12 GMT." <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1260@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <200310271825.KAA00057@mailhub.irvine.com> Frances wrote: > I got a copy of the 'white book', but as a birthday present from my > husband not from any official marketing. Man, I wish my wife were that easy to buy for . . . :) -- Adam From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Oct 27 18:55:35 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:55:35 -0800 Subject: [blml] Time limit on appeal References: <000001c39c7b$c9156980$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002401c39cbb$e976cbc0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Sven Pran" < [Sven]I understand that South based his claim on Law 16A. This law stipulates that the Director should be called when the play ended [Marv] The import of L16A's footnote is that the TD should not be called when a player is merely suspicious concerning a possible irregularity, only when there is "substantial reason to believe." And then he *should* call the TD, not *must*. I see nothing wrong with failing to call the TD when there is a mere suspicion of wrongdoing. [Sven] (or when he should have become aware of the possibility of an infraction by opponent if earlier - laws 9 and 11). [Marv] Misquote of L9, misinterpretation of L11. L9 - "The director must be summoned when attention is called to an irregularity," not when a player becomes "aware of the possibility of an infraction." L11 - This "court of last resort" for TDs who hate delayed action in regard to irregularities is a Kangaroo Court. What L11 says is that any penalty imposed by the NOS, or incorrect action taken, even if accepted by the OS due to ignorance of the Laws, will be nullified if the NOS gains thereby. It says nothing that would deny the right of redress for an opposing irregularity tardily identified. [Sven] As I director I would see no excuse for South when he after inspecting West's cards immediately following the play, and even although being aware of the alleged hesitation he could claim to have created UI still did not at the time summon the Director with a request for a ruling. [Marv] It is not the creation of UI that is an irregularity requiring a TD summons, it is calling attention to what is perceived as an ensuing irregularity when there is "substantial reason to believe" ( L16A) that one has occured. In short, whether TDs like it or not, there is nothing wrong when a player who is unsure whether an irregularity occurred waits to consult with others (or to consult further with himself) to decide whether one did indeed exist. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From karel@esatclear.ie Mon Oct 27 18:05:12 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:05:12 -0000 Subject: [blml] Time limit on appeal In-Reply-To: <1ZXcq1Bz4Un$Ew7L@asimere.com> Message-ID: [snip ...] Our screen regulations state that 15 seconds for the tray is considered normal. since there was a 7 to 8 second delay, I expect it all happened pretty much in tempo. On that basis, I'd rule no UI, and leave the player to appeal it. I certainly wouldn't deny him his ruling - players say "appeal" meaning ruling, no problem at all. cheers john +++ Yes sry the wording was bad - S wanted a ruling not an appeal. I thought the case interesting for the following points - Screens are suppose to eliminate pause situations. John above has even stated 15 secs for the tray to arrive back. In my experience though it is extremely easy to know who on the other side of the screen is having a bidding problem and who not. In this case I'd be bet my life East was the one with something to think about. - 7/8 seconds was an estimate of the time, but in the context of the players and competition I think the concensus would be/was that there was a notable pause by east even taking into account the nature of the bidding, the screen and the stop bid. - Again while South should have called the TD at the time, his motives for not doing so were understandable and surely shouldn't disqualify him from a future right to a ruling ?? Note - (1) While calling the TD should be seen as just a reflection of unhappiness with the recent bridge occurence - alot of people, STILL, take it as a personal insult. This is a fact and will continue to occur for a long long time. (2) Calling a TD to "complain" about a players action means that the complainee is using THEIR bridge jugdement in accessing that action. Surely a player is entitled to note a possible infraction and get a second opinion on what may be a close call. It is possible is it not that a player may feel he is not qualified to make the required assessment on the spot ?? I'm sure you'll all answer call the TD, this is his job ... but ... people are human and don't want to cause/be embarassed over an uncertain action. Sven seems to be taking the line that the proper procedure wasn't followed so tough. I'll concede that a ruling after the events has diminished N/S's case, but in most cases it is possible to get parties to agree on what happened, and rule accordingly, even after the event. Take the hand in question - i don't know maybe 4S is normal ?? I personally think the hand is worth another action, double being a standout, but if one conceeds action is normal is 4S way out there ?? Would a pause make life easier - i think so. Does a pause preclude 4S as LA ?? On top of that place the factor of screens and the bridge culture the competition is being played in and its not too hard to understand why South was reluctant to call the TD. Anyway, looks like we're hanging South from the responses to date. L92 Btw seems to deal with the time limit for making an appeal on a ruling. Is there some law dealing with a time limit for making a ruling or is it assumed no TD call no ruling no case ?? K. From karel@esatclear.ie Mon Oct 27 18:13:40 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:13:40 -0000 Subject: [blml] Time limit on appeal In-Reply-To: <002401c39cbb$e976cbc0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: {snip ... ] [Sven] As I director I would see no excuse for South when he after inspecting West's cards immediately following the play, and even although being aware of the alleged hesitation he could claim to have created UI still did not at the time summon the Director with a request for a ruling. [Marv] It is not the creation of UI that is an irregularity requiring a TD summons, it is calling attention to what is perceived as an ensuing irregularity when there is "substantial reason to believe" ( L16A) that one has occured. In short, whether TDs like it or not, there is nothing wrong when a player who is unsure whether an irregularity occurred waits to consult with others (or to consult further with himself) to decide whether one did indeed exist. +++ This is precisely the crux of the matter. So according to Marv anyway South did nothing wrong and should be allowed a ruling. An this right runs out ?? when the next round is called or 30 mins ?? As I stated earlier normally we can get a concensus on the facts from both players even after the events ... but ... if both sides do not agree, Marv ... No ruling ?? K. From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Mon Oct 27 19:33:12 2003 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:33:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Time limit on appeal In-Reply-To: <002401c39cbb$e976cbc0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> from "Marvin French" at Oct 27, 2003 10:55:35 AM Message-ID: <200310271933.h9RJXCw2013262@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Marvin French writes: > > In short, whether TDs like it or not, there is nothing wrong when a player > who is unsure whether an irregularity occurred waits to consult with others > (or to consult further with himself) to decide whether one did indeed exist. I agree. Though it is important to note that a delay in calling the director may limit his chances of being successful. Simply because the longer the delay the more likely there will be problems in establishing the facts. From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Oct 27 19:54:30 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 19:54:30 -0000 Subject: [blml] Beware of the Leopard References: <000d01c39b4f$7a533160$87f5193e@4nrw70j> <3J$cufBSwUn$Ew7m@asimere.com> Message-ID: <002e01c39cc4$3b28d280$1f2fe150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 4:47 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Beware of the Leopard > In article , Tim > West-Meads writes > >Grattan wrote: > > > >> +=+ The selection and training of TDs is in the hands > >> of the NBO. It is the NBO, not the WBF, that has the > >> responsibility for keeping TDs posted of laws updates > >> and the NBO's policies in relation thereto. There is no > >> expectation that TDs will 'wade through reams of > >> minutes': the expectation is that the NBO will look > >> after the needs of its TDs. It is the NBO that is in > >> membership of the WBF, not any TD, not any > >> individual. The WBF is responsible for service to its > >> members. > > > >Can I then take it that WBF interpretations become > >"official" within an NBO at the point when such > > interpretations are announced in TD training > >materials/updates but that until that point TDs/players > > should continue with the laws as written? > > fraid not Tim, you use the new methods once you > become aware of them; now that could be me telling > you that I've been told by Max, or I've discussed it > with DWS or even from reading it here .... > > chaos dear boy, what a way to run a railway :) > +=+ It may be a matter for hope that Jeremy Dhondy has freshly joined the EBU Laws & Ethics Committee. He contributes to 'English Bridge' and perhaps he will prove a channel for keeping theTDs and players informed of new law interpretations developments. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Oct 27 19:58:45 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 19:58:45 -0000 Subject: [blml] Re: ACBL Laws book References: <44.36e4fb09.2ccb54ef@cs.com> <000f01c39c55$3da543a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000f01c39cc4$f2c00760$48c0193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 6:40 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: ACBL Laws book > > I can't remember all the Laws changes approved by the WBFLC. There was > something about a comma, and the footnote to the claims laws was revised a > bit. Perhaps someone can provide Anneka with all the approved changes to the > 1997 Laws, to see if any have been incorporated in the 1999 edition. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > +=+ When DWS gets the 2003 version of the White Book up on his website this will refer to all the changes he has discovered. He has been researching them for EBU TD information - differently from what Gordon has suggested the EBU does have a rolling programme of TD training and tries to keep its TDs informed, has done so for years now. No doubt the white book will help Anneka. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Oct 27 23:43:32 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 09:43:32 +1000 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia appeal #21 Message-ID: Almost all blmlers responding to the poll ruled that Pass was a logical alternative, and some blmlers ruled that Pass was the *only* logical alternative. The TD also ruled that Pass was a logical alternative at the table. Best wishes Richard James Hills * * * Bd: 19 Lew Stansby Dlr: South A Vul: E/W Q95 QJT9 T109742 Brooks Harris Shou-Ling Wang J98543 KQT J87 K42 765 A432 5 K86 Joanna Stansby 762 AT63 K8 AQJ3 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1NT(1) Pass Pass Dbl Pass 2S(2) 2NT 3C Dbl 3S Pass Pass Pass (1) Announced; 12-14 HCP (2) Alerted; transfer to clubs The Facts: 3S went down two, +200 for N/S. The opening lead was the DQ. The Director was called after the bidding started on the next deal. N/S said that West's 3S bid had been demonstrably suggested by the UI from the Alert of 2S. The Director determined that E/W's agreement was that a double of a weak notrump showed at least a strong notrump, but could be based on a long suit in a strong hand. The Director ruled that West had UI from the Alert (Law 16A) which made bidding 3S more attractive and that passing 3Cx was an LA. The contract was changed to 3C doubled down seven, +2000 for N/S. The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling. E/W said that 3S by West was clear since East could easily have had two-card spade support, and West's hand would be useless in a club contract. West admitted that he had forgotten that 2S was a transfer to clubs, but believed that passing 3C doubled was not an LA with his hand. He also said that East would need at least 20 HCP to double and bid a new suit, but that this was impossible given North's belated 2NT bid. The Committee determined that E/W's agreements over weak notrumps were: 2C showed both majors; 2D showed an unspecified major; 2M showed that major and a minor; three-level bids were natural