From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Nov 1 00:16:38 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 19:16:38 -0500 Subject: TR: [blml] Alerting OOT Bid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Friday, Oct 31, 2003, at 15:51 US/Eastern, Laval Dubreuil wrote: > Let say that the OOT call was not > so evident and the TD have no reason to think about a conventional > call. Then ? The TD *always* has reason to think about a conventional call - that reason being that different laws may apply depending on whether the call is conventional. A TD who *assumes* that a call is not (or is) conventional is not doing his job. > 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. Pretend? You assume they are lying? > So my questions remains pertinent. > Does a player must alert an OOT conventional call ? > When ? Law 40B says that a pair using a call based on a special partnership understanding must disclose that understanding iaw so regulations. ACBL Alert regulations say "Immediate Alerts are given at the time partner makes a call which requires an Alert." The fact that the call was OOT is irrelevant. My opinion: if circumstances prevent a player from making a required alert or announcement immediately, he should do so at the earliest opportunity - for example, when the director arrives. From adam@irvine.com Sat Nov 1 00:39:55 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 16:39:55 -0800 Subject: TR: [blml] Alerting OOT Bid In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 31 Oct 2003 15:51:49 EST." Message-ID: <200311010039.QAA05153@mailhub.irvine.com> > 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 entitled to information about withdrawn calls by L16C1, and concluding 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's questions have convinced me that TD's need to ask for this information routinely when dealing with an OOT call. If South makes an alertable/announceable call out of turn and someone points it out and the TD is called right away, North is just not going to know what to do and when, and I don't blame him. I think it needs to be the TD's responsibility to make sure that any such information that needs to be disclosed is disclosed. In the case of 1NT, since this is always announceable, the TD would ask what the range is (or whether it's alertable); for other calls, the TD would probably ask whether the call is alertable, which would provide the opponents the same info they would have had anyway and would give them a chance to ask the meaning before making a decision whether to accept the call. I agree with Ed that the alert or announcement needs to be made at the earliest opportunity, which is probably when the TD arrives. However, once the TD is called, it's his or her show, and I believe players depend on him or her to make sure all the legalities are taken care of; that's why I think it should be the TD's responsibility to ask. A knowledgeable North should volunteer the information anyway if the TD fails to do so. -- Adam From hermandw@hdw.be Sat Nov 1 08:36:40 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2003 09:36:40 +0100 Subject: TR: [blml] Alerting OOT Bid In-Reply-To: <200311010039.QAA05153@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200311010039.QAA05153@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <3FA37098.1000307@hdw.be> I think this problem is tackled completely wrongly by posters. When dealing with insufficient bids, I believe the TD should not ask the player, at the table, what he intended. Now the 1997 laws are easier to work with than then 1987 ones, in that it is enough for the lowest sufficient bid to be conventional for the correction not to be without penalty. I don't think the opponents are entitled to know what the offender intended. But they are entitled to know the complete system. Thus, a question : "what would ... have meant" is legal and must be answered. Of course this also means that alerts remain obligatory. But since the alerter does not know the intent either, we should not blame him for alerting. Adam Beneschan wrote: > > >>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's questions have convinced me that TD's need to ask for this > information routinely when dealing with an OOT call. If South makes > an alertable/announceable call out of turn and someone points it out > and the TD is called right away, North is just not going to know what > to do and when, and I don't blame him. I think it needs to be the > TD's responsibility to make sure that any such information that needs > to be disclosed is disclosed. In the case of 1NT, since this is > always announceable, the TD would ask what the range is (or whether > it's alertable); for other calls, the TD would probably ask whether > the call is alertable, which would provide the opponents the same info > they would have had anyway and would give them a chance to ask the > meaning before making a decision whether to accept the call. > > I agree with Ed that the alert or announcement needs to be made at the > earliest opportunity, which is probably when the TD arrives. However, > once the TD is called, it's his or her show, and I believe players > depend on him or her to make sure all the legalities are taken care > of; that's why I think it should be the TD's responsibility to ask. A > knowledgeable North should volunteer the information anyway if the TD > fails to do so. > > -- Adam > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Nov 1 09:03:35 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 09:03:35 -0000 Subject: [blml] Re: Devolution References: <000c01c3a003$19ab2b20$6910e150@endicott> Message-ID: <00d401c3a057$08fe7a80$2a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> > [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ 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". [Nigel] Good. WBFLC's job is to write Bridge rules and interpretations. > [Grattan] > 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. [Nigel] (A) Since the WBFLC *is* responsible for law changes and interpretations, it would be better to write them directly into TFLB rather than circulate them as minutes. (B) The WBFLC is to be commended for going beyond its brief to help the WBF executive to disseminate the laws; but it would be much more efficient and effective to put a corrected version of TFLB on the WBF web-site, rather than to ask individuals to post the dozens of long minutes on their unofficial web-sites. (C) If a local jurisdiction disagrees with TFLB or judges it to be incomplete, then, as now, it can post its own version and/or addenda to its local web-site (e.g. the ACBL site). (D) Jurisdictions, satisfied that TFLB rules are comprehensive, consistent and fair, can simply provide a link on their official web site to the latest WBF version. (E) Thanks to the WBFLC, even mere players would then have the chance to read and comply with the up-to-date rules of their game. --- 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: 27/10/2003 From svenpran@online.no Sat Nov 1 11:09:19 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 12:09:19 +0100 Subject: TR: [blml] Alerting OOT Bid In-Reply-To: <3FA37098.1000307@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c3a068$98c276b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael > I think this problem is tackled completely wrongly by posters. >=20 > When dealing with insufficient bids, I believe the TD should not ask > the player, at the table, what he intended. Now the 1997 laws are > easier to work with than then 1987 ones, in that it is enough for the > lowest sufficient bid to be conventional for the correction not to be > without penalty. This is a rather surprising statement from you Herman? 1: Law 27B1a: "If both the insufficient bid and the bid substituted are incontrovertibly not conventional and if the bid is corrected by the = lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination, the auction proceeds as though = the irregularity had not occurred ....." Penalty applies even if the substituted bid is incontrovertibly not conventional if the insufficient bid itself "could" have been (intended = as?) conventional. 2: This thread focused upon law 26 in general (actually following a call = out of turn), not limited to following insufficient bids. I do agree with those that say the Director must ascertain all suits specified or not specified by the withdrawn call in order to rule = correctly under Law 26 and this information is "per force" available also to non-offenders which then obviously must be allowed to request any = further system information they might desire. > I don't think the opponents are entitled to know what the offender > intended. But they are entitled to know the complete system. > Thus, a question : "what would ... have meant" is legal and must be > answered. Of course this also means that alerts remain obligatory. But > since the alerter does not know the intent either, we should not blame > him for alerting. In Norway we never "blame" a player for alerting a call that as = subsequently demonstrated does not require alerting. The alert is to warn opponents = that the call could include information of which they might be unaware. =20 Regards Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Sat Nov 1 12:12:33 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2003 13:12:33 +0100 Subject: TR: [blml] Alerting OOT Bid In-Reply-To: <000001c3a068$98c276b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c3a068$98c276b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3FA3A331.6040508@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael >> >>When dealing with insufficient bids, I believe the TD should not ask >>the player, at the table, what he intended. Now the 1997 laws are >>easier to work with than then 1987 ones, in that it is enough for the >>lowest sufficient bid to be conventional for the correction not to be >>without penalty. > > > This is a rather surprising statement from you Herman? > Not so, what is surprising about you and I misunderstanding oneanother? > 1: Law 27B1a: "If both the insufficient bid and the bid substituted are > incontrovertibly not conventional and if the bid is corrected by the lowest > sufficient bid in the same denomination, the auction proceeds as though the > irregularity had not occurred ....." > > Penalty applies even if the substituted bid is incontrovertibly not > conventional if the insufficient bid itself "could" have been (intended as?) > conventional. > I know. But it is far easier to determine the conventionality of the "substitute bid", which is sufficient and therefore existent in the system. The determination of the conventionality of the insufficient bid is not needed when the substitute is deemed conventional. So the question of intent never arises. > 2: This thread focused upon law 26 in general (actually following a call out > of turn), not limited to following insufficient bids. > Yes, but the discussion then turned to the conventionality of the first bid, and the TD determining such at the table. IIRC, this question is of no importance in BOOTs. > I do agree with those that say the Director must ascertain all suits > specified or not specified by the withdrawn call in order to rule correctly > under Law 26 and this information is "per force" available also to > non-offenders which then obviously must be allowed to request any further > system information they might desire. > > >>I don't think the opponents are entitled to know what the offender >>intended. But they are entitled to know the complete system. >>Thus, a question : "what would ... have meant" is legal and must be >>answered. Of course this also means that alerts remain obligatory. But >>since the alerter does not know the intent either, we should not blame >>him for alerting. > > > In Norway we never "blame" a player for alerting a call that as subsequently > demonstrated does not require alerting. The alert is to warn opponents that > the call could include information of which they might be unaware. > The question was if the call (which has disappeared) should have been alerted. I don't believe this matters, since the questions opponents are likely to ask are hypothetical ones at best. Example: 1Sp - (2NT) - 2He. Opponents cannot ask "what does 2He mean" but only "what would 1Sp - (pass) - 2He mean, and what would 1Sp - (1NT) - 2He mean" Opponents are not "entitled" to the nature of the mistake of the inssufficient bidder. If they know it, all right, but if they don't - it's up to them. So how could the opener know (to him it's UI also) what 2He means - so how could he know whether or not to alert? > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Sat Nov 1 14:01:42 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 15:01:42 +0100 Subject: TR: [blml] Alerting OOT Bid In-Reply-To: <3FA3A331.6040508@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c3a080$ad9a8970$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ........... > > Penalty applies even if the substituted bid is incontrovertibly not > > conventional if the insufficient bid itself "could" have been = (intended > as?) > > conventional. > > >=20 > I know. But it is far easier to determine the conventionality of the > "substitute bid", which is sufficient and therefore existent in the > system. The determination of the conventionality of the insufficient > bid is not needed when the substitute is deemed conventional. So the > question of intent never arises. Have you never experienced the substitute bid incontrovertibly not being conventional while at the same time the insufficient bid could have been conventional? I have!