showing single-suited hands with limited values. E/W said they had played together for a long time, albeit sporadically, and had 4800 and 2000 masterpoints. N/S explained their 2NT bid as passable but with takeout implications. A Committee member was able to confirm that one of the N/S players had previously passed a 2NT bid with J9x in the opponents' suit and a balanced hand. A Director was consulted and confirmed that an Alert was not required for the 2NT bid. The Committee Decision: The Committee determined that East could have doubled 2NT if he had held a strong hand (even though he might have wanted to show his suit for competitive reasons). It was believed that West's hand was indeed worthless in a club contract and that pass was not an LA. A Director in attendance informed the Committee that the Screening Director had conducted a poll of players in the adjoining A/X event. No specific statistics were known, but the responses ranged from "I would never pass" to "I would never bid". After much discussion the Committee allowed the table result of 3S down two, +200 for N/S, to stand. Dissenting Opinion (Mark Bartusek): The Director poll clearly showed that pass was an LA for West. After the hearing I conducted my own poll of a half-dozen near-experts, every one of whom passed when no UI was available. Needless to say, the appellants' statement regarding 20 HCP was self-serving when 17- 18 HCP hands can be constructed warranting strong action. In addition, East would clearly want to identify his suit (instead of doubling 2NT) in case N/S competed in a red suit. I would have changed the contract to 3C doubled down seven, +2000 for N/S, and would have recommended an AWMW for E/W. DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff Committee: Mark Bartusek (chair), Karen Allison, Ellen Melson, Jeff Polisner, Peggy Sutherlin Casebook panellist Bart Bramley: "This is one of those cases that make Committees look bad, for all of the reasons apparent in the write-up and then some. The dissenter has it exactly right: 3C doubled down seven and an AWMW. Ignoring the results of polling is silly. Just because the polling was informal does not make it invalid. Who says that only Panels can poll? Anyway, the Committee should have been able to reach the same conclusion without assistance. Also, Committees should not be afraid to assign a seemingly bizarre result when that result is what would have happened without the infraction. I don't want to read about "protecting the field" from a "windfall" or any other such nonsense. If you happen to be at the table when your opponents commit an atrocity, you are entitled to benefit. That's what should have happened here." -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- 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 Oct 27 23:47:07 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:47:07 -0800 Subject: [blml] Time limit on appeal References: <200310271933.h9RJXCw2013262@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <001901c39ce5$6ed1e880$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Ron Johnson" > Marvin French writes: > > > > In short, whether TDs like it or not, there is nothing wrong when a player > > who is unsure whether an irregularity occurred waits to consult with others > > (or to consult further with himself) to decide whether one did indeed exist. > > I agree. Though it is important to note that a delay in calling the director > may limit his chances of being successful. Simply because the longer the delay > the more likely there will be problems in establishing the facts. > Oh sure, but ACBL TDs are using the delay as the sole basis for denying redress. If a break in tempo was agreed at the time it occurred, then there should be no problem with a delayed request for a ruling, no dimunition of rights, as the auction itself doesn't age. Although a player should call the TD as soon as he has "substantial reason to believe" (L16A footnote) that an irregularity has occurred, and must if he has called attention to it, it is sometimes necessary to give some thought, or get unbiased advice, before making that decision. No reason to possibly "create a fuss" earlier if that decision is "no damage." The ACBL ignores the footnote to L16A2, saying that the time to call the TD is earlier, when the UI occurs or when a suspicious-sounding action is taken. The former is only necessary if the UI is disputed, and the latter is not only offensive to many but is usually a waste of everyone's time (when obivously no damage resulted). While the ACBLs ambiguous "exception" to L16A1 seems to require one of those actions, L16A2 and its footnote are *not* optional with SOs. There is some merit to ignoring the L16A2 footnote when an opponent seems to be inexperienced enough to need UI counseling by the TD at the time of the UI creation. However, just asking "Would you like to have the TD at the table?" should suffice. Well, whaddaya know, I just see now that the footnote was left out of my paperback version of the Laws, published by the ACBL later than the 1997 hard cover version. However, it was reinstated in the "1999 Revised Authorized Edition." Maybe that was the only revision, Aneka. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Oct 28 02:07:05 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 21:07:05 -0500 Subject: [blml] Time limit on appeal In-Reply-To: <001b01c39c72$f34a6650$ae692452@mikeamos> Message-ID: <6D75B0B0-08EB-11D8-800F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Oct 27, 2003, at 05:13 US/Eastern, mamos wrote: > to apply Law 9 seems draconian. If the law is draconian the thing to do is to change the law, not ignore it. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Oct 28 02:08:23 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 21:08:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] Beware of the Leopard In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <9BEC4286-08EB-11D8-800F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Oct 27, 2003, at 05:25 US/Eastern, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Can I then take it that WBF interpretations become "official" within an > NBO at the point when such interpretations are announced in TD training > materials/updates Which may well be never. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Oct 28 02:20:04 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 21:20:04 -0500 Subject: [blml] Time limit on appeal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3DF0CEC2-08ED-11D8-800F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Oct 27, 2003, at 13:05 US/Eastern, Karel wrote: > Surely a player is entitled to note a possible infraction and get a > second opinion > on what may be a close call. He certainly is - from the director. I know of no law which permits consultation with other players. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Oct 28 03:30:05 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:30:05 +1000 Subject: [blml] Field of Dreams Message-ID: Imps, Dlr: West, Vul: None The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass 1NT(1) 2D(2) Double 2H Pass Pass 2NT(3) 3H Pass Pass Double Pass 4D Pass ? (1) 12-14 (2) Both majors (3) Lebensohl, an immediate 3NT would deny a heart stopper You, South, hold: K32 AK J63 JT943 What call would you make? What other calls would you consider making? Best wishes Richard James 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Oct 28 03:43:34 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:43:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] Time limit on appeal Message-ID: Karel asked: >>Surely a player is entitled to note a possible >>infraction and get a second opinion on what may >>be a close call? Ed replied: >He certainly is - from the director. I know of >no law which permits consultation with other >players. RJH waffles: I agree with both Karel and Ed. I agree with Ed that the approach in the first instance, as required by Law 9, is to summon the TD for a ruling. However, I agree with Karel, when deciding whether or not to appeal the TD's ruling, that a second opinion on close calls is desirable. Indeed, many SOs encourage second opinions by the SOs officially appointing Appeals Advisors. Best wishes Richard James 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Oct 28 03:59:11 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:59:11 +1000 Subject: [blml] Time limit on appeal Message-ID: Karel asked: [snip] >L92 Btw seems to deal with the time limit for >making an appeal on a ruling. > >Is there some law dealing with a time limit >for making a ruling or is it assumed no TD >call no ruling no case ?? RJH responded: Law 81C6 -> "The Director's duties and powers normally include the following: to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C." Unless an SO has made a special regulation, the time limit to request a ruling is identical to the time limit to appeal a ruling (30 minutes after the official score has been made available for inspection). Note -> The English Bridge Union has made such a special regulation: "There are now four correction periods in EBU events. {1} Rulings: This is the period referred to in Law 92B within which a contestant may ask for a ruling. No request for a ruling will be entertained once this period has expired. {2} Appeals: This is the period referred to in Law 92B within which a contestant who has received a ruling may appeal it. No request for an appeal will be entertained once this period has expired. {3} Score queries: This is the period referred to in Law 79C within which a contestant can challenge any aspect of scoring. No request for a change in score will be entertained once this period has expired except as in the next section. {4} Gross and manifest scoring errors: This is the period referred to in Law 79C within which a contestant can challenge a gross and manifest error in scoring. No request for a change in score will be entertained once this period has expired under any circumstances. This does not cover errors such as entering a wrong score, which should have been found by checking at the time. This covers situations such as the sponsoring organisation using the wrong carry- forward, or using a flawed piece of software that calculated all the scores incorrectly." Best wishes Richard James 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Oct 28 04:53:36 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:53:36 +1000 Subject: [blml] Devolution Message-ID: Ron Johnson: >Interestingly curling was in a somewhat similar >situation. On the rules front it was basically >Canada against the rest of the world and the >Canadian Curling Federation wasn't willing to >move. [snip] Richard James Hills: Test cricket used to be in a similar situation. Up until twenty years ago, it was Australia versus the rest of the world. The rest of the world used 6-ball overs, while Australia retained its traditional 8-ball overs for Test matches played on Aussie turf. Convergence occurred when the government TV channel lost Test cricket broadcasting rights to a commercial TV channel. This was because 6-ball overs permit more TV advertising breaks than 8-ball overs. Therefore, I disagree with Nigel Guthrie that convergence is *necessarily* a Good Thing. :-( Best wishes Richard James 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 wayne@ebridgenz.com Tue Oct 28 04:26:43 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 17:26:43 +1300 Subject: [blml] Knowledge & experience In-Reply-To: <012401c39a2f$3d97ba00$469468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <002001c39d0b$b6ca7af0$969637d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Nigel Guthrie > Sent: Saturday, 25 October 2003 1:04 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Knowledge & experience > > > [Wayne] > e.g. 1. I come up against a pair playing "Ekatahuna > Twos" and my partner takes some action and the > auction becomes convoluted so the opponents increase > their chance of a good score by asking me what my > partner's calls mean - or at least the chances of > our side getting a poor score. > [Nigel] > No problem when my suggested laws are implemented: > I would explain my partner's bids by reading from > the 'WBF approved to defence "Ekatahuna Twos" that > my opponents earlier offered to me and my partner. > If they forgot to do so, then I would expect the > TD to rule a consequent dispute in our favour because > theirs was the prior offence. > > [Wayne] > 2. My learners come to play and BL asks them what the > range of their NT rebid is and they have no idea. > They are forced to guess and guess 12-15 when in fact > it is 15-17 and you are going to come along and say > "You are penalized for not knowing your system" and > "by the way this is a fair and easy to understand rule" > [Nigel] > I addressed this issue earlier and, IMO, if you try to > adher to the published standard system, you should not > be penalized for MI. So do you have no obligation to disclose your partnership experience? Wayne > Of course, you should refer > opponents to the standard system notes. Further, IMO, > if they really are beginners, then they, too, should > be allowed to consult the notes. > > > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system > (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.530 / Virus Database: 325 - Release Date: > 22/10/2003 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From wayne@ebridgenz.com Tue Oct 28 04:31:58 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 17:31:58 +1300 Subject: [blml] Knowledge & experience In-Reply-To: <012501c39a3a$233d33a0$469468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <002301c39d0c$72147ea0$969637d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Nigel Guthrie > Sent: Saturday, 25 October 2003 2:22 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Knowledge & experience > (2) Disclosure should be simpler and fairer... > (a) Disclosure should be related to departures > from a *standard system* (e.g. WBF Standard) > rather than in vague, hard to define terms > like "artificial", "conventional", "natural". This is hardly practical. There is no such thing as a *standard system* and there will not be such a thing in the foreseeable future. I am not referring to local divergences but rather to the detail that would be required to document a standard system. > (b) Never *alert* > (c) You must *explain* your partner's call as > he soon as he makes it (if you know it is > standard and you think opponents know what > that is, then you can just say "standard"). I like this suggestion. It is easily implemented for online play where it is so easy to explain calls that may depart from your opponents' expectation. > (d) At the start of a round, opponents may ask > you *not* to explain. In which case you must > say nothing during the auction but you must > offer to explain the auction afterwards and > before the play starts. > I can provide the rationale for this change > if you are interested. > Wayne From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Oct 28 05:41:49 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:41:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] Devolution Message-ID: Herman De Wael asked: >Now why doesn't the WBF write regulations like >this, so that the silly Belgians, who have not >done the work that the Norwegians have, also >have default regulations? Law 82A answered: "It is the duty of the Director to rectify errors of procedure and to maintain the progress of the game in a manner that is not contrary to these Laws." Richard James Hills: In other words, the WBF *has* created a default regulation. It is a sensible Law 82A default that the local TD is permitted to use their own local judgement when there is a pre-existing gap in the local regulations of a local SO. I agree with the WBF. Where else but the "locus in quo" is an emergency retrospective ad hoc regulation best created? A pre-existing top-down template may not be appropriate for the local details of the local error of procedure. Best wishes RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- 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 Tue Oct 28 08:14:54 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 09:14:54 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Field of Dreams Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EBB0@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Richard James Hills wrote: Imps, Dlr: West, Vul: None The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass 1NT(1) 2D(2) Double 2H Pass Pass 2NT(3) 3H Pass Pass Double Pass 4D Pass ? (1) 12-14 (2) Both majors (3) Lebensohl, an immediate 3NT would deny a heart stopper You, South, hold: K32 AK J63 JT943 What call would you make? What other calls would you consider making? ----- I find it very strange that I twice bid hearts holding a spade preference. = Am I lacking some information on partners supposed major suit lenghts? I'm also supprised that I competed to the 3-level with only 3-2 in partners= suits. I normally bid agressively directly over 1NT. In my own style, I would neve= r think of any other bid than pass over 4D. OTOH, my bidding so far suggest= that's not our style in this partnership. Whether that suggest some streng= ht with partner or just lenght in his suits, I don't know - probably the la= tter. But south's bidding implies strenght to me. I frankly don't know for sure w= hat's going on. So I'll pass. I would never consider bidding more, and can'= t see any reason for doubling. Regards, Harald Skj=E6ran ----- Best wishes Richard James Hills ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----------- 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 dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Oct 28 08:59:30 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:59:30 +0000 (GMT) Subject: SV: [blml] Field of Dreams Message-ID: <3333237.1067331570911.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Harald wrote: > Imps, Dlr: West, Vul: None > The bidding has gone: > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass 1NT(1) 2D(2) Double > 2H Pass Pass 2NT(3) > 3H Pass Pass Double > Pass 4D Pass ? > (1) 12-14 > (2) Both majors > (3) Lebensohl, an immediate 3NT would > deny a heart stopper > You, South, hold: > K32 > AK > J63 > JT943 > > What call would you make? What other > calls would you consider making? >I find it very strange that I twice bid hearts holding a spade preference. Am I lacking some information on partners supposed major suit lenghts? No. A weak no trump is not specific as to major suit lengths. But you may be lacking some information on your position at the table. This "problem" is the stupidest I have ever seen, and I am old enough to remember Keith McNeil. If you didn't bid 3NT at any of your first three turns, it was because you were a complete maniac. A maniac can have no "logical alternatives", ex def. All of South's actions appear to me to have been an attempt to cater for a possible psyche by partner. I would bid seven hearts, and would not consider any other call. Why should I? David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Oct 28 09:00:06 2003 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 09:00:06 +0000 (GMT) Subject: SV: [blml] Field of Dreams Message-ID: <925846.1067331606059.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Harald wrote: > Imps, Dlr: West, Vul: None > The bidding has gone: > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass 1NT(1) 2D(2) Double > 2H Pass Pass 2NT(3) > 3H Pass Pass Double > Pass 4D Pass ? > (1) 12-14 > (2) Both majors > (3) Lebensohl, an immediate 3NT would > deny a heart stopper > You, South, hold: > K32 > AK > J63 > JT943 > > What call would you make? What other > calls would you consider making? >I find it very strange that I twice bid hearts holding a spade preference. Am I lacking some information on partners supposed major suit lenghts? No. A weak no trump is not specific as to major suit lengths. But you may be lacking some information on your position at the table. This "problem" is the stupidest I have ever seen, and I am old enough to remember Keith McNeil. If you didn't bid 3NT at any of your first three turns, it was because you were a complete maniac. A maniac can have no "logical alternatives", ex def. All of South's actions appear to me to have been an attempt to cater for a possible psyche by partner. I would bid seven hearts, and would not consider any other call. Why should I? David Burn London, England From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Tue Oct 28 09:32:36 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:32:36 +0100 Subject: SV: SV: [blml] Field of Dreams Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EBB1@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> David Burn wrote: Harald wrote: > Imps, Dlr: West, Vul: None =20 > The bidding has gone: =20 > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass 1NT(1) 2D(2) Double > 2H Pass Pass 2NT(3) > 3H Pass Pass Double > Pass 4D Pass ? =20 > (1) 12-14 > (2) Both majors > (3) Lebensohl, an immediate 3NT would > deny a heart stopper =20 > You, South, hold: =20 > K32 > AK > J63 > JT943 >=20 > What call would you make? What other > calls would you consider making? >I find it very strange that I twice bid hearts holding a spade preference.= Am I lacking some information on partners supposed major suit lenghts? No. A weak no trump is not specific as to major suit lengths. But you may b= e lacking some information on your position at the table. ----- Thanks David, indeed I did. ----- This "problem" is the stupidest I have ever seen, and I am old enough to re= member Keith McNeil. If you didn't bid 3NT at any of your first three turns= , it was because you were a complete maniac. A maniac can have no "logical = alternatives", ex def. All of South's actions appear to me to have been an = attempt to cater for a possible psyche by partner. I would bid seven hearts= , and would not consider any other call. Why should I? ----- So I planned to rebid 3NT over partners expected 3C. Over west's 3H I stupidly(?) doubled instead, and my unlucky partner probab= ly explained it as take out or something. Why I didn't bid 3NT over 3H I've= got no idea. The only sensible bids I can make now is pass and 5D. Harald Skj=E6ran ----- 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 twm@cix.co.uk Tue Oct 28 12:05:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:05 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Time limit on appeal In-Reply-To: <6D75B0B0-08EB-11D8-800F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed wrote: > On Monday, Oct 27, 2003, at 05:13 US/Eastern, mamos wrote: > > > to apply Law 9 seems draconian. > > If the law is draconian the thing to do is to change the law, not > ignore it. It is not the law which is draconian. It is misusing law 9 to prohibit a requesting a ruling during the correction period which is draconian. If a player becomes aware of an irregularity during the correction period there is no reason not to rule (albeit the ruling may often be "unable to establish facts - result stands". Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Oct 28 12:05:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:05 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Time limit on appeal In-Reply-To: <3DF0CEC2-08ED-11D8-800F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed wrote: > > Surely a player is entitled to note a possible infraction and get a > > second opinion on what may be a close call. > > He certainly is - from the director. I know of no law which permits > consultation with other players. Law 16a requires that a player has "substantial reason to believe...". If consultation (or indeed further thought) is necessary to turn "mild concern" into "substantial reason" there is nothing that forbids it. I really don't want players calling the TD every time there is mild concern. LAs depend on the calibre/style of the player involved and, at times, one will need additional information before deciding whether a ruling request is reasonable. Tim From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Oct 28 13:12:47 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:12:47 -0000 Subject: [blml] Knowledge & experience References: <002001c39d0b$b6ca7af0$969637d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <00f401c39d55$2f309580$019c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Wayne] So do you have no obligation to disclose your partnership experience? [Nigel] Sorry, I should have written more clearly -- it is my fault for introducing an exception for learners into my proposal for changes to disclosure rules. My suggestion is that if you are a learner who tries to stick rigidly to the *standard* but you make a *mistake* then you should be treated leniently. If, as a result of experience, you adopt a *deliberate* variation, or if you adopt some other non-standard system then you may be penalized for MI if you misexplain a bid by partner. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.530 / Virus Database: 325 - Release Date: 22/10/2003 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Oct 28 13:34:55 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:34:55 -0000 Subject: [blml] Time limit on appeal References: Message-ID: <010801c39d58$46feea60$019c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Tim West-Meads] It is not the law which is draconian. It is misusing law 9 to prohibit a requesting a ruling during the correction period which is draconian. If a player becomes aware of an irregularity during the correction period there is no reason not to rule (albeit the ruling may often be "unable to establish facts - result stands". [Nigel] IMO Tim's arguments seem to win this debate. TLFB claims of some laws that they "do equity". All would agree that many current laws achieve this aim -- and that they also "do the NOS". These laws seem to be a welcome exception -- they actually safeguard equity. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.530 / Virus Database: 325 - Release Date: 22/10/2003 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Oct 28 13:48:32 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:48:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] Field of Dreams References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EBB0@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <012a01c39d5a$2dfa4620$019c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Richard James Hills] Imps, Dlr: West, Vul: None WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass 1NT(1) 2D(2) Double 2H Pass Pass 2NT(3) 3H Pass Pass Double Pass 4D Pass ? (1) 12-14 (2) Both majors (3) Lebensohl, an immediate 3NT would deny a heart stopper You, South, hold: K32 AK J63 JT943 What call would you make? What other calls would you consider making? [Nigel] P=10 4N=7 5D=4 5C=1 UI or not, the most likely explanation for partner's 4D is that he took your X to be take-out rather than penalty. Hence IMO your current call is relatively unconstrained by UI considerations. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.530 / Virus Database: 325 - Release Date: 22/10/2003 From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Tue Oct 28 18:18:13 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 09:18:13 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] Field of Dreams In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Imps, Dlr: West, Vul: None > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass 1NT(1) 2D(2) Double > 2H Pass Pass 2NT(3) > 3H Pass Pass Double > Pass 4D Pass ? > > (1) 12-14 > (2) Both majors > (3) Lebensohl, an immediate 3NT would > deny a heart stopper > > You, South, hold: > > K32 > AK > J63 > JT943 > > What call would you make? What other > calls would you consider making? Just lovely. I tried to do something clever, and screwed up yet another Lebensohl auction. My partner, who hasn't had quite as much to drink, remembers that 2NT on the second round is NOT Lebensohl, which I could have used on the first round. I'm sure we haven't discussed the actual sequence. I am equally sure that partner is going to figure out on his own that a penalty-oriented double of a two-suited call, followed by another bid, means "sorry, I only had a penalty double of spades, not hearts." And, if he counts up how many winners each side can have, he can work out 2NT can't be natural either -- us having 8 tricks in notrump but 5 or fewer tricks defending hearts is close to impossible. I have shown a 4-1-4-4 or 3-1-4-5 or maybe 3-xx-4-4 hand without game values, so he has, of course, picked the most playable contract for us. Pass (and a prompt apology for screwing the pooch as I spread dummy) seems clear. I don't have game values for 5 of a minor, and there is no reason to expect partner to have anything more than 4 mediocre diamonds. Oh, partner was asked to explain 2NT to the opponents, giving me UI that I misbid? This auction is so far off the rails that it's plainly obvious to me I've misbid. I don't feel I am constrained -- I just don't have any way to improve the contract by bidding on. GRB From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Oct 23 02:46:13 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 02:46:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Devolution References: <200310222358.QAA32141@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <008a01c39907$8c8bd160$119868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Nigel] > It is hard to see how such devolution can do > anything but harm to a young *game* played in a > common environment (table, cards, etc..) that > with sensible universal rules can unite modern > civilised people in friendly fair competition, > the world over. [Adam Beneschan] It is hard for me to see what "harm to a game" means. People can be harmed; so can animals, trees, crops, buildings (although we might call it "damage" in some cases). But a game is an abstract concept; how can an abstract concept be harmed? Clearly you mean something else here. It would be helpful to state exactly what bad or disappointing thing you think would happen, and to *whom* (i.e. some people or group of people), that would constitute "harm to the game". [Nigel] Sorry, for the confusion. Thank you for the opportunity to make my intended meaning clearer: The harm is to the people who play the game. A game with universal rules can unite people from different countries in friendly fair competition. Currently, problems are minor. For example, you may be a accustomed to an 8-10 1N opener, or a forcing pass opener, or encrypted signals or random overcalls; or your jurisdiction may treat all doubles as self-alerted; or it may insist that a Multi 2D opener has a five-point range for its weak option, in all seats; or it may or may not allow you to ask "having none" when partner discards; or it may penalise "convention disruption" by Ghestem misbidders. As rules diverge with devolution, international competition will become even less fair; depending on how different local rules become. Even if you just move from one country to another, you will be at a severe disadvantage. People will be harmed by being deprived of the opportunity to compete fairly and equally at a fascinating game in world-wide competition. But the WBFLC will be spared a lot of work and diplomacy. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 16/10/2003 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Oct 28 22:57:08 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:57:08 +1000 Subject: [blml] Field of Dreams Message-ID: Gordon Bower: [snip] >This auction is so far off the rails that it's >plainly obvious to me I've misbid. I don't feel >I am constrained -- I just don't have any way >to improve the contract by bidding on. Nigel Guthrie: >P=3D10 4N=3D7 5D=3D4 5C=3D1 > >UI or not, the most likely explanation >for partner's 4D is that he took your X >to be take-out rather than penalty. > >Hence IMO your current call is relatively >unconstrained by UI considerations. Harald Skj=E6ran (second thoughts): >So I planned to rebid 3NT over partners expected 3C. >Over west's 3H I stupidly(?) doubled instead, and my >unlucky partner probably explained it as take out or >something. Why I didn't bid 3NT over 3H I've got no >idea. > >The only sensible bids I can make now is pass and 5D. David Burn: >This "problem" is the stupidest I have ever seen, and >I am old enough to remember Keith McNeil. If you >didn't bid 3NT at any of your first three turns, it >was because you were a complete maniac. A maniac can >have no "logical alternatives", ex def. All of South's >actions appear to me to have been an attempt to cater >for a possible psyche by partner. I would bid seven >hearts, and would not consider any other call. Why >should I? Richard James Hills: Off-topic note -> The late Keith McNeil directed the Bidding Forum of Australian Bridge for 20 years with great wit and style. The quality of Bidding Forum problems were not his fault, as all Bidding Forum problems were chosen by the various Editors of Australian Bridge (who had varying amounts of commonsense). However, apart from David's parenthetical dig at Keith McNeil, his analysis is spot on. I was the infracting North, who had psyched 1NT holding: T8 43 Q98542 Q76 South was a semi-regular partner of mine. I had not perpetrated a psyche opposite South for 15 months, but obviously the memory of last year's psyche had been seared into his brain. At the table South routinely passed my 4D call. Therefore, I agree with David Burn that our partnership has infracted the CPU prohibition of Law 40B, due to partner's field of my psyche. WBF Code of Practice: "To deem that such an implicit understanding exists it must be determined that the partner of the player who psyches has a heightened awareness that in the given situation the call may be psychic." Best wishes Richard James 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 ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Oct 28 22:00:18 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 17:00:18 -0500 Subject: [blml] Time limit on appeal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1E715202-0992-11D8-A8CD-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Oct 28, 2003, at 07:05 US/Eastern, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Law 16a requires that a player has "substantial reason to believe...". > If > consultation (or indeed further thought) is necessary to turn "mild > concern" into "substantial reason" there is nothing that forbids it. Perhaps not. Is there anything that allows it? > I really don't want players calling the TD every time there is mild > concern. LAs depend on the calibre/style of the player involved and, > at > times, one will need additional information before deciding whether a > ruling request is reasonable. It's not about what you want, Tim. It's about what is legal and ethical. I'm not saying that this isn't - I'm saying I'm not sure that it is. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Oct 28 22:01:32 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 17:01:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] Time limit on appeal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4A3751CF-0992-11D8-A8CD-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Oct 28, 2003, at 07:05 US/Eastern, Tim West-Meads wrote: > It is not the law which is draconian. It is misusing law 9 to > prohibit a > requesting a ruling during the correction period which is draconian. > If a > player becomes aware of an irregularity during the correction period > there > is no reason not to rule (albeit the ruling may often be "unable to > establish facts - result stands". If that's the first time the player becomes aware, fine. But a player who has doubts *during the bidding or play* is in a different situation. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Oct 28 23:31:27 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 09:31:27 +1000 Subject: [blml] Time limit on appeal Message-ID: Tim West-Meads wrote: >>Law 16a requires that a player has "substantial reason to believe..."= >>If consultation (or indeed further thought) is necessary to turn >>"mild concern" into "substantial reason" there is nothing that >>forbids it. Ed Reppert replied: >Perhaps not. Is there anything that allows it? Tim West-Meads: >>I really don't want players calling the TD every time there is mild >>concern. LAs depend on the calibre/style of the player involved >>and, at times, one will need additional information before deciding >>whether a ruling request is reasonable. Ed Reppert: >It's not about what you want, Tim. It's about what is legal and >ethical. I'm not saying that this isn't - I'm saying I'm not sure >that it is. Richard James Hills: It is legal and ethical in Australia. In a national championship a number of years ago, my team-mates were mildly concerned when one took a line in a 3NT contract based on the opponents' system card, which stated that the lead of a 2 was a fourth-best lead. The 3NT contract failed when the 2 was an apparent false-card, fifth-best. After the session, my team-mates and I consulted together, and examined the hand records. We noted that those opponents consistently led fourth-best against suit contracts, but equally consistently led fifth-best against NT contracts. So, since the correction period had not expired, we summoned the TD. The TD confirmed with the opponents that they had mismarked their system card. [The then-current ABF system card (now obsolete) had a primitive check-box method for describing opening leads.] Therefore, the TD adjusted the score, since 3NT would make on an alternative line, if my team-mate had known at the time that the 2 was fifth-best. Best wishes RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- 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 bthorp@bigpond.net.au Tue Oct 28 23:00:22 2003 From: bthorp@bigpond.net.au (Brian Thorp) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 10:00:22 +1100 Subject: [blml] Field of Dreams References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EBB0@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <000a01c39da7$442b8d30$0100000a@brianizbqqxcx7> Has Harald or I mis-interpreted the problem? I thought the hand show= n was the partner of the 1NT opener. ----- Original Message -----=20 =46rom: "Skjaran, Harald" To: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 7:14 PM Subject: SV: [blml] Field of Dreams Richard James Hills wrote: Imps, Dlr: West, Vul: None The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass 1NT(1) 2D(2) Double 2H Pass Pass 2NT(3) 3H Pass Pass Double Pass 4D Pass ? (1) 12-14 (2) Both majors (3) Lebensohl, an immediate 3NT would deny a heart stopper You, South, hold: K32 AK J63 JT943 What call would you make? What other calls would you consider making? ----- I find it very strange that I twice bid hearts holding a spade prefer= ence. Am I lacking some information on partners supposed major suit lenghts= ? I'm also supprised that I competed to the 3-level with only 3-2 in pa= rtners suits. I normally bid agressively directly over 1NT. In my own style, I woul= d never think of any other bid than pass over 4D. OTOH, my bidding so far sug= gest that's not our style in this