=20 .......... > The question was if the call (which has disappeared) should have been > alerted. I don't believe this matters, since the questions opponents > are likely to ask are hypothetical ones at best. >=20 > Example: >=20 > 1Sp - (2NT) - 2He. > Opponents cannot ask > "what does 2He mean" What is important here is that the Director makes absolutely sure the 2H = bid could not have been (intended as) a conventional bid. If he cannot = satisfy himself of such a fact then he is compelled by Law 27B to rule that it = is not "incontrovertibly not conventional" and that the provisions in L27B2 apply.=20 Furthermore the Director must make this decision before letting the = offender select his substitute call. > but only > "what would 1Sp - (pass) - 2He mean, and what would 1Sp - (1NT) - 2He > mean" > Opponents are not "entitled" to the nature of the mistake of the > inssufficient bidder. If they know it, all right, but if they don't - > it's up to them. So how could the opener know (to him it's UI also) > what 2He means - so how could he know whether or not to alert? I agree that opponents are not entitled to the precise (assumed) meaning = of the insufficient bid, but they are indeed entitled to the information = that the possibility of bid being conventional cannot be ruled out. And it is = the duty of the Director to make such a ruling so the question of alert or = not really becomes immaterial.=20 And opponents may construct any call sequence they want where the insufficient bid is included as a legal bid and ask for a disclosure of = that call sequence. This is part of questions on "relevant calls not made". Sven From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Sat Nov 1 20:48:23 2003 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 15:48:23 -0500 Subject: TR: [blml] Alerting OOT Bid In-Reply-To: <3FA37098.1000307@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: I think this problem is tackled completely wrongly by posters. When dealing with insufficient bids, I believe the TD should not ask the player, at the table, what he intended. Now the 1997 laws are easier to work with than then 1987 ones, in that it is enough for the lowest sufficient bid to be conventional for the correction not to be without penalty. I don't think the opponents are entitled to know what the offender intended. But they are entitled to know the complete system. Thus, a question : "what would ... have meant" is legal and must be answered. Of course this also means that alerts remain obligatory. But since the alerter does not know the intent either, we should not blame him for alerting. ______________________________________________________________________ But my question was about OOT bids....not insufficient ones..... Do you alert OOT bids made by your partner (if alertable in turn) ? May be insufficient bids is a similar problem.... Laval Du Breuil From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Nov 3 03:46:31 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 13:46:31 +1000 Subject: [blml] Alerting OOT Bid Message-ID: Laval Du Breuil asked: >But my question was about OOT bids....not insufficient >ones..... >Do you alert OOT bids made by your partner (if alertable >in turn)? Richard James Hills replied: Yes, in Australia I alert both pard's OOT bids, and also pard's insufficient bids. Ultimate phrase of Law 40B: "...or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation." Consequential to Law 40B, the ABF (Australian sponsoring organisation) alert regulation states, inter alia: "Your principle should be to disclose, not as little as you must, but as much as you can, and as comprehensibly as you can." Of course, other SOs may have loopholes in their alert regulations. Such loopholes may permit a sea lawyer to give less-than-full disclosure, if the sea lawyer's partner bids insufficiently and/or OOT. 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 Nov 3 04:00:54 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 14:00:54 +1000 Subject: [blml] Twister (was 100%) Message-ID: Adam Beneschan wrote: [snip] >>Trying to twist the Laws around until you >>wring some number out of them, and calling >>it a score, seems rather pointless to me. Law 81B2 declares: >The Director is bound by these Laws and by >supplementary regulations announced by the >sponsoring organisation. Richard James Hills asks: If the sponsoring organisation has not announced a relevant supplementary regulation for a rare situation, and if the unadorned Laws bind the TD to creating a pointless result in that rare situation, does the TD have any discretion to avert that pointless result? 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 Nov 3 04:06:18 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 14:06:18 +1000 Subject: [blml] Quote of the day Message-ID: "It is wrong to rule that, except after being alerted, a player loses any rights by having failed to ask a question [about a call] or to have requested further clarification.=A0 It is the obligation of the users of an agreement to make it known to the opponents, not the responsibility of a player to suspect or to investigate concealed understandings." Jeff Rubens, The Bridge World, November 2003 -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- 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 Nov 3 05:06:59 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 15:06:59 +1000 Subject: [blml] Time limit on appeal Message-ID: RJH: [snip] >>[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. Sven: >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. [snip] RJH: The pair's "very convincing story" was that they had fully complied with Law 40B (the ABF did not then have a pre-alert rule for unusual defensive carding), and that they had also fully complied with Law 40E1 (the ABF did not then have an "Other" line for opening leads on its then-current system card). I believe that this case partially precipitated the current ABF pre-alert regulation. Also, the current design of the ABF system card has a prominent pre-alert box on the front of the card, which pairs with unusual agreements *must* complete. Therefore, should that pair try to repeat that gimmick nowadays, they would indeed be dealt with as sternly in Australia as they would be in Norway. 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 Nov 3 05:45:44 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 15:45:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] Devolution Message-ID: Gordon Bower asked: >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." Richard James Hills partially answers: The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge, Third Edition (1976), was published by the ACBL. It contains the ACBL version of the 1975 Laws. The ACBL preface to the 1975 Laws states that the ACBL version has a "different format" to the international WBF version. I do not know if the ACBL "different format" incorporated a differing interpretation and application of the Laws, compared to the international WBF version, since I do not have a copy of the international 1975 Laws to undertake a comparative analysis. 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 Nov 3 06:44:50 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 16:44:50 +1000 Subject: [blml] The Nine Tailors Message-ID: Imps, Dlr: East, Vul: Both The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1S 4H 4S Pass Pass ? You, South, hold: Q AJT987542 J4 8 What call do you make? What other calls do 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 nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Nov 3 06:31:36 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 06:31:36 -0000 Subject: [blml] The Nine Tailors References: Message-ID: <001301c3a1d4$299b7b20$059c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Richard James Hills] Subject: Re: [blml] The Nine Tailors Imps, Dlr: East, Vul: Both The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1S 4H 4S Pass Pass ? You, South, hold: Q AJT987542 J4 8 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? [Nigel] P=10 5H=7 I have one or two extra hearts but... (a) The five level belongs... (b) I have an ace and defensive "quacks" (c) On the other hand, they may have a slam on. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.534 / Virus Database: 329 - Release Date: 31/10/2003 From H.W.Pieters@gasunie.nl Mon Nov 3 10:11:32 2003 From: H.W.Pieters@gasunie.nl (Pieters H.W.) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 11:11:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Nine Tailors Message-ID: Pass (always preempt once, never twice) Pass (pard had his chance - if he thinks, he outthought me) -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]Namens richard.hills@immi.gov.au Verzonden: maandag 3 november 2003 07:45 Aan: blml@rtflb.org Onderwerp: Re: [blml] The Nine Tailors Imps, Dlr: East, Vul: Both The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1S 4H 4S Pass Pass ? You, South, hold: Q AJT987542 J4 8 What call do you make? What other calls do 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 Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Mon Nov 3 11:03:25 2003 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 11:03:25 -0000 Subject: [blml] The Nine Tailors Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB12B3@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Pass or 5H, depending on the state of the match and my opponents. = Generally I believe it's right to act again with a 9-card suit, this may = be an exception. =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: 03 November 2003 06:45 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] The Nine Tailors >=20 >=20 > Imps, Dlr: East, Vul: Both >=20 > The bidding has gone: >=20 > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1S 4H > 4S Pass Pass ? >=20 > You, South, hold: >=20 > Q > AJT987542 > J4 > 8 >=20 > What call do you make? What other > calls do you consider making? >=20 > Best wishes >=20 > Richard James Hills > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------ >=20 > Important Warning: If you have received this email in error,=20 > please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments=20 > immediately. =A0This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, legally=20 > privileged and/or > copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is=20 > prohibited. Any > views expressed in this email are those of the individual=20 > sender, except > where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them=20 > to be the view > of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and=20 > Indigenous Affairs > (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations=20 > under the Privacy > Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------ >=20 >=20 >=20 From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon Nov 3 11:12:20 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 11:12:20 +0000 Subject: [blml] The Nine Tailors In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <97748B52-0DEE-11D8-9FAB-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Monday, November 3, 2003, at 06:44 am, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Imps, Dlr: East, Vul: Both > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1S 4H > 4S Pass Pass ? > > You, South, hold: > > Q > AJT987542 > J4 > 8 > > What call do you make? What other > calls do you consider making? I pass. The ninth heart leads me to consider bidding 5H, but I then reject that idea. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Mon Nov 3 14:15:48 2003 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 15:15:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting OOT Bid References: Message-ID: <00e401c3a21e$751d9f20$10053dd4@c6l8v1> >Do you alert OOT bids made by your partner (if alertable >in turn)? Richard James Hills replied: Yes, in Australia I alert both pard's OOT bids, and also pard's insufficient bids. Ben: You can explain an OOT bid, but in my opinion not an IB. It can not be part of your bidding system nor can you have an agreement on it. From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Mon Nov 3 15:42:10 2003 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 10:42:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] The Nine Tailors In-Reply-To: from "richard.hills@immi.gov.au" at Nov 03, 2003 04:44:50 PM Message-ID: <200311031542.hA3FgAS5013775@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes: > > Imps, Dlr: East, Vul: Both > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1S 4H > 4S Pass Pass ? > > You, South, hold: > > Q > AJT987542 > J4 > 8 > > What call do you make? Pass. > What other calls do you consider making? > None. If I thought 5H was right I'd have bid it last time around. Mind you, I know lots of players who'd bid 5H here. From adam@irvine.com Mon Nov 3 17:03:49 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 09:03:49 -0800 Subject: TR: [blml] Alerting OOT Bid In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 01 Nov 2003 15:48:23 EST." Message-ID: <200311031703.JAA02465@mailhub.irvine.com> Laval wrote: > Herman wrote: > I think this problem is tackled completely wrongly by posters. > > When dealing with insufficient bids, I believe the TD should not ask > the player, at the table, what he intended. Now the 1997 laws are > easier to work with than then 1987 ones, in that it is enough for the > lowest sufficient bid to be conventional for the correction not to be > without penalty. > > I don't think the opponents are entitled to know what the offender > intended. But they are entitled to know the complete system. > Thus, a question : "what would ... have meant" is legal and must be > answered. Of course this also means that alerts remain obligatory. But > since the alerter does not know the intent either, we should not blame > him for alerting. > ______________________________________________________________________ > > But my question was about OOT bids....not insufficient ones..... > > Do you alert OOT bids made by your partner (if alertable in turn) ? > > May be insufficient bids is a similar problem.... Perhaps in some aspects, but I think the problems are essentially different. If your partner opens 2D out of turn, you still know what kind of hand he's showing---and I believe your opponents are entitled to the same information. If your LHO opens 2H and then partner bids 2D, you can't really know for sure what's going on. Did partner think he was overcalling 2D over 1H? Was he trying to overcall 3D over 2H? Did he miss the opening bid entirely and think he was opening 2D? Did he somehow get the suit wrong and intend to overcall 2S? These are issues particular to insufficient-bid cases that don't apply to OOT rulings. -- Adam From richard_willey@symantec.com Mon Nov 3 17:06:50 2003 From: richard_willey@symantec.com (Richard Willey) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 09:06:50 -0800 Subject: [blml] The Nine Tailors In-Reply-To: <97748B52-0DEE-11D8-9FAB-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: If I had wanted to play 5H opposite nothing from partner, I should have preempted 4H to begin with. Once I decided to "only" bid 4H with this hand, I already decided that I would pass a 4S contract by the opponents. BTW, any significance to the expression "tailors?" I recall a fairy tale about killing 10 with one blow. Richard Willey Strategic Marketing Symantec Corporation Office: (408) 517-7740 Interoffice: 6 [408] 7740 Mobile: (408) 410-7112 : Hail Ants Gordon Rainsford Sent by: blml-admin@rtflb.org 11/03/2003 03:12 AM To cc blml@rtflb.org Subject Re: [blml] The Nine Tailors On Monday, November 3, 2003, at 06:44 am, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Imps, Dlr: East, Vul: Both > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1S 4H > 4S Pass Pass ? > > You, South, hold: > > Q > AJT987542 > J4 > 8 > > What call do you make? What other > calls do you consider making? I pass. The ninth heart leads me to consider bidding 5H, but I then reject that idea. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon Nov 3 18:28:20 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 18:28:20 +0000 Subject: [blml] The Nine Tailors In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8050C934-0E2B-11D8-9FAB-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Monday, November 3, 2003, at 05:06 pm, Richard Willey wrote: > If I had wanted to play 5H opposite nothing from partner, I should have > preempted 4H to begin with. > Once I decided to "only" bid 4H with this hand, I already decided that > I > would pass a 4S contract by the opponents. This is a reasonable point. Would I be correct in assuming that you might have given a different answer if the major suits had been exchanged and the auction had gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1H 4S 5H Pass Pass ? Or would you have bid 5S immediately on any hand which might now wish to bid again? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Rainsford Ltd VAT Reg No GB 605 8142 56 35b Cornwall Crescent Company Reg No 4441690 LONDON W11 1PJ http://www.gordonrainsford.co.uk 020 7229 1680 gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk 07050 113430 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard_willey@symantec.com Mon Nov 3 20:28:57 2003 From: richard_willey@symantec.com (Richard Willey) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 12:28:57 -0800 Subject: [blml] The Nine Tailors In-Reply-To: <8050C934-0E2B-11D8-9FAB-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: Hi Gordon The style of preempting that I subscribe to is based on the philosophy that a preempter should bid to whatever level he thinks is appropriate immediately. Having done so, he should then shut-up unless something extraordinary is going on. For example, if I preempted on a two suited hand and the opponents show that they have a double fit in the other two suits, I MIGHT chose to take another action. Of course, the tricky part is determining what level to bid to originally. Here, my philosphy is based on the following two concepts: 1. Preempting style should not be deterministic. With the hand that you originally provided, I believe that the optimal strategy is to define a probability density function to randomize across a set of bids including: 5H, 4H, 3H, 1N, ... 2. Preempting style should be based on assuming that partner holds an "average" hand. In this case, with 4 hearts missing, partner rates to have a stiff which will impact offensive and defensive prospects. If you reverse my suits and give me a hand with Spades, it would change the PDF with which I randomized across bids, but probably not change the basic strategy. Richard Willey Strategic Marketing Symantec Corporation Office: (408) 517-7740 Interoffice: 6 [408] 7740 Mobile: (408) 410-7112 : Hail Ants Gordon Rainsford Sent by: blml-admin@rtflb.org 11/03/2003 10:28 AM To cc blml@rtflb.org Subject Re: [blml] The Nine Tailors On Monday, November 3, 2003, at 05:06 pm, Richard Willey wrote: > If I had wanted to play 5H opposite nothing from partner, I should have > preempted 4H to begin with. > Once I decided to "only" bid 4H with this hand, I already decided that > I > would pass a 4S contract by the opponents. This is a reasonable point. Would I be correct in assuming that you might have given a different answer if the major suits had been exchanged and the auction had gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1H 4S 5H Pass Pass ? Or would you have bid 5S immediately on any hand which might now wish to bid again? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Rainsford Ltd VAT Reg No GB 605 8142 56 35b Cornwall Crescent Company Reg No 4441690 LONDON W11 1PJ http://www.gordonrainsford.co.uk 020 7229 1680 gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk 07050 113430 -------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From fsb@ip-worldcom.ch Mon Nov 3 21:04:33 2003 From: fsb@ip-worldcom.ch (Yvan Calame) Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 22:04:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Nine Tailors In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20031103220433.00c18220@ip-worldcom.ch> At 16:44 03/11/2003 +1000, richard wrote: >Imps, Dlr: East, Vul: Both > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1S 4H >4S Pass Pass ? > >You, South, hold: > >Q >AJT987542 >J4 >8 > >What call do you make? 5C (joking, but may try it when part is in lead, to make them afraid and let me play 5H) PASS >What other calls do you consider making? 4NT, 5H. yvan From adam@irvine.com Mon Nov 3 21:32:14 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 13:32:14 -0800 Subject: [blml] Twister (was 100%) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 03 Nov 2003 14:00:54 +1000." Message-ID: <200311032132.NAA28854@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard Hills wrote: > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > [snip] > > >>Trying to twist the Laws around until you > >>wring some number out of them, and calling > >>it a score, seems rather pointless to me. > > Law 81B2 declares: > > >The Director is bound by these Laws and by > >supplementary regulations announced by the > >sponsoring organisation. > > Richard James Hills asks: > > If the sponsoring organisation has not > announced a relevant supplementary regulation > for a rare situation, and if the unadorned > Laws bind the TD to creating a pointless > result in that rare situation, does the TD > have any discretion to avert that pointless > result? Let me put it this way: If a rare situation arose such that a careful study of the Laws and piecing together various relevant Laws led to the inescapable conclusion that I was required to jump off a cliff, I still wouldn't do it. (Yes, I'm deliberately trying to sound like your mother: "If all your friends jumped......." :-) I live in Southern California, where we have been suffering from devastating fires. Fortunately, my area (Orange County) was largely untouched---there were a couple small fires that were put out quickly and caused no damage. However, we are right next door to San Diego County, which suffered huge numbers of homes lost and 16 deaths if I recall correctly. My brother-in-law lives down there, and while his home was undamaged, some families in his neighborhood lost their homes, as well as several people in the office where he works. One of the stories that has been reported in the aftermath was this. Here's how it was reported by San Diego's local NBC station (http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/2598968/detail.html): SAN DIEGO -- The first helicopter pilot to see the patch of flames that would become the catastrophic Cedar Fire radioed for aerial water drops, but he said state firefighters rejected his request because it came minutes after such flights had been grounded for the night. State safety guidelines set a certain cutoff time (based on the time of the sunset), for the pilots' safety, after which no flights were allowed to go up. Now, a number of disclaimers apply here. We can't be sure whether, if the requested aerial drops had been allowed to take place, any lives or homes would have been saved, or how many. (I'm not even sure how many of the deaths in the San Diego area were caused by the Cedar Fire; many of them were caused by a different fire, the Paradise Fire.) Also, when a major tragic event like this takes place, I can't trust everything I see on the news; rumors and exaggerations pop up during times like these, and news organizations probably do less than usual to check out the facts. But my point is this: *If* some of the tragedy could have been avoided by someone making a decision to ignore state policy, and *if* the people making the decision should have suspected that the aerial drop might have saved homes and possibly lives, then the decision to stick with state policy was a bad one. The point is that reasonable people have to realize that sometimes one must make an