partnership. Whether that suggest some s= trenght with partner or just lenght in his suits, I don't know - probably the latter. But south's bidding implies strenght to me. I frankly don't know for = sure what's going on. So I'll pass. I would never consider bidding more, a= nd can't see any reason for doubling. Regards, Harald Skj=E6ran ----- Best wishes Richard James Hills ---------------------------------------------------------------------= ------- ---------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please = advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This e= mail, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged a= nd/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. A= ny views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, exc= ept where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the= view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Aff= airs (DIMIA). DIMIA 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 *********************************************************************= * This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports *********************************************************************= * *********************************************************************= ***** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify NIF at postmaster@nif.idrett.no. Abuse can be reported to abuse@nif.idrett.no This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports *********************************************************************= ***** From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Oct 28 23:05:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:05 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Time limit on appeal In-Reply-To: <4A3751CF-0992-11D8-A8CD-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed wrote: > If that's the first time the player becomes aware, fine. But a player > who has doubts *during the bidding or play* is in a different situation. A player who has doubts can request a ruling from the moment his doubts arise until "30 minutes after the official score has been made available for inspection, unless the sponsoring organisation has specified a different time period" (L92b). I don't understand why this should be a problem (while appreciating that an early request for a ruling might make the facts easier to establish). Tim From john@asimere.com Tue Oct 28 23:20:24 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:20:24 +0000 Subject: [blml] Time limit on appeal In-Reply-To: <4A3751CF-0992-11D8-A8CD-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <4A3751CF-0992-11D8-A8CD-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: In article <4A3751CF-0992-11D8-A8CD-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com>, Ed Reppert writes > >On Tuesday, Oct 28, 2003, at 07:05 US/Eastern, Tim West-Meads wrote: > >> It is not the law which is draconian. It is misusing law 9 to >> prohibit a >> requesting a ruling during the correction period which is draconian. >> If a >> player becomes aware of an irregularity during the correction period >> there >> is no reason not to rule (albeit the ruling may often be "unable to >> establish facts - result stands". > >If that's the first time the player becomes aware, fine. But a player >who has doubts *during the bidding or play* is in a different situation. He "became aware" only after discussion with his peers. It really is obvious Ed. that it is likely to be less successful given the passage of time is fine, but the TD has *no right to deny* a player a ruling until the expiration of the allotted period, typically half an hour after the session. > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Tue Oct 28 23:28:05 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 00:28:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Time limit on appeal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c39dab$2371b9d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au ......... > Richard James Hills: >=20 > It is legal and ethical in Australia. In a national championship a > number of years ago, my team-mates were mildly concerned when one > took a line in a 3NT contract based on the opponents' system card, > which stated that the lead of a 2 was a fourth-best lead. The 3NT > contract failed when the 2 was an apparent false-card, fifth-best. >=20 > After the session, my team-mates and I consulted together, and > examined the hand records. >=20 > We noted that those opponents consistently led fourth-best against > suit contracts, but equally consistently led fifth-best against NT > contracts. So, since the correction period had not expired, we > summoned the TD. The TD confirmed with the opponents that they had > mismarked their system card. [The then-current ABF system card > (now obsolete) had a primitive check-box method for describing > opening leads.] Therefore, the TD adjusted the score, since 3NT > would make on an alternative line, if my team-mate had known at the > time that the 2 was fifth-best. >=20 > Best wishes >=20 > RJH I am not in a position to state definitely what would have happened to = that pair in Norway, but I may make a qualified guess: If such findings had been reported to the Norwegian NBO these findings = would probably have resulted in charging the affected pair with cheating and intentional violations of Law 40B. (The expiration of any correction = period would in such cases be considered completely irrelevant). The pair would of course be given the opportunity to defend themselves, = but they would have to come up with a very convincing story to avoid being barred from all organized bridge in Norway for maybe a year or even = more. I believe I once heard some rumors that there had been a similar case in = our country some 30 or 40 years ago (long before I got my first TD license)! And yes, I also feel confident that your teammates would have had their score(s) corrected in a Norwegian event even after the correction period = had expired. Regards Sven From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Oct 29 01:53:09 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:53:09 -0500 Subject: [blml] Time limit on appeal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tuesday, Oct 28, 2003, at 18:20 US/Eastern, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > It really is obvious Ed. Heh. You know the one about how long it took the physics professor to explain "obvious"? It's not just a fairy tale - I saw it happen, at Cornell University in the early 70s. Hans Bethe was the professor. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Oct 29 04:04:09 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 14:04:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] Time limit on appeal Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>It really is obvious Ed. Ed Reppert: >Heh. You know the one about how long it took the >physics professor to explain "obvious"? It's not >just a fairy tale - I saw it happen, at Cornell >University in the early 70s. Hans Bethe was the >professor. Richard James Hills: Although Hans Bethe won the Nobel Prize, in bridge circles Hans is merely known as the father of the famous bridge expert Henry Bethe. :-) With regard to Ed's complaint about the "obvious" time limit for asking for a TD ruling - this does not need a long time to explain, I can quote very few words. Law 92B: "The right to *request* or appeal a Director's ruling expires 30 minutes after the official score has been made available for inspection, unless the sponsoring organisation has specified a different time period." Best wishes RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- 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 john@asimere.com Wed Oct 29 04:58:17 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 04:58:17 +0000 Subject: [blml] Time limit on appeal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4ZBfKsApj0n$EwaC@asimere.com> In article , Ed Reppert writes > >On Tuesday, Oct 28, 2003, at 18:20 US/Eastern, John (MadDog) Probst >wrote: > >> It really is obvious Ed. > >Heh. You know the one about how long it took the physics professor to >explain "obvious"? It's not just a fairy tale - I saw it happen, at >Cornell University in the early 70s. Hans Bethe was the professor. Yes, I'd heard the story :) But it comes down to the Laws not giving me the right to deny the ruling IMO. cheers John > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Wed Oct 29 07:21:41 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:21:41 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Time limit on appeal Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EBB2@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Tim wrote: Ed wrote: > If that's the first time the player becomes aware, fine. But a player=20 > who has doubts *during the bidding or play* is in a different situation. A player who has doubts can request a ruling from the moment his doubts=20 arise until "30 minutes after the official score has been made available=20 for inspection, unless the sponsoring organisation has specified a=20 different time period" (L92b). I don't understand why this should be a=20 problem (while appreciating that an early request for a ruling might make= the facts easier to establish). ----- I've been watching this thread for a while. Much of what's been said make sense to me. But returning to the origin of the thread, this was an UI case. In my opinion law 16A2 is explicit: "When a player has substantial reason t= o believe (2) that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an = action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon= the Director forthwith. The Director shall require the auction and play to= continue, standing ready to assign an adjusted score if he considers that = an infraction of law has resulted in damage." "(2) When play ends; or, as t= o dummy's hand, when dummy is exposed." I can't see that this law give you a time limit on requesting a ruling. The= law say that you have substansial reason.... when play ends or, as to dumm= y's hand, when dummy is exposed (ie when the "perpetrators" hand is known) = and should summon the Director forthwith. In Norway we don't give late rulings in UI cases. Harald Skj=E6ran ----- Tim _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ********************************************************************** This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports ********************************************************************** ************************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error=20 please notify NIF at postmaster@nif.idrett.no.=20 Abuse can be reported to abuse@nif.idrett.no This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports ************************************************************************** From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Oct 29 10:24:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 10:24 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: SV: [blml] Time limit on appeal In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EBB2@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: Harald wrote: > I can't see that this law give you a time limit on requesting a ruling. > The law say that you have substansial reason.... when play ends or, as > to dummy's hand, when dummy is exposed (ie when the "perpetrators" hand > is known) and should summon the Director forthwith. No. The law requires you to have *substantial* reason. The footnote tells us that this is quite often when dummy is exposed/play ends. However I suggest the following scenario. N E S W 4H P(slow) P 4S P P 5H ap Defence cash the first 3 tricks, declarer claims the rest and EW return their hands to the board. No substantial reason yet. South asks to see West's hand. The full hand is displayed, South is unsure whether pass might be an LA (still no substantial reason). South asks North "are you happy with the 4S bid", North says "not really". South finally calls the TD. The Norwegian TD says "I'm sorry, you didn't call me when play ended - I'm not going to rule." Consider also. South, a relative stranger to the club, considers 4S clear-cut (no substantial reason to call the TD). He is describing the hand later to a regular who says "What, 'The Mouse' found a 4S bid on that - he's the most timid bidder in the club." South now, and *only* now, has substantial reason to believe pass was an LA and requests a ruling from the TD. Again the Norwegian TD refuses to rule - despite knowing full well that the club AC would be unanimous in adjusting the score. Or how about. Dummy goes down, opening leader doesn't know enough about opps methods to decide whether passing might have been an LA to pulling. He can't find out because he is not allowed to ask questions at that time. At his next turn to ask he does so and then believes he has enough reason to call the TD. The Norwegian TD says "I'm sorry, you didn't call me when dummy went down - I'm not going to rule." The TD then adds "However, your questions are UI to your partner so I'd better make sure declarer wasn't damaged - carry on playing." Sorry - I don't like any of the above scenarios. I'm going to give rulings on *any* request made within the specified time limit. Tim From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Wed Oct 29 13:55:40 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 14:55:40 +0100 Subject: SV: SV: [blml] Time limit on appeal Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EBB5@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Tim wrote: Harald wrote:=20 > I can't see that this law give you a time limit on requesting a ruling.= > The law say that you have substansial reason.... when play ends or, as= > to dummy's hand, when dummy is exposed (ie when the "perpetrators" hand= > is known) and should summon the Director forthwith. No. The law requires you to have *substantial* reason. The footnote=20 tells us that this is quite often when dummy is exposed/play ends. ----- The footnotes is an integral part of the laws. If this footnote was intende= d to tell what Tim suggests, it would be meaningless, and would not have be= en included. So I believe Tim is mistaken in his application of the law. O= TOH, I fully understand his concern. In the first exaple below, the TD was = summoned after the end of the hand. We would rule that one in Norway. Harald ----- However I suggest the following scenario. N E S W 4H P(slow) P 4S P P 5H ap Defence cash the first 3 tricks, declarer claims the rest and EW return=20 their hands to the board. No substantial reason yet. South asks to see=20 West's hand. The full hand is displayed, South is unsure whether pass=20 might be an LA (still no substantial reason). South asks North "are you=20 happy with the 4S bid", North says "not really". South finally calls the= TD. The Norwegian TD says "I'm sorry, you didn't call me when play ended= - I'm not going to rule." Consider also. South, a relative stranger to the club, considers 4S=20 clear-cut (no substantial reason to call the TD). He is describing the=20 hand later to a regular who says "What, 'The Mouse' found a 4S bid on that= - he's the most timid bidder in the club." South now, and *only* now, has= substantial reason to believe pass was an LA and requests a ruling from=20 the TD. Again the Norwegian TD refuses to rule - despite knowing full=20 well that the club AC would be unanimous in adjusting the score. Or how about. Dummy goes down, opening leader doesn't know enough about=20 opps methods to decide whether passing might have been an LA to pulling. = He can't find out because he is not allowed to ask questions at that time.= At his next turn to ask he does so and then believes he has enough reason= to call the TD. The Norwegian TD says "I'm sorry, you didn't call me when= dummy went down - I'm not going to rule." The TD then adds "However, your= questions are UI to your partner so I'd better make sure declarer wasn't= damaged - carry on playing." Sorry - I don't like any of the above scenarios. I'm going to give=20 rulings on *any* request made within the specified time limit. Tim _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ********************************************************************** This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports ********************************************************************** ************************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error=20 please notify NIF at postmaster@nif.idrett.no.=20 Abuse can be reported to abuse@nif.idrett.no This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports ************************************************************************** From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Oct 29 15:19:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:19 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: SV: SV: [blml] Time limit on appeal In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EBB5@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: Harald wrote: > The footnotes is an integral part of the laws. If this footnote was > intended to tell what Tim suggests, it would be meaningless, and would > not have been included. I consider the footnote far from meaningless. It is there, I believe, to prevent *premature* summoning of the TD - not as a weapon against non-offending pairs who give due consideration before asking for a ruling. > So I believe Tim is mistaken in his > application of the law. OTOH, I fully understand his concern. In the > first exaple below, the TD was summoned after the end of the hand. > We would rule that one in Norway. The correction period is also "after the end of the hand" but neither my first example nor the correction period are "when play ends". Rule both or neither depending on your interpretation of the footnote. Tim From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Oct 29 20:46:31 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:46:31 -0000 Subject: [blml] Enquiry for CTD email addresses Message-ID: <004e01c39e5d$e3a69c40$66bf193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 8:46 PM Subject: Enquiry for CTD email addresses > > Grattan Endicott [alternatively cyaxares@lineone.net] > =============================== > I am seeking to compile an index > of worldwide CTD email addresses. > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > +=+ To date 23 replies, some with multiple > names. ~ G ~ +=+ > +=+ Amendment. For 23 read 31. +=+ From john@asimere.com Wed Oct 29 23:51:57 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 23:51:57 +0000 Subject: SV: [blml] Time limit on appeal In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EBB2@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EBB2@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: In article <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EBB2@exchange.idrettsforbu ndet.no>, Skjaran, Harald writes >Tim wrote: > >Ed wrote: > >> If that's the first time the player becomes aware, fine. But a player=20 >> who has doubts *during the bidding or play* is in a different situatio= n. > snip >----- >I've been watching this thread for a while. >Much of what's been said make sense to me. > >But returning to the origin of the thread, this was an UI case. >In my opinion law 16A2 is explicit: "When a player has substantial reaso= n to=20 >believe (2) that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an= action=20 >that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the= =20 >Director forthwith. The Director shall require the auction and play to c= ontinue,=20 >standing ready to assign an adjusted score if he considers that an infra= ction of=20 >law has resulted in damage." "(2) When play ends; or, as to dummy's hand= , when=20 >dummy is exposed." > >I can't see that this law give you a time limit on requesting a ruling. = The law=20 >say that you have substansial reason.... when play ends or, as to dummy'= s hand,=20 >when dummy is exposed (ie when the "perpetrators" hand is known) and sho= uld=20 >summon the Director forthwith. > >In Norway we don't give late rulings in UI cases. Are you telling me that if a player came to you and told you the facts were agreed, and were verifiable, that you wouldn't make a ruling, provided it were in time? I'd never let you TD again. cheers John > >Harald Skj=E6ran >----- > >Tim --=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 john@asimere.com Wed Oct 29 23:54:33 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 23:54:33 +0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: Enquiry for CTD email addresses In-Reply-To: <000701c39e5e$7e995bc0$f56a87d9@4nrw70j> References: <000701c39e5e$7e995bc0$f56a87d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: In article <000701c39e5e$7e995bc0$f56a87d9@4nrw70j>, grandeval writes > >Grattan Endicott[alternatively cyaxares@lineone.net] >=============================== >"I am seeking to compile an index >of worldwide CTD email addresses. >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "grandeval" >To: "blml" >Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 8:46 PM >Subject: Enquiry for CTD email addresses > > >> >> Grattan Endicott> [alternatively cyaxares@lineone.net] >> =============================== >> I am seeking to compile an index >> of worldwide CTD email addresses. >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> +=+ To date 23 replies, some with multiple >> names. ~ G ~ +=+ >> >+=+ Amendment. For 23 read 31. +=+ Do 31 CTDs really read this? Perhaps it's serving a greater purpose than its founders ever considered. > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Thu Oct 30 00:53:05 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 00:53:05 -0000 Subject: [blml] Re: Devolution References: <000701c39e5e$7e995bc0$f56a87d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <01d201c39e80$2ed02020$449468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Grattan Endicott] > =============================== > I am seeking to compile an index > of worldwide CTD email addresses. > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > +=+ To date 23 replies, some with multiple > names. ~ G ~ +=+ +=+ Amendment. For 23 read 31. +=+ [Nigel] Circulating relevant minutes to 23..31...CTDs seems to be a recipe for getting 23...31... potentially *differing interpretations* of each correction or change to the law. At each CTD's discretion, I presume that ordinary TDs will eventually be informed. Later, players themselves will be told what new law they have just infringed. A paradigm of beurocaracy. The simple alternative of amending TFLB in place and publishing it on the WBF website with links from each ZO, NBO, & SO would more effective in informing everybody, (: but admittedly that may not achieve Grattan's vision: each NBO promulgating a different version of the laws; with ordinary players left in the dark as long as possible :) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.532 / Virus Database: 326 - Release Date: 28/10/2003 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Oct 30 01:01:24 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 01:01:24 -0000 Subject: [blml] Devolution Message-ID: <01e201c39e81$57e808a0$449468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Grattan Endicott] > =============================== > I am seeking to compile an index > of worldwide CTD email addresses. > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > +=+ To date 23 replies, some with multiple > names. ~ G ~ +=+ +=+ Amendment. For 23 read 31. +=+ [Nigel] [I meant to post this to the Devolution thread] Circulating relevant minutes to 23..31...CTDs seems to be a recipe for getting 23...31... potentially *differing interpretations* of each correction or change to the law. At each CTD's discretion, I presume that ordinary TDs will eventually be informed. Later, players themselves will be told what new law they have just infringed. A paradigm of bureaucaracy. The simple alternative of amending TFLB in place and publishing it on the WBF website with links from each ZO, NBO, & SO would more effective in informing everybody, (: but admittedly that may not achieve Grattan's vision: each NBO promulgating a different version of the laws; with ordinary players left in the dark as long as possible :) Seriously, Grattan, how would you compare the two possible methods of law dissemination? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.532 / Virus Database: 326 - Release Date: 28/10/2003 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Oct 30 02:28:36 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 12:28:36 +1000 Subject: [blml] 100% Message-ID: Matchpoint pairs, Mitchell movement. At Table 1, North-South score a top on Board 1. However, due to a TD error, the remaining boards of the session are fouled at Table 1 (only). In my opinion, it seems to me Law 87 and Law 88 require that North-South at Table 1 are given a score of 100% for the session. How would you rule? Best wishes Richard James 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 siegmund@mosquitonet.com Thu Oct 30 00:55:34 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:55:34 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] 100% In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Matchpoint pairs, Mitchell movement. > > At Table 1, North-South score a top on Board 1. However, > due to a TD error, the remaining boards of the session > are fouled at Table 1 (only). > > In my opinion, it seems to me Law 87 and Law 88 require > that North-South at Table 1 are given a score of 100% for > the session. 