exception to the rules. Of course, in the case of the fouled boards, no lives or property was at stake. And there's a difference in that the Laws of Bridge are called "laws" and the state safety guidelines were apparently called "guidelines". But it's similar in that we're dealing with an exceptional case unforeseen by the authors of the Laws; and following them slavishly, while not leading to a tragic result, would certainly lead to a ridiculous and pointless result (a score of 100% for a session has as much meaning as a score of "purple fish"). That's why common sense dictates that we forget about trying to apply the Laws and just figure out how to make things as fair as possible for the players involved. The Laws of Bridge are our tool; they're there to help us keep the game fair, keep it running smoothly, and as a result provide a game that is enjoyable to those participating in it. But in that regard, the Laws should be our servant, not our master. I recognize that silly people could take this too far and start ignoring any laws that they don't like, which is why such exceptions like this need to be rare, and only in extreme situations that the Laws don't directly address and that probably were unforeseen by the authors. But trying to follow the Laws even if they would take us off a cliff, so to speak, indicates to me a lack of proper perspective about what the Laws are there for. -- Adam From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Nov 3 23:15:44 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 09:15:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] The Nine Tailors Message-ID: Richard Willey: >>>BTW, any significance to the expression "tailors?" >>>I recall a fairy tale about killing 10 with one blow. The Dorothy Sayers archive: >>'Changes rung on an old theme in two short touches and >>two full peals.' >> >>Perhaps one of the most artful and skillfully crafted >>detective stories ever written, The Nine Tailors is a >>marvel of plotting and progression. When Peter Wimsey >>and Bunter are stranded after an incident at Frog's >>Bridge in the fens of East Anglia during a snowstorm, >>they make their way to the village of Fenchurch St. >>Paul, where they encounter the rector, Venables. A >>harmless adventure in bell-ringing (the great science >>of campanology) returns Wimsey to the incident of the >>Wilbraham Emeralds, stolen during the Great War, >>apparently by the trusted servant Deacon. Now the >>seemingly cold trail appears fresh once more... Australian Directors's Bulletin panel, May 2003: >Hand 3: Butler Interstate Selection Final. >Bd. 4 / W / All > Q > AJT987542 > J4 > 8 >AKT964 J832 >K6 3 >972 K5 >A5 JT9743 > 75 > Q > AQT863 > KQ62 > >West North East South >1S 4H 4S Pass(1) >Pass 5H Pass Pass >Pass > >(1) Break in tempo. > >Result: N/S + 650 Richard James Hills (panellist): >It is authorised information to North that >North's 4H preempt has prevented both East and >West from making a below-game slam try. >Therefore, it is authorised information to North that >E/W may be cold for 6S. It is also authorised >information to North that this auction has occurred >many times before: > >West North East South >1S 4H 4S Pass >Pass 5H 5S Pass >6S > >So, Pass is a logical alternative to 5H. South's break >in tempo is UI to North. South's break in tempo >demonstrably suggests values. Therefore, South's >break in tempo demonstrably suggests that 6S will >not make. Consequently, South's break in tempo >demonstrably suggests that 5H will be more >successful than Pass. Score adjusted to a result in >4S. Richard James Hills (blmler): A majority of the panel rang changes on the old theme that passing with nine tailors was never a logical alternative. Unfortunately, the TD at the table was also a short touch. Fortunately, the real-life AC fully pealed out Law 16, and adjusted the score to 4S -100. 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 Mon Nov 3 22:20:50 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 23:20:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Nine Tailors In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3a258$bd3eb110$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Richard Willey ........... > BTW, any significance to the expression "tailors?" > I recall a fairy tale about killing 10 with one blow. Exaggeration. The tale is "The brave little tailor" by the Grimm brothers. He had killed seven (flees) with one blow. Regards Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Nov 3 23:51:40 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 09:51:40 +1000 Subject: [blml] Alerting OOT Bid Message-ID: Richard James Hills replied: >>Yes, in Australia I alert both pard's OOT bids, and also >>pard's insufficient bids. Ben: >You can explain an OOT bid, but in my opinion not an IB. >It can not be part of your bidding system nor can you >have an agreement on it. RJH: An insufficient bid may not legally be part of your *explicit* agreements. Law 72B2 - "A player must not infringe a law intentionally..." But, *implicit* agreements about pard's likely errors must be explained. Law 75B - "...habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed..." 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 Mon Nov 3 23:04:53 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 15:04:53 -0800 Subject: [blml] Alerting OOT Bid In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 04 Nov 2003 09:51:40 +1000." Message-ID: <200311032304.PAA32098@mailhub.irvine.com> > RJH: > > An insufficient bid may not legally be part of your *explicit* > agreements. > > Law 72B2 - "A player must not infringe a law intentionally..." > > But, *implicit* agreements about pard's likely errors must be > explained. > > Law 75B - "...habitual violations within a partnership may > create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed..." Gee, if my partner makes the same insufficient bid often enough to create an implicit agreement, I'm looking for a new partner. Unless he's paying me. A lot. So I guess I see how this could be a legitimate issue. Especially since anyone who's daft enough to pay me to play with them would be daft enough to make lots of insufficient bids. -- Adam From svenpran@online.no Mon Nov 3 23:18:37 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 00:18:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting OOT Bid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3a260$cf9a9380$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au ......... > Law 72B2 - "A player must not infringe a law intentionally..." > > But, *implicit* agreements about pard's likely errors must be > explained. > > Law 75B - "...habitual violations within a partnership may > create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed..." Sorry Richard, did you misread Law 75B "intentionally" or "accidentally"? The word "violations" in Law 75B refers to violations of partnership agreements, not to violations of law. There is a difference. Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Nov 4 00:19:49 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 10:19:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] Shall Message-ID: Law 93A: "The Chief Director shall hear..." Scope and Interpretation of the Laws: "...In contrast, when these Laws say that a player "shall" do something ("No player shall take any action until the Director has explained..."), a violation will be penalised more often than not..." Chapter 1 Definitions of the Laws: "Irregularity - A deviation from the correct procedures set forth in the Laws." WBFLC reinterpretation of Irregularity: >This refers to errors by players not TDs. While TDs make >errors these do not constitute irregularities. > >[WBFLC minutes 2001-10-30#5] 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 grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Mon Nov 3 23:26:48 2003 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 18:26:48 -0500 Subject: [blml] Alerting OOT Bid In-Reply-To: <200311032304.PAA32098@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20031103182147.00bc24a0@mail.vzavenue.net> At 06:04 PM 11/3/2003, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > RJH: > > > > An insufficient bid may not legally be part of your *explicit* > > agreements. > > > > Law 72B2 - "A player must not infringe a law intentionally..." > > > > But, *implicit* agreements about pard's likely errors must be > > explained. > > > > Law 75B - "...habitual violations within a partnership may > > create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed..." > >Gee, if my partner makes the same insufficient bid often enough to >create an implicit agreement, I'm looking for a new partner. If you are playing a Precision Club, and partner bids an insufficient 1C, it is conventional and needs to be alerted as such even the first time, since 1C has only one possible meaning in your partnership. In addition, if it is clear from the auction, or from a comment, "Oops, I didn't see the opening," what the insufficient bid means, the intended meaning should be alerted. If the auction is something like 2NT-P-2H (corrected to 6NT), and you play transfers, the 2H bid should be alerted as at least, "Would have shown spades if the opening had been 1NT." From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Nov 4 00:37:37 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 10:37:37 +1000 Subject: [blml] Alerting OOT Bid Message-ID: Sven: >Sorry Richard, did you misread Law 75B "intentionally" or >"accidentally"? > >The word "violations" in Law 75B refers to violations of >partnership agreements, not to violations of law. > >There is a difference. RJH: Agreed that there is a difference. In mathematical-logical format, irregular violations of a partnership agreement are a *subset* of all violations of a 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 svenpran@online.no Mon Nov 3 23:59:51 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 00:59:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Shall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3a266$920ac890$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Law 93A: > > "The Chief Director shall hear..." > > Scope and Interpretation of the Laws: > > "...In contrast, when these Laws say that a player "shall" do > something ("No player shall take any action until the Director > has explained..."), a violation will be penalised more often > than not..." > > Chapter 1 Definitions of the Laws: > > "Irregularity - A deviation from the correct procedures set > forth in the Laws." > > WBFLC reinterpretation of Irregularity: > > >This refers to errors by players not TDs. While TDs make > >errors these do not constitute irregularities. > > > >[WBFLC minutes 2001-10-30#5] > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills I think this is another case of the need for an accurate quotation rather than an edited extract in order to avoid misunderstandings: "5 The committee agreed that references to irregularities in the laws refer to irregularities committed by players. An action by a Director may be an error but this does not constitute an 'irregularity' within the meaning of the laws". IMO this interpretation makes sense because an error by the Director cannot possibly be handled in the same way as an "irregularity" by a player. Instead we have the procedures for appeals which apply in such cases. Sven From svenpran@online.no Tue Nov 4 00:06:24 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 01:06:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting OOT Bid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c3a267$7c50b0e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sven: > > >Sorry Richard, did you misread Law 75B "intentionally" or > >"accidentally"? > > > >The word "violations" in Law 75B refers to violations of > >partnership agreements, not to violations of law. > > > >There is a difference. > > RJH: > > Agreed that there is a difference. In mathematical-logical > format, irregular violations of a partnership agreement are > a *subset* of all violations of a partnership agreement. But you have not shown any connection between "violations of partnership agreements" and "violations of law"? In fact, as far as I can see (using my logical mind) there is no such connection. They may overlap, but that is just accidental. Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Nov 4 02:12:09 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 12:12:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] Twister (was 100%) Message-ID: Adam Beneschan: [big snip] >the Laws should be our servant, not our master. I >recognize that silly people could take this too >far and start ignoring any laws that they don't >like, which is why such exceptions like this need >to be rare, and only in extreme situations that >the Laws don't directly address and that probably >were unforeseen by the authors. > >But trying to follow the Laws even if they would >take us off a cliff, so to speak, indicates to me >a lack of proper perspective about what the Laws >are there for. Richard James Hills: A respected CTD of a respected NBO is on record with the sentiment that following Law 73C is an extreme situation which leads us off a cliff. The CTD urges the abolition of Law 73C. Meanwhile..... The same respected CTD is on record as ruling that a player who ethically selects an LA which is in *contradiction* to received UI is a player who has been *influenced* by UI. So, to avoid that CTD's perceived cliff, the CTD rules an adjusted score if a contradicted LA gets lucky. If lives or property are involved, of course the Laws of Bridge can be violated for the greater good. But, in my humble opinion, any exclusively bridge-related "walking off cliff" extreme violation of Law is the camel's nose entering the tent. Anyway, most cliff-faces can be Lawfully avoided, by using Law 82A: "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." 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 adam@irvine.com Tue Nov 4 02:28:41 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 18:28:41 -0800 Subject: [blml] Twister (was 100%) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 04 Nov 2003 12:12:09 +1000." Message-ID: <200311040228.SAA07393@mailhub.irvine.com> > Richard James Hills: > > A respected CTD of a respected NBO is on record with > the sentiment that following Law 73C is an extreme > situation which leads us off a cliff. The CTD urges > the abolition of Law 73C. > > Meanwhile..... > > The same respected CTD is on record as ruling that a > player who ethically selects an LA which is in > *contradiction* to received UI is a player who has > been *influenced* by UI. So, to avoid that CTD's > perceived cliff, the CTD rules an adjusted score if a > contradicted LA gets lucky. You're talking about a common occurrence (players bending over backward to avoid taking advantage of UI and getting lucky thereby) that has no doubt been thought about by many authorities, and these authorities largely believe that it's best to allow the player to get lucky in this situation. Certainly there are some dissenters, but the bridge community has spoken on this matter, and the CTD is clearly going against its wishes. I'm talking about a situation that virtually never happens, and was likely not in anyone's minds when they wrote Laws 87 and 88. Those laws work well enough when one or two boards are fouled. Do you really think that if the Lawmakers had considered this case, they would have decided that someone ought to get a 100% score for an entire session if they got 100% on their one board? Sorry, I think that's silly. You can't compare the two situations. They're not the same. -- Adam From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Nov 4 03:52:10 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 03:52:10 -0000 Subject: [blml] Lost deposit Message-ID: <000601c3a28c$edd0a160$099868d5@tinyhrieuyik> On Sunday, at a county event, I was co-opted onto an AC that decided to keep the deposit lodged by the appellants. At the time, the decision seemed OK, but I felt bad about it, afterwards. Should there be *minimum* criteria that must be satisfied before an AC can contemplate keeping the deposit e.g. You must return the deposit if... (1) Before the appeal, the appellants sought an independent legal expert who advised them that they had some kind of case. (2) There is any doubt about pertinent facts. (3) The relevant law is parochial, complex, ambiguous, or spuriously subjective. (4) The TD and AC don't uphold the TD's ruling, *exactly* and *unanimously*. (5) The AC aren't unanimous in deciding to keep the deposit. Are there other minimum criteria? Should such criteria be enshrined in the TFLB, in 2015? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.534 / Virus Database: 329 - Release Date: 31/10/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.534 / Virus Database: 329 - Release Date: 31/10/2003 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Nov 4 06:56:51 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 16:56:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] Lost deposit Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie asked: >>On Sunday, at a county event, I was co-opted >>onto an AC that decided to keep the deposit >>lodged by the appellants. >> >>At the time, the decision seemed OK, but I felt >>bad about it, afterwards. Should there be >>*minimum* criteria that must be satisfied before >>an AC can contemplate keeping the deposit? [snip] Soon-to-be-released Draft EBU White Book replies: >Since the purpose of the deposit is to deter >frivolous appeals, the discretion given to >Appeals Committees to return deposits should be >based solely on whether the appeal is frivolous, >and not be based on other matters. It is normal, >however, that deposits are only kept by a >unanimous decision of an Appeals Committee. > >In appropriate cases the DIC may recommend an >Appeals Committee to return a deposit. All >forfeitures of deposits are reviewed by the L&EC >who may also return a deposit in appropriate cases. Richard James Hills notes: Since 50 euros may be a significant amount of money to a poor player, but a trivial sum to a wealthier player, an SO should never demand monetary deposits. Instead, an SO's rules should demand deposits of imps/matchpoints, or alternatively an SO could adopt the ACBL system of Appeal Without Merit Warnings as a replacement for deposits. 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 mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Nov 4 07:12:23 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 23:12:23 -0800 Subject: [blml] Lost deposit References: <000601c3a28c$edd0a160$099868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <003001c3a2a3$003d6b60$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Nigel Guthrie" > On Sunday, at a county event, I was co-opted > onto an AC that decided to keep the deposit > lodged by the appellants. > At the time, the decision seemed OK, but I felt > bad about it, afterwards. Should there be > *minimum* criteria that must be satisfied before > an AC can contemplate keeping the deposit e.g. > You must return the deposit if... > (1) Before the appeal, the appellants sought an > independent legal expert who advised them > that they had some kind of case. > (2) There is any doubt about pertinent facts. > (3) The relevant law is parochial, complex, > ambiguous, or spuriously subjective. > (4) The TD and AC don't uphold the TD's > ruling, *exactly* and *unanimously*. > (5) The AC aren't unanimous in deciding to keep > the deposit. > Are there other minimum criteria? Should such > criteria be enshrined in the TFLB, in 2015? > The idea of requiring deposits from appellants is a very poor one for many reasons. The ACBL tried it for a while ($50), but has dropped it in favor of Appeal Without Merit Warnings (AWMW). These are filed away, with appropriate action taken against those who seem to be abusing the appeal process. There was one wealthy guy, to whom $50 meant nothing, who lodged numerous appeals, most without merit, not caring about the money forfeited. If he did that now, the AWMWs would catch up with him. There were others, to whom $50 meant something, who were loath to lodge a reasonable appeal if it might end up costing them. That wasn't right. The ACBL ACs at NABCs are slow to assign an AWMW, sometimes to the disgust of the casebook commentators, but I think that is the best policy. If the AC decision is not unanimous, or the TD initially ruled in their favor and changed his mine, or there was no screener, an AWMW is generally not issued. At regional events the AC process is more informal than at NABCs. Instead of a subset of a politically chosen group, who are paid for serving, gathering in a hotel meeting room late at night, an *ad hoc* AC recruited by the CTD meets in the playing room immediately after the session during which the ruling was made. I asked one high-ranking ACBL TD how these ACs performed in comparison to those at NABCs, and he said they worked just as well as those of the "gravy train" (his words ) riders. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Tue Nov 4 11:12:26 2003 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 11:12:26 -0000 Subject: [blml] Lost deposit Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB12C1@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of > Nigel Guthrie > Sent: 04 November 2003 03:52 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] Lost deposit >=20 >=20 > On Sunday, at a county event, I was co-opted > onto an AC that decided to keep the deposit > lodged by the appellants. > At the time, the decision seemed OK, but I felt > bad about it, afterwards. Should there be > *minimum* criteria that must be satisfied before > an AC can contemplate keeping the deposit e.g. > You must return the deposit if... > (1) Before the appeal, the appellants sought an > independent legal expert who advised them > that they had some kind of case. [Frances] No, not least because ACs are not told if the appellants have consulted an expert beforehand. > (2) There is any doubt about pertinent facts. > (3) The relevant law is parochial, complex, > ambiguous, or spuriously subjective. > (4) The TD and AC don't uphold the TD's > ruling, *exactly* and *unanimously*. [Frances] Certainly I agree with this one. > (5) The AC aren't unanimous in deciding to keep > the deposit. [Frances] Suppose on a 3-person AC, 2 of them think the deposit should be kept. The third agrees it's a frivolous appeal but objects to the principle of monetary deposits and so will never vote to keep the deposit? (this has certainly happened at least once). > Are there other minimum criteria? Should such > criteria be enshrined in the TFLB, in 2015? >=20 >=20 [Frances] No. Not least because some NCBOs don't have deposits as such. =20 Aside from this, it is always going to be partly a=20 judgement call. For example, very inexperienced players will basically never have their deposit kept. =20 Finally: _why_ did you feel bad about it? Because you extracted a monetary penalty for a bridge infraction? In that case you object to the principle: lobby the EBU to change it and use the money to buy the team that won the appeal (or the TD) a drink or give it to charity or something. Because you think you made a mistake? Try and do better next time! From nancy@dressing.org Tue Nov 4 05:36:52 2003 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 00:36:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] Spectatiors Message-ID: <000801c3a295$a6f09f80$6401a8c0@hare> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C3A26B.BDB5BB30 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Is there a law other that 76 and 11 relating to Spectators and the right = of a player to ban a spectator from the table? As I understand it, a = player may ban 1 spectator. Is the player allowed to ban any spectator = no matter who they are watching or only from watching that player? = Thanks, Nancy ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C3A26B.BDB5BB30 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Is there a law other that 76 and 11 = relating to=20 Spectators and the right of a player to ban a spectator from the = table?  As=20 I understand it, a player may ban 1 spectator.  Is the player = allowed=20 to ban any spectator no matter who they are watching or only from = watching that=20 player?  Thanks, Nancy