87B: "...rates each group separately as provided in the regulations of the SO." I don't know what the relevant regulations about matchpointing and factoring are in your area. In the ACBL, our regulation says that the larger group is always factored by Neuberg; the smaller group is matchpointed and, if 4 or more scores, Neuberged; if 3 scores, 70-60-50, if two, 65 and 55; if one, 60. Not average plus, and not an ArtAS, simply a rule telling you how 0/0, 0/1, 1/1, 0/2, 1/2, and 2/2 are factored up to a higher top. It's a good question, whether factoring 0/0 is a legitimate matter of regulation or is in essence the assignment of an adjusted score -- but as I read Law 12C, the single score that matchpoints out to 0/0 is a real table result, and unless "no result can be obtained" we aren't into AS territory. GRB From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Oct 30 03:48:37 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 13:48:37 +1000 Subject: [blml] 100% Message-ID: Gordon Bower: [snip] >It's a good question, whether factoring 0/0 is a >legitimate matter of regulation or is in essence >the assignment of an adjusted score -- but as I >read Law 12C, the single score that matchpoints >out to 0/0 is a real table result, and unless >"no result can be obtained" we aren't into AS >territory. Richard James Hills: Dividing any number by zero is a forbidden mathematical operation, as the result is either undefined or infinite. My understanding of the application of Law 87B in practice, is that contestants in a group of one are *automatically* awarded a Law 88 ArtAS. Best wishes RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- 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 Oct 30 02:48:53 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 03:48:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] 100% In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c39e90$5ae80460$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Matchpoint pairs, Mitchell movement. >=20 > At Table 1, North-South score a top on Board 1. However, > due to a TD error, the remaining boards of the session > are fouled at Table 1 (only). >=20 > In my opinion, it seems to me Law 87 and Law 88 require > that North-South at Table 1 are given a score of 100% for > the session. >=20 > How would you rule? Before even considering this question I would want to know how every = board after the first played during a session at table 1 can become fouled at = this table (only) because of a Director's error. Regards Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Oct 30 04:00:55 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 14:00:55 +1000 Subject: [blml] 100% Message-ID: Gordon Bower: [snip] >>It's a good question, whether factoring 0/0 is a >>legitimate matter of regulation or is in essence >>the assignment of an adjusted score -- but as I >>read Law 12C, the single score that matchpoints >>out to 0/0 is a real table result, and unless >>"no result can be obtained" we aren't into AS >>territory. Richard James Hills: >Dividing any number by zero is a forbidden >mathematical operation, as the result is either >undefined or infinite. [snip] RJH (second thoughts): My initial argument above is, of course, in error. Merely because a ridiculous action is a forbidden mathematical operation, does not necessarily mean that that ridiculous action is contrary to the Laws. However, I quote Law 78A: "In matchpoint scoring each contestant is awarded, for scores made by different contestants who have played the same board and whose scores are compared with his, two scoring units (matchpoints or half matchpoints) for each score inferior to his, one scoring unit for each score equal to his, and zero scoring units for each score superior to his." Since a board played only at one table cannot be matchpointed against "scores made by different contestants", then the Law 12C1 requirement of "no result can be obtained" seems to have been satisfied according to both Law and mathematics. Best wishes RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- 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 Oct 30 04:07:01 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 14:07:01 +1000 Subject: [blml] 100% Message-ID: Sven asked: >Before even considering this question I would >want to know how every board after the first >played during a session at table 1 can become >fouled at this table (only) because of a >Director's error. RJH suggests: How about a modified barometer movement? Maybe each table had its own preduplicated set of boards to minimise slow play? Has a TD never made a duplication error? Best wishes Richard James 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 nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Oct 30 02:55:23 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 02:55:23 -0000 Subject: [blml] 100% References: Message-ID: <026e01c39e91$44091bc0$449468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Richard James Hills] Matchpoint pairs, Mitchell movement. At Table 1, North-South score a top on Board 1. However, due to a TD error, the remaining boards of the session are fouled at Table 1 (only). In my opinion, it seems to me Law 87 and Law 88 require that North-South at Table 1 are given a score of 100% for the session. How would you rule? [Nigel] Oh dear! That does seem a bit steep! Under what realistic circumstances could this happen? Anyway, perhaps a cunning TD might rule "contributory negligence" if the lucky pair had the remotest chance to guess what was happening. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.532 / Virus Database: 326 - Release Date: 28/10/2003 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Oct 30 02:55:23 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 02:55:23 -0000 Subject: [blml] 100% References: Message-ID: <026e01c39e91$44091bc0$449468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Richard James Hills] Matchpoint pairs, Mitchell movement. At Table 1, North-South score a top on Board 1. However, due to a TD error, the remaining boards of the session are fouled at Table 1 (only). In my opinion, it seems to me Law 87 and Law 88 require that North-South at Table 1 are given a score of 100% for the session. How would you rule? [Nigel] Oh dear! That does seem a bit steep! Under what realistic circumstances could this happen? Anyway, perhaps a cunning TD might rule "contributory negligence" if the lucky pair had the remotest chance to guess what was happening. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.532 / Virus Database: 326 - Release Date: 28/10/2003 From svenpran@online.no Thu Oct 30 09:23:56 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 10:23:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] 100% In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c39ec7$8b0b7410$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sven asked: >=20 > >Before even considering this question I would > >want to know how every board after the first > >played during a session at table 1 can become > >fouled at this table (only) because of a > >Director's error. >=20 > RJH suggests: >=20 > How about a modified barometer movement? Maybe > each table had its own preduplicated set of > boards to minimise slow play? Has a TD never > made a duplication error? You have to try better than that! I am very familiar with preduplicated events; in fact I alone prepare = around 20000 boards for such events each year. And NO, so far I have never = myself made, nor heard of anybody else in the same business making an error so severe that it would cause a substantial number of boards to be fouled beyond recovery. For barometer events we always provide each table with its own set of = boards when they are scheduled to play just two boards per round, frequently (particularly with larger events) also when they play three or even four boards per round. Sven From mv.phaff@quicknet.nl Thu Oct 30 15:52:08 2003 From: mv.phaff@quicknet.nl (Martin Phaff) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 16:52:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Interesting claim position In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.0.20031024140951.041cdb00@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: And the sentence is still present on the WBF site: http://www.worldbridge.org/Dept/Laws/Law71.htm. Martin Phaff. -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] Namens Walt Verzonden: vrijdag 24 oktober 2003 20:19 Aan: Sven Pran; blml Onderwerp: RE: SV: [blml] Interesting claim position At 08:23 AM 24/10/2003, Sven Pran wrote: >As I have already pointed out in separate postings: The second sentence in >Law 71C was removed in 1997! Sven You may be right on this but I am confused by the fact that my copy of Laws of Duplicate Bridge American Edition As Promulgated in the Western Hemisphere by the American Contract Bridge League, Effective May 27, 1997 does include the second sentence for Law 71C: "Until the conceding side makes a call" et cetera. I hope someone can explain why we are looking at different text. Was it changed after May 27? Was it misprinted? Is it correct as printed? Thanks Walt Flory _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jurgenr@t-online.de Thu Oct 30 17:13:47 2003 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 18:13:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Devolution Message-ID: [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ To date 23 replies, some with multiple > names. ~ G ~ +=+ +=+ Amendment. For 23 read 31. +=+ [Nigel] Circulating relevant minutes to 23..31...CTDs seems to be a recipe for getting 23...31... potentially *differing interpretations* of each correction or change to the law. At each CTD's discretion, I presume that ordinary TDs will eventually be informed. Later, players themselves will be told what new law they have just infringed. A paradigm of beurocaracy. The simple alternative of amending TFLB in place and publishing it on the WBF website with links from each ZO, NBO, & SO would more effective in informing everybody, (: but admittedly that may not achieve Grattan's vision: each NBO promulgating a different version of the laws; with ordinary players left in the dark as long as possible :) ====================================== At least the approach is consistent. Occasionally there is some thought regarding how the TD's should rule, but never a sign of any consideration of how the players should play. In this forum I was once told by David Stevenson that the player shouldn't concern himself with the meaning L16, as the director would take care of any problem. Nobody here objected to this approach. Evidently it is a mistake to consider these 'Laws' to be the 'rules' of the game of bridge. A paradigm of burocacoracacy, indeed. Jürgen From adam@irvine.com Thu Oct 30 18:07:34 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 10:07:34 -0800 Subject: [blml] 100% In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 30 Oct 2003 12:28:36 +1000." Message-ID: <200310301807.KAA21617@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard wrote: > Matchpoint pairs, Mitchell movement. > > At Table 1, North-South score a top on Board 1. However, > due to a TD error, the remaining boards of the session > are fouled at Table 1 (only). > > In my opinion, it seems to me Law 87 and Law 88 require > that North-South at Table 1 are given a score of 100% for > the session. > > How would you rule? Give N/S their card fees back, and give them a voucher for a free play that they can use in the future. Also apologize a whole lot. If I understand the problem correctly, it appears that N/S did not play any board, except for one, whose play was duplicated at any other table. If that's the case, then no bridge result is going to make any rational sense at all, and to me the only thing to do is to apologize for not providing N/S with the contest they paid for and try to make it up to them. Trying to twist the Laws around until you wring some number out of them, and calling it a score, seems rather pointless to me. -- Adam From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Oct 30 08:07:59 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 08:07:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: Enquiry for CTD email addresses References: <000701c39e5e$7e995bc0$f56a87d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <001101c39f2e$191d04b0$0d38e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 11:54 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Fw: Enquiry for CTD email addresses > >> +=+ To date 23 replies, some with multiple > >> names. ~ G ~ +=+ > >> > >+=+ Amendment. For 23 read 31. +=+ > > Do 31 CTDs really read this? Perhaps it's serving > a greater purpose than its founders ever considered. > > +=+ Now there you go..... making an assumption again. Who said the information was coming only, or even mainly, from the CTDs themselves? +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Oct 30 22:42:55 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 08:42:55 +1000 Subject: [blml] 100% Message-ID: RJH asked: >>Has a TD never made a duplication error? Sven replied: >You have to try better than that! > >I am very familiar with preduplicated >events; in fact I alone prepare around >20000 boards for such events each year. And >NO, so far I have never myself made, nor >heard of anybody else in the same business >making an error so severe that it would >cause a substantial number of boards to be >fouled beyond recovery. [snip] RJH modestly reveals: On Wednesday night, I directed a heat of the Australia-wide simultaneous pairs at my local club. Excelsior! I achieved what Sven says "never" occurs, and