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C3A26B.BDB5BB30-- From svenpran@online.no Tue Nov 4 12:55:52 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 13:55:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Spectatiors In-Reply-To: <000801c3a295$a6f09f80$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <000301c3a2d2$fde48670$6900a8c0@WINXP> Nancy T Dressing Is there a law other that 76 and 11 relating to Spectators and the right = of a player to ban a spectator from the table?=A0 As I understand it, a = player may ban 1 spectator.=A0 Is=A0the player allowed to ban any spectator no = matter who they are watching or only from watching that player?=A0 Thanks, = Nancy Sven:=20 There may be local regulations affecting this question, but otherwise a player can ban the presence of any or all spectators by whom he feels disturbed (by violating law 76). I seriously doubt that he can ban the presence of any spectator without such reason.=20 In matches for teams of four you have a "closed room" and an "open = room"; there spectators are only permitted in the "open room" and still only = when they comply with Law 76.=20 Regards Sven From karel@esatclear.ie Tue Nov 4 14:19:57 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 14:19:57 GMT Subject: [blml] (no subject) Message-ID: <3fa7b58d.211c.0@esatclear.ie> Having tried various sources to no avail, I'll try my hand here Anyone have an e-mail address for Po-Sundelin ? K. -- http://www.iol.ie From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Nov 4 17:02:30 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 09:02:30 -0800 Subject: [blml] Spectatiors References: <000801c3a295$a6f09f80$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <006201c3a2f6$cf0e9600$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Nancy T Dressing" [Nancy] Is there a law other that 76 and 11 relating to Spectators and th= e right of a player to ban a spectator from the table? As I understand it,= a player may ban 1 spectator. Is the player allowed to ban any spectator n= o matter who they are watching or only from watching that player? [Marv] This is the subject of an ACBL regulation: Barring Kibitzers A player may not bar all spectators from his table, however, he has the right to object to the presence of a specific spectator and may have ONE such spectator barred with[out] assigning cause. This is very poorly worded/punctuated and includes an obvious typo. Is a "spectator" a "kibitzer"? If so, why use two terms with the same meaning? Who writes this stuff?? I have invoked the regulation on several occasions. It allows me to bar a kibitzer without getting into a fuss as to whether his/her communications with an opponent are in violation of L76A3, or arguing that her extreme state of d=E9colt=E9 is causing me to lose focus. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Tue Nov 4 18:32:39 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 09:32:39 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] Spectatiors In-Reply-To: <006201c3a2f6$cf0e9600$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: The wording in the latest copy of the Handbook has been tidied up a little bit. Here is the full passage (Chapter 7, Section 3): IX. SPECTATORS Spectators (kibitzers) may attend all ACBL tournaments except those at which the privilege of watching is specifically curtailed. The DIC may impose restrictions on spectators, as necessary, to preserve the orderly conduct of the game. He or she should, for example, disallow standing spectators. The DIC may limit the number of spectators at a given table, may forbid spectators from moving from one table to another, and may remove any or all kibitzers from a room. Tournament players must extend the same reasonable privileges to spectators that the tournament officials grant them. While a player may not bar all spectators from the table, he or she may bar one spectator (excluding tournament officials, the recorder or his designee, or officially approved members of the press) without having to state any reason. If a player objects to the presence of other kibitzers, he or she must tell the DIC the reason(s) and request their removal from the table. If the DIC considers the request justified, appropriate action will be taken. The player must accept the DIC's ruling on the matter for the session in question. --- Returning to Nancy's original question: it's not a law, but an ACBL regulation, and the regulation only refers to removing someone from your table without cause, not from the room: you have to ask the director to do that. GRB From svenpran@online.no Tue Nov 4 20:31:39 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 21:31:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Spectatiors In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3a312$a6eb8ea0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > -----Original Message----- > From: Ed Reppert [mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com] > Sent: 4. november 2003 21:16 > To: Sven Pran > Subject: Re: [blml] Spectatiors >=20 >=20 > On Tuesday, Nov 4, 2003, at 07:55 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: >=20 > > In matches for teams of four you have a "closed room" and an "open > > room"; > > there spectators are only permitted in the "open room" and still = only > > when > > they comply with Law 76. >=20 > May have a closed room, I think. Certainly the teams league in which I > play has no such arrangement - all matches are played in one room. And you do not designate half the tables (one for each match) as "closed room" with no spectators permitted.=20 In not too important tournaments in Norway we quite often have all = tables in the same physical room, but then we designate half the room as "closed" = and arrange the tables for minimum possibility of eye contact within each = pair of tables "belonging" to the same match.=20 Regards Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Nov 4 22:31:34 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 08:31:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] Lost deposit Message-ID: [snip] >At regional events the AC process is more >informal than at NABCs. Instead of a subset of a >politically chosen group, who are paid for >serving, gathering in a hotel meeting room late >at night, an *ad hoc* AC recruited by the CTD >meets in the playing room immediately after the >session during which the ruling was made. I >asked one high-ranking ACBL TD how these ACs >performed in comparison to those at NABCs, and >he said they worked just as well as those of the >"gravy train" (his words ) riders. > >Marv >Marvin L. French >San Diego, California RJH rants: Paid ACs on a gravy train??? No wonder the ACBL is recommending that ACs be abolished in the medium future. All members of all Aussie ACs (even at national championships) are unpaid volunteers. This has a psychological advantage of reducing the number of meritless appeals. Any potential appellants are more reluctant to waste the *unpaid* time of colleagues, when those colleagues could be socialising over a drink instead. 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 Nov 4 22:55:21 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 08:55:21 +1000 Subject: [blml] Twister (was 100%) Message-ID: Adam Beneschan wrote: >>You're talking about a common occurrence [snip] >>I'm talking about a situation that virtually never happens [snip] >>You can't compare the two situations. They're not the same. Juvenal asked: >Quis custodes ipsos custodiet? Richard James Hills asked: Who shall direct the Director? If, as Adam desires, the TD may freely ignore the Laws if the TD determines that a virtually-never-happening situation has occurred, then why have a set of Laws in the first place? Better would be for the WBFLC to frame Laws, and the SO to frame regulations, that permit a TD to have some leeway in some pre-defined exceptional circumstances. But, until those Laws or regulations are framed, in my opinion the Laws direct the Director, not the other way around. 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 Nov 4 23:04:23 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 09:04:23 +1000 Subject: [blml] Shall Message-ID: Law 93A: >>"The Chief Director shall hear..." [snip] Sven: >I think this is another case of the need for an accurate >quotation rather than an edited extract in order to avoid >misunderstandings: > >"5 The committee agreed that references to irregularities >in the laws refer to irregularities committed by players. >An action by a Director may be an error but this does not >constitute an 'irregularity' within the meaning of the >laws". > >IMO this interpretation makes sense because an error by >the Director cannot possibly be handled in the same way as >an "irregularity" by a player. > >Instead we have the procedures for appeals which apply in >such cases. RJH: But, if a Chief Director refuses to follow Law 93A by refusing to hear an appeal, how can there be a "procedure for an appeal applying", when the appeal hearing has just been unLawfully refused? Catch-22? 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 Nov 4 23:15:20 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 09:15:20 +1000 Subject: [blml] Twister (was 100%) Message-ID: Adam Beneschan: [snip] >a score of 100% for a session has as much >meaning as a score of "purple fish" [snip] Richard James Hills: Not so. One of the most cherished memories of Canberra's second-best bridge player, is of the time he played in the South Australian Youth Pairs Championship. Assisted by it being only a 3-table event, he legitimately achieved a 100% score. 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 torsten.astrand@telia.com Tue Nov 4 22:59:54 2003 From: torsten.astrand@telia.com (Torsten Åstrand) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 23:59:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] (no subject) References: <3fa7b58d.211c.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <00c801c3a327$5ca560e0$4d1b42d5@telia.com> posundelin@yahoo.se Torsten ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Karel" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 3:19 PM Subject: [blml] (no subject) > Having tried various sources to no avail, I'll try my hand here >=20 > Anyone have an e-mail address for Po-Sundelin ? >=20 >=20 > K. > -- > http://www.iol.ie >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 From svenpran@online.no Tue Nov 4 23:18:01 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 00:18:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Shall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3a329$e4546a70$6900a8c0@WINXP> See Law 93C Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: 5. november 2003 00:04 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: RE: [blml] Shall >=20 >=20 > Law 93A: >=20 > >>"The Chief Director shall hear..." >=20 > [snip] >=20 > Sven: >=20 > >I think this is another case of the need for an accurate > >quotation rather than an edited extract in order to avoid > >misunderstandings: > > > >"5 The committee agreed that references to irregularities > >in the laws refer to irregularities committed by players. > >An action by a Director may be an error but this does not > >constitute an 'irregularity' within the meaning of the > >laws". > > > >IMO this interpretation makes sense because an error by > >the Director cannot possibly be handled in the same way as > >an "irregularity" by a player. > > > >Instead we have the procedures for appeals which apply in > >such cases. >=20 > RJH: >=20 > But, if a Chief Director refuses to follow Law 93A by > refusing to hear an appeal, how can there be a "procedure > for an appeal applying", when the appeal hearing has just > been unLawfully refused? >=20 > Catch-22? >=20 > Best wishes >=20 > Richard James Hills > = -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - > ------------ >=20 > 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). > = -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - > ------------ >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Tue Nov 4 22:43:48 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 13:43:48 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] Possible fielding Message-ID: Opinions requested on the following deal, from a recent IMP pairs game online. .----------------------------------------------------. |Dealer: S ===North======== Brd# 33227 | |Declarer: S > Scoring: IMP | |Vulnerable: None S: K94 | |Contract: 2H H: Q97 | |Result: Down 2 D: J92 | |Score: C: AQ53 | |===West========= ===East========= | |S: 7652 | | S: AQJ3 | |H: T4 | | H: KJ63 | |D: AKT63 | | D: 75 | |C: T4 .----------. C: K96 | | | | ===South======== | | S: T8 | | H: A852 | | D: Q84 | | C: J872 | .----------------------------------------------------. West North East South Pass Pass 1C Dbl 1S Pass 1NT Pass Pass 2D Pass Pass 2H Pass Pass Pass The 1S bid served its purpose nicely: E-W never found their spade fit. After dummy came down, questions were raised about why North did not take a preference back to spades. 1) Does this look ugly enough to you to be classed as an illegal action by North? 2) Does it make a difference if South has a reputation for frequent psyching? 3) Does it make a difference if South has been heard to say "when I bid a suit and run away, it means I psyched" when he sits down with a new partner? This particular partner? 4) If you decide to make an adjustment - to what? Let's assume this takes place in a jurisdiction where "automatic 60/30" isn't the rule. GRB From adam@irvine.com Wed Nov 5 00:17:31 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 16:17:31 -0800 Subject: [blml] Twister (was 100%) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 05 Nov 2003 09:15:20 +1000." Message-ID: <200311050017.QAA08590@mailhub.irvine.com> > Adam Beneschan: > > [snip] > > >a score of 100% for a session has as much > >meaning as a score of "purple fish" > > [snip] > > Richard James Hills: > > Not so. One of the most cherished memories > of Canberra's second-best bridge player, is > of the time he played in the South Australian > Youth Pairs Championship. > > Assisted by it being only a 3-table event, he > legitimately achieved a 100% score. Even with it being a 3-table event, I assume he played 25 boards---and not one of them was flat? Amazing. Of course, you know darn well that wasn't what I was talking about. But if it gave you an opportunity to tell a good story, I don't have a problem with it. -- Adam From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Nov 5 01:10:14 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 11:10:14 +1000 Subject: [blml] Shall Message-ID: [big snip] Sven: >See Law 93C RJH: Law 93C has this caveat -> "After the preceding remedies have been exhausted..." If an appeals hearing has not yet occurred, that remedy cannot be said to be exhausted. Furthermore, Law 92C requires -> "All appeals shall be made through the Director." If the Director refuses to hear an appeal, then Law 92C means that there is no Lawful entitlement for a remedy of a further appeal against the refusal to hear the first appeal. Catch-22. (Of course, there may extra-Lawful options, but my point is that those options are not entitlements.) 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 Wed Nov 5 00:48:35 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 16:48:35 -0800 Subject: [blml] Shall In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 05 Nov 2003 11:10:14 +1000." Message-ID: <200311050048.QAA09220@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard wrote: > [big snip] > > Sven: > > >See Law 93C > > RJH: > > Law 93C has this caveat -> > > "After the preceding remedies have been exhausted..." > > If an appeals hearing has not yet occurred, that > remedy cannot be said to be exhausted. I'm not a lawyer, but I think this is wrong; if you request an appeal and your request is denied, that remedy *would* be exhausted. -- Adam From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Wed Nov 5 00:42:00 2003 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 19:42:00 -0500 Subject: [blml] Lost deposit In-Reply-To: <000601c3a28c$edd0a160$099868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20031104192815.00bc26b8@mail.vzavenue.net> At 10:52 PM 11/3/2003, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >On Sunday, at a county event, I was co-opted >onto an AC that decided to keep the deposit >lodged by the appellants. >At the time, the decision seemed OK, but I felt >bad about it, afterwards. Should there be >*minimum* criteria that must be satisfied before >an AC can contemplate keeping the deposit e.g. >You must return the deposit if... >(1) Before the appeal, the appellants sought an > independent legal expert who advised them > that they had some kind of case. I would say that this should apply if there is such a policy. That is, if there is a screener (the ACBL often uses one) and the screener, given all of the facts, recommends the appeal, there should not be any penalty, either monetary or procedural, for the appeal These penalties are given when the appellants should have known that they had no case. If an expert said that they had a strong case, the appellants can hardly be expected to know that they had no case. And this principle is particularly important when the penalty is financial. If a pair of students believes that a ruling was unjust, and a screener agrees, the students should not have to risk what to them is a significant amount of money. >(2) There is any doubt about pertinent facts. >(3) The relevant law is parochial, complex, > ambiguous, or spuriously subjective. These should not be absolutes, but they should be considered as important factors in deciding against a penalty. For example, an expert should be expected to properly apply a complex law. >(4) The TD and AC don't uphold the TD's > ruling, *exactly* and *unanimously*. If a minority of the AC votes to adjust the TD's ruling potentially in favor of the appellants, or against their opponents (changing a ruling of +100 for the non-appellants to -590 while retaining the appellants' -100), this is proof that there was a likely error in the ruling, and thus the appeal should be considered to have merit. Note that I write, "potentially in favor." If the appellants were awarded average-minus, and the committee changes that to -100, that is still potentially in favor even if -100 is a bottom. The appellants' case may have been that the average-minus was an incorrect ruling, and the correct ruling should have been either +590 or -100. If the ruling is adjusted against the appellants, or a procedural penalty is added or modified, that should not affect the ruling that the appeal had no merit. >(5) The AC aren't unanimous in deciding to keep > the deposit. This should be the same as a unanimous finding that the appeal lacked merit. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Nov 5 02:35:19 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 21:35:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] Spectatiors In-Reply-To: <000001c3a312$a6eb8ea0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Tuesday, Nov 4, 2003, at 15:31 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > And you do not designate half the tables (one for each match) as > "closed > room" with no spectators permitted. No, we don't. At least, not so far as I know. I don't think the question has ever come up. If I remember, I'll ask the TD tomorrow. > In not too important tournaments in Norway we quite often have all > tables in > the same physical room, but then we designate half the room as > "closed" and > arrange the tables for minimum possibility of eye contact within each > pair > of tables "belonging" to the same match. Here, the tables are in 3 rows of 4. 1-4 N to S in row 1, 1-4 S to N in row 3, row 2 empty. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Nov 5 05:03:17 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 15:03:17 +1000 Subject: [blml] Possible fielding Message-ID: Gordon Bower: >Opinions requested on the following deal, from a recent >IMP pairs game online. > >.----------------------------------------------------. >|Dealer: S =3D=3D=3DNorth=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Brd# 3= 3227 | >|Declarer: S > Scoring: IMP | >|Vulnerable: None S: K94 | >|Contract: 2H H: Q97 | >|Result: Down 2 D: J92 | >|Score: C: AQ53 | >|=3D=3D=3DWest=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3DE= ast=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D | >|S: 7652 | | S: AQJ3 | >|H: T4 | | H: KJ63 | >|D: AKT63 | | D: 75 | >|C: T4 .----------. C: K96 | >| | >| =3D=3D=3DSouth=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D = | >| S: T8 | >| H: A852 | >| D: Q84 | >| C: J872 | >.----------------------------------------------------. > >West North East South > Pass >Pass 1C Dbl 1S >Pass 1NT Pass Pass >2D Pass Pass 2H >Pass Pass Pass [snip] Richard James Hills: If both North and South were experts, I would rule what the EBU calls a Red Psyche - North's final Pass is highly suspicious. If, however, both North and South were bunnies, then the situation is murkier. {The auction suggests that South, at least, is a bunny - South's 2H call is stupid, giving East-West a chance to recover from the psyche.} Bunnies do not necessarily believe in up-the-line bidding theory, or in the Roth-Stone theory of giving preference. In that bunny case, I cannot rule an adjusted score on the evidence of the auction alone. Given that North-South seem to be playing SAYC, South is not promising five spades. A relevant parallel case is Example Appeal No. 9 in the WBF Code of Practice (extract below): >>The facts: >>One Heart was a psychic call. >> >>The Director: >>Applied Law 40A, and found no evidence of >>anything wrong in East/West. >> >>Ruling: >>Result Stands >> >>Relevant Laws: >>Law 40A >> >>The Committee's decision: >>Director's decision upheld. >> >>Deposit: Forfeited >> >>WBF Comment: >> >>There is little to add. It is not clear that >>West has necessarily shown five cards in >>Hearts; this is something that the Director >>will no doubt have explored. RJH continuation: Of course, if the North-South bunny pair gave self-incriminating evidence of a Law 40B CPU infraction, or if other additional evidence of a Law 40B CPU infraction was discovered, then my ruling would change - I would then rule MI and assess a PP. 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 Wed Nov 5 07:14:57 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 08:14:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Spectatiors In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3a36c$85009830$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > On Tuesday, Nov 4, 2003, at 15:31 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > > > And you do not designate half the tables (one for each match) as > > "closed > > room" with no spectators permitted. > > No, we don't. At least, not so far as I know. I don't think the > question has ever come up. If I remember, I'll ask the TD tomorrow. > > > In not too important tournaments in Norway we quite often have all > > tables in > > the same physical room, but then we designate half the room as > > "closed" and > > arrange the tables for minimum possibility of eye contact within each > > pair > > of tables "belonging" to the same match. > > Here, the tables are in 3 rows of 4. 1-4 N to S in row 1, 1-4 S to N in > row 3, row 2 empty. We would in that case arrange the tables with 3 opposite 1 and 4 opposite 2 etc. in order to obtain the best separation possible for all four matches. Regards Sven From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Nov 5 07:21:44 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 23:21:44 -0800 Subject: [blml] Lost deposit References: <5.1.1.6.0.20031104192815.00bc26b8@mail.vzavenue.net> Message-ID: <002301c3a36d$7a9d5580$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "David J. Grabiner" > Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >On Sunday, at a county event, I was co-opted > >onto an AC that decided to keep the deposit > >lodged by the appellants. > >At the time, the decision seemed OK, but I felt > >bad about it, afterwards. Should there be > >*minimum* criteria that must be satisfied before > >an AC can contemplate keeping the deposit e.g. > >You must return the deposit if... > >(1) Before the appeal, the appellants sought an > > independent legal expert who advised them > > that they had some kind of case. > > I would say that this should apply if there is such a policy. That is, if > there is a screener (the ACBL often uses one) and the screener, given all > of the facts, recommends the appeal, there should not be any penalty, > either monetary or procedural, for the appeal The ACBL screener (at NABCs, at least) does not recommend appeals. All he does is go over the matter with the appellants, make sure they understand the legal issues, and warn them if he believes the appeal to be without merit. The AC is not told of the screener's opinion, if he has one. He plays no part in the AC's deliberations. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Nov 5 12:28:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 12:28 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Possible fielding In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Opinions requested on the following deal, from a recent IMP pairs game > online. > > .----------------------------------------------------. > |Dealer: S ===North======== Brd# 33227 | > |Declarer: S > Scoring: IMP | > |Vulnerable: None S: K94 | > |Contract: 2H H: Q97 | > |Result: Down 2 D: J92 | > |Score: C: AQ53 | > |===West========= ===East========= | > |S: 7652 | | S: AQJ3 | > |H: T4 | | H: KJ63 | > |D: AKT63 | | D: 75 | > |C: T4 .