fouled the entire session. This was because I stylishly deployed the wrong set of boards, deals which had been previously played at the club a few weeks earlier. Only at the conclusion of play, when contestants examined the souvenir booklet of deals, was my error revealed. Since, as TD, I had infracted Law 6D2, each contestant was entitled to Ave+ on each fouled board. Since each contestant had achieved a perfect score on the legal boards they played (zero boards), I awarded all 15 pairs a Law 88 score of 100% for the session. Best wishes Richard James 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 svenpran@online.no Thu Oct 30 22:35:51 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 23:35:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] 100% In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c39f36$2c7c7470$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > RJH asked: >=20 > >>Has a TD never made a duplication error? >=20 > Sven replied: >=20 > >You have to try better than that! > > > >I am very familiar with preduplicated > >events; in fact I alone prepare around > >20000 boards for such events each year. And > >NO, so far I have never myself made, nor > >heard of anybody else in the same business > >making an error so severe that it would > >cause a substantial number of boards to be > >fouled beyond recovery. >=20 > [snip] >=20 > RJH modestly reveals: >=20 > On Wednesday night, I directed a heat of the > Australia-wide simultaneous pairs at my local > club. Excelsior! I achieved what Sven says > "never" occurs, and fouled the entire session. >=20 > This was because I stylishly deployed the > wrong set of boards, deals which had been > previously played at the club a few weeks > earlier. Only at the conclusion of play, > when contestants examined the souvenir > booklet of deals, was my error revealed. >=20 > Since, as TD, I had infracted Law 6D2, each > contestant was entitled to Ave+ on each fouled > board. Since each contestant had achieved a > perfect score on the legal boards they played > (zero boards), I awarded all 15 pairs a Law 88 > score of 100% for the session. >=20 > Best wishes >=20 > Richard James Hills Well dear Richard, In your original post you stated that one board was played normally and = the rest were fouled. Now this is a different story, the entire fleet of = boards were fouled because they had been played before, and that has indeed happened around here as well (although rather seldom; I remember one = single occurrence during the last year. I had delivered two sets of deals to a = club and they happened to return the wrong - unplayed - set after the first evening). But there is a difference: Maybe because we almost always play such = events as barometer where we hand out printouts showing all the cards, = contracts and results obtained on each board played as soon as the board has been scored (which is within the immediately following round) such accidents = tend to be discovered, if not immediately during round one then at the latest during round two. What we then do is to obey Law 6D2, cancel the round (or rounds) played = so far and arrange another session with whatever deals we have available. = Worst case occurs if we have no alternate preduplicated deals with a = sufficient number of copies available in which case we revert to arranging an = ordinary Howell or Mitchell event and have the players do the shuffle and deal. I think I shall agree with the suggestion that in your case you ought to have offered your participants your apology and credit for the fees paid with a welcome back at the next event. Awarding everybody 100%, or even = 60% doesn't sound right to me. Regards Sven From bstopolse@juno.com Fri Oct 31 09:44:32 2003 From: bstopolse@juno.com (bjmoore@juno.com) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 16:44:32 +0700 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) grow your penis with these enlargement pills Message-ID: <20031031093907.62A8E2C1AD@rhubarb.custard.org> PCFET0NUWVBFIEhUTUwgUFVCTElDICItLy9XM0MvL0RURCBIVE1MIDQuMDEgVHJhbnNpdGlvbmFs Ly9FTiI+DQoNCjxodG1sPg0KPGhlYWQ+DQo8dGl0bGU+bmE8L3RpdGxlPg0KPC9oZWFkPg0KPGJv ZHkgdG9wbWFyZ2luPSIwIiBiZ2NvbG9yPSIjMzMzM0NDIj4NCjxkaXYgYWxpZ249ImNlbnRlciI+ PGJyPjwyMzE0czIzaD4NCjx0YWJsZSB3aWR0aD01MDBweD4NCjx0cj4NCjx0ZCBiZ2NvbG9yPSJu YXZ5IiBhbGlnbj0iY2VudGVyIj48Zm9udCBmYWNlPSJ2ZXJkYW5hIiBzaXplPTIgY29sb3I9Inll bGxvdyI+MTAwJSBHdWFyYW50ZWVkIFJlc3VsdHMgT3IgWW91ciBNb25leSBCYWNrDQo8L3RyPg0K PHRyPjx0ZCBiZ2NvbG9yPSJibHVlIiBhbGlnbj0iY2VudGVyIj48Zm9udCBmYWNlPSJ2ZXJkYW5h IiBzaXplPTQgY29sb3I9IndoaXRlIj48Yj4NCjxicj4NClNpY2sgb2YgdGhlIGdpcmxzIG1ha2lu ZyBqb2tlcyBhYm91dCB5b3VyIHRpbnkgcGVuaXM/PGJyPjxicj4NCjwhLS0gMzJ1czg5byAtLT4N CldvdWxkIHlvdSBmZWVsIG1vcmUgY29uZmlkZW50IGhhdmluZyBhIGJpZyBzZXh5IGRpY2sgZG93 biB0aGVyZT8gV2l2ZXMgJiBHaXJsZnJpZW5kcyB3aWxsIHN1Y2sgaXQgbW9yZSE8YnI+PGJyPg0K T3VyIHBlbmlzIHBpbGxzIGFyZSBHVUFSQU5URUVEIHRvIHdvcmsgYW5kIHlvdSBjb3VsZCBiZSB3 YWxraW5nIGFyb3VuZCBwYWNraW5nIGhlYXQgd2l0aGluIDMgbW9udGhzITxicj48YnI+DQo8QSBo cmVmPSJodHRwOi8vZGVmYXVsdEB3d3cuaGVyYmFsLXVzYS51cy93aGl0ZWxpbmUvdnAvIj48Zm9u dCBjb2xvcj0ieWVsbG93Ij5UYWtlIGEgbG9vayBhdCBob3cgaXQgd29ya3M8L2E+PGJyPjxicj4N CjwvdGQ+PC90cj4NCjx0cj4NCjx0ZCBiZ2NvbG9yPSJuYXZ5IiBhbGlnbj0iY2VudGVyIj48Zm9u dCBmYWNlPSJ2ZXJkYW5hIiBzaXplPTIgY29sb3I9InllbGxvdyI+V29ybGRzIE1vc3QgRWZmZWN0 aXZlIEVubGFyZ2VtZW50IFRlY2huaXF1ZQ0KPC90cj4NCjwvdGFibGU+PGhmOGxzOTM+DQo8YnI+ PGJyPjxicj48YnI+PGJyPjxicj48YnI+PGJyPg0KPGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0iMXB4IiBmYWNlPSJ2ZXJk YW5hIiBjb2xvcj0iIzAwMDAwIj5oZjhsczkzIDIzMTRzMjNoIGhmOGxzOTM8L2ZvbnQ+DQo8aGY4 bHM5Mz4NCjxhIGhyZWY9Imh0dHA6Ly9kZWZhdWx0QHd3dy5oZXJiYWwtdXNhLnVzL3doaXRlbGlu ZS9vdXQuaHRtbCI+PGZvbnQgY29sb3I9InllbGxvdyIgc2l6ZT0iMiI+dG8gZ2V0IG9mZjwvYT4N CjwvYm9keT4NCjwvaHRtbD4NCg== From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Fri Oct 31 17:46:34 2003 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:46:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] Alerting OOT Bid Message-ID: Hi all, West dealer, but South opens 2D OOT. TD is called and W does not accept the OOT bid. N must Pass for the rest of the auction....routine... Then the auction is: W N E S 1S P! 2S all P Routine again: lead penalty (the declarer may forbit any one suit) Law 26. Now the real problem: The OOT bid was conventional (they play 2D as Flannery). Does N should have alert this OOT call ? Any difference if he alerts before or after the attention was called to the irregularity ? What S should do when his partner does not alert such a call ? I was not the TD when this occured, but my first reaction would be to rule "misinformation from the no-alert" and adjust the score if any dammage from. Right ? Laval Du Breuil Québec City From adam@irvine.com Fri Oct 31 18:48:31 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:48:31 -0800 Subject: [blml] Alerting OOT Bid In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:46:34 EST." Message-ID: <200310311848.KAA28310@mailhub.irvine.com> Laval wrote: > Hi all, > > West dealer, but South opens 2D OOT. > TD is called and W does not accept the OOT bid. > N must Pass for the rest of the auction....routine... > Then the auction is: > W N E S > 1S P! 2S all P > > Routine again: lead penalty (the declarer may forbit > any one suit) Law 26. > > Now the real problem: > The OOT bid was conventional (they play 2D as Flannery). > Does N should have alert this OOT call ? > Any difference if he alerts before or after the attention > was called to the irregularity ? > What S should do when his partner does not alert such a > call ? > > I was not the TD when this occured, but my first reaction > would be to rule "misinformation from the no-alert" and > adjust the score if any dammage from. Right ? I was going to write a long response based on the non-offenders being entitled to information about withdrawn calls by L16C1, and concluding that this entitled to the same disclosures that L40B requires. However, after thinking about it, this should all be irrelevant. Assuming that the players call the TD when attention is drawn to the irregularity, the TD should ask whether the 2D call was conventional and what it meant, since it's necessary to know this information in order to know how to apply L26 correctly. Since I think the opponents are entitled to know what 2D meant (by L16C1), the TD should ask this before West makes his decision about whether to accept the call. -- Adam From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Fri Oct 31 20:51:49 2003 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 15:51:49 -0500 Subject: TR: [blml] Alerting OOT Bid Message-ID: -----Message d'origine----- De : Laval Dubreuil [mailto:Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca] Envoye : 31 octobre, 2003 15:16 A : adam@irvine.com Objet : RE: [blml] Alerting OOT Bid Adam wrote: I was going to write a long response based on the non-offenders being entitled to information about withdrawn calls by L16C1, and concluding that this entitled to the same disclosures that L40B requires. However, after thinking about it, this should all be irrelevant. Assuming that the players call the TD when attention is drawn to the irregularity, the TD should ask whether the 2D call was conventional and what it meant, since it's necessary to know this information in order to know how to apply L26 correctly. Since I think the opponents are entitled to know what 2D meant (by L16C1), the TD should ask this before West makes his decision about whether to accept the call. -- Adam ______________________________________________________________________ Your right..... sleeping. The lead penalty applies to suits specified (S + H). I would have ask such questions if I have been the TD. But 2D opening is an easy one. Let say that the OOT call was not so evident and the TD have no reason to think about a conventional call. Then ? I heard about a similar case. In ACBL land you have to annouce the range of your partner's 1NT opening (12-14, 15-17, etc.). South opened 1NT when West is dealer. Same routine. The TD was called, North never annouced the range, West did not accept the OOT call, he bid 1S and E-W stoped at 2S making 4. Then they realised that S have 12 HCP (every body around use to play 1NT as 15-17). They called the TD and pretend they would have bid 4S is S announced the range. So my questions remains pertinent. Does a player must alert an OOT conventional call ? When ? Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From henk@amsterdamned.org Fri Oct 31 23:00:01 2003 From: henk@amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2003 00:00:01 +0100 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 cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Oct 31 14:59:28 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 14:59:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] Re: Devolution References: Message-ID: <000c01c3a003$19ab2b20$6910e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 5:13 PM Subject: [blml] Re: Devolution > > At each CTD's discretion, I presume that > ordinary TDs will eventually be informed. > Later, players themselves will be told what new > law they have just infringed. > > A paradigm of beurocaracy. > > The simple alternative of amending TFLB in place > and publishing it on the WBF website with links > from each ZO, NBO, & SO would more effective in > informing everybody, > > (: but admittedly that may not achieve Grattan's > vision: each NBO promulgating a different > version of the laws; with ordinary players left > in the dark as long as possible :) > +=+ Some misconceptions do exist with regard to the nature and function of the WBF Laws Committee. Its remit is to "consider and take account of all matters relating to the International Laws of Bridge", to "make whatever changes in the laws it deems appropriate subject to the approval of the Executive", and it "shall interpret the laws". At least once in each decade it is required to "make a comprehensive study and updating of the entire laws structure". The committee reports to the Executive in the course of each world championship, and its minutes are received by the Executive. Promulgation of those minutes to the NBOs (and of any changes in, or interpretations of, the laws) is not the responsibility of the committee but of the Executive. The NBOs are the bodies responsible for informing players and directors within their domains. What the WBFLC has done in recent years is to assist dissemination of the information by making the minutes available on the internet, via in particular Anna Gudge and David Stevenson. But it is not our role to come between NBOs and their areas of responsibility. The WBFLC deals with the principles and the meaning of the laws. Its domain does not extend to the application of that meaning to the circumstances of specific cases, except if asked for advice by the Appeals Committee. It is the latter standing committee that the Bylaws ordain is to " function as a judicial body to rule on protests from the decisions of other contest authorities, to determine disputed facts, and to act as an investigative body in its discretion." ~ Grattan ~ +=+