----------. C: K96 | > | | > | ===South======== | > | S: T8 | > | H: A852 | > | D: Q84 | > | C: J872 | > .----------------------------------------------------. > > West North East South > Pass > Pass 1C Dbl 1S > Pass 1NT Pass Pass > 2D Pass Pass 2H > Pass Pass Pass > > The 1S bid served its purpose nicely: E-W never found their spade fit. > After dummy came down, questions were raised about why North did not > take a preference back to spades. Taking "preference" would require that the auction shows longer spades than hearts. South has shown limited values and length in both majors but this is consistent with Axxx,JTxxx,xx,xx as well as JTxxx,Axxx,xx,xx (at least in my approach) so pass is reasonable. > 1) Does this look ugly enough to you to be classed as an illegal action > by North? No > 2) Does it make a difference if South has a reputation for frequent > psyching? No - I would expect a psycher to pass out 2D > 3) Does it make a difference if South has been heard to say "when I bid > a suit and run away, it means I psyched" when he sits down with a new > partner? This particular partner? That's a partnership agreement that should be disclosed however the SO dictates. Not relevant to this sequence though - South hasn't "run away" from spades he could have passed out 2D. > 4) If you decide to make an adjustment - to what? Let's assume this > takes place in a jurisdiction where "automatic 60/30" isn't the rule. Would "1S = either spades or a weak hand with club support" be a legal system in this jurisdiction? Assuming it would and had been alerted as such would the auction have been different? I can't really see it but perhaps West could double to show spades in that case (something he obviously couldn't do on the actual auction). Tim From nancy@dressing.org Wed Nov 5 14:54:31 2003 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 09:54:31 -0500 Subject: [blml] Spectatiors References: Message-ID: <001801c3a3ac$ba646570$6401a8c0@hare> Does this suggest that the Director cannot be barred as a spectator??? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Bower" To: Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 1:32 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Spectatiors > > The wording in the latest copy of the Handbook has been tidied up a little > bit. Here is the full passage (Chapter 7, Section 3): > > IX. SPECTATORS > > Spectators (kibitzers) may attend all ACBL tournaments except those at > which the privilege of watching is specifically curtailed. The DIC may > impose restrictions on spectators, as necessary, to preserve the orderly > conduct of the game. He or she should, for example, disallow standing > spectators. The DIC may limit the number of spectators at a given table, > may forbid spectators from moving from one table to another, and may > remove any or all kibitzers from a room. > > Tournament players must extend the same reasonable privileges to > spectators that the tournament officials grant them. While a player may > not bar all spectators from the table, he or she may bar one spectator > (excluding tournament officials, the recorder or his designee, or > officially approved members of the press) without having to state any > reason. If a player objects to the presence of other kibitzers, he or she > must tell the DIC the reason(s) and request their removal from the table. > If the DIC considers the request justified, appropriate action will be > taken. The player must accept the DIC's ruling on the matter for the > session in question. > > --- > > Returning to Nancy's original question: it's not a law, but an ACBL > regulation, and the regulation only refers to removing someone from your > table without cause, not from the room: you have to ask the director to do > that. > > GRB > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Nov 5 22:24:51 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 17:24:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] Objective of rulings [was The Dutch experience] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This is an old message; I've been trying to figure out how to address it. :-) On Tuesday, Oct 21, 2003, at 15:48 US/Eastern, Gordon Bower wrote: > Well, then let's talk about WHY directors administer (or don't > administer) > these laws. [Referring to Laws 90 and 91 - ER] > > 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. Any TD who makes that statement in that situation is a fool, or worse. > 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. I think the TD did the right thing, too. And I would hope he would do it again if the situation recurred (with any player, not just the original offender). If the objective of TD rulings is a fair and even handed application of the laws to *all* players, then players ought (but might not, I recognize) to accept such rulings with good grace. If, on the other hand, the objective is to avoid offending any player at all costs, well, that's a different can of worms. I don't like it much, but I have to admit I do not and have not run a club. It's a fine line to walk, I suppose, but I see the club TDs around here, most of 'em, erring on the side of "don't offend anyone by 'ruling against them'" all too often. They forget that the *other* players involved might be offended by their inaction. We have had one disciplinary incident I can think of in the last several years. We have an elderly player who has some medical problems - he's often irritable, probably because he's in pain. He used to abuse his partners and his opponents. A few years ago a player called him on it - called the TD. When he was abusive to her as well, she threw him out - and suspended him from play for 30 days. On day 31 he came back - and he's not been abusive to anyone, that I've seen, since. In any local club. IMO, that's the way it *should* work. I wasn't involved in this incident, but if I had been, and the TD had done nothing, *I* would have been the one to leave the club - permanently. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Nov 5 23:52:31 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 09:52:31 +1000 Subject: [blml] Spectatiors Message-ID: Nancy T Dressing asked: >Does this suggest that the Director cannot >be barred as a spectator??? Richard James Hills relates: In 1989 I won my final Australian Interstate Youth Teams championship. During the ultimate match in the qualifying rounds, my right-hand opponent requested that the TD barred a spectator from the table. The TD refused, because the spectator was my non-playing captain. My NPC also established another record. "When I get older losing my hair Many years from now Will you still be sending me a valentine, Birthday greetings, bottle of wine? If I'd been out til quarter to three Would you lock the door? Will you still need me, Will you still feed me, When I'm sixty-four?" Yes, my NPC was the oldest ever winner of an Australian Youth Championship, gaining his title when sixty-four. :-) 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 blml@blakjak.com Thu Nov 6 00:25:35 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 00:25:35 +0000 Subject: [blml] TD courses and tests - nomenclature In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <$tpz7OY$TZq$Ewg2@blakjak.demon.co.uk> >David Stevenson writes >> >> I have been asked to set up some courses to teach, train and test >>Tournament Directors over the internet. This will not be limited to any >>country or Zone. >> >> Initially I have produced a long test which is designed to test the >>current level of a TD. In other words, it is not for club TDs, or >>national TDs: it is for both, to see what level they are. I finally decided to call it the Stevenson International Directing School. One of the suggestions was that it should be something with memorable initials, so if it takes off people would refer to SIDS. I find it difficult to imagine that any levels would mean anything to me unless they sounded geographical, so I have gone for that sort of certification. I make it clear, of course, that neither is my certification recognised, nor does a name [eg National Director] mean the same level necessarily as a similar name issued by a National Organisation. Anyway, I have had two people take the test, so we have the following two SIDS certificated Directors: Al Ohana of France: National Director Stefan Georgiev of Bulgaria: District Director The list of certificates available is: International Director National Director Regional Director District Director Area Director Local Director Club Director Trainee Director I am afraid Trainee Director is a polite term for fail! The general test for Directors is long and takes several hours. If anyone wishes to take it get in touch with me. The cost is 25 English pounds, or 36 Euros, or 42 US dollars. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Nov 6 01:29:17 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 20:29:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] Objective of rulings [was The Dutch experience] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wednesday, Nov 5, 2003, at 16:43 US/Eastern, Gordon Bower wrote: > My point was that making a L90 or L91 ruling without being able to cite > some other regulation in support amounts to making exactly that > statement, > just in different words, and the players see right through it. I don't buy that. > Our problem, then, is that we "are a fool or worse" to use our L90-91 > powers ... and are fools or worse to tolerate horrid behaviour in our > clubs too. So I don't buy this either. Not the first part, anyway. From blml@blakjak.com Thu Nov 6 02:02:11 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 02:02:11 +0000 Subject: [blml] EBU Appeals 2003 Message-ID: <3uuBLbbjuaq$Ewxm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Quote from the EBU website: >After the success of the EBU Appeals booklets in 2000 and 2001, the EBU >has published all the Appeals heard at the EBU Summer meeting at >Brighton, Crockfords Final and the Spring Foursomes in 2002. The >booklet is edited by David Stevenson, and contains commentaries by >David Stevenson, Herman De Wael of Belgium, Fearghal O'Boyle of the >Irish Republic, Ron Johnson of Canada, Laurie Kelso and Richard Hills >of Australia, Matthias Berghaus of Germany, Barry Rigal, Eric Landau, >Roger Pewick and Adam Wildavsky of the USA, Con Holzscherer of the >Netherlands, and official comments from the EBU L & E Committee. Guess what!!! It is that time again! Volunteers are requested to provide a commentary on this year's appeals, which I think number 19. As usual, you will be offered the undying thanks of Aunty EBU as recompense!!! Last year we also did a WBU Appeals booklet with all the WBU Appeals for the year, about a dozen I think, but I would expect fewer this year. I have not yet been asked to do this again for the WBU, but it seems quite likely to happen. Last year most of those who commented on the EBU Appeals also did the WBU Appeals. So, please let me know if you are willing to do the EBU Appeals, the WBU Appeals, or both. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From Anne Jones" Message-ID: <002201c3a40d$c4ba7530$eb2e6651@annespc> Yes annwyl David - you will be asked. There are not so many this year, and I haven't sorted them yet - but we liked the attention last year :-) Cofion Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 2:02 AM Subject: [blml] EBU Appeals 2003 > > Quote from the EBU website: > > >After the success of the EBU Appeals booklets in 2000 and 2001, the EBU > >has published all the Appeals heard at the EBU Summer meeting at > >Brighton, Crockfords Final and the Spring Foursomes in 2002. The > >booklet is edited by David Stevenson, and contains commentaries by > >David Stevenson, Herman De Wael of Belgium, Fearghal O'Boyle of the > >Irish Republic, Ron Johnson of Canada, Laurie Kelso and Richard Hills > >of Australia, Matthias Berghaus of Germany, Barry Rigal, Eric Landau, > >Roger Pewick and Adam Wildavsky of the USA, Con Holzscherer of the > >Netherlands, and official comments from the EBU L & E Committee. > > Guess what!!! It is that time again! > > Volunteers are requested to provide a commentary on this year's > appeals, which I think number 19. As usual, you will be offered the > undying thanks of Aunty EBU as recompense!!! > > Last year we also did a WBU Appeals booklet with all the WBU Appeals > for the year, about a dozen I think, but I would expect fewer this year. > I have not yet been asked to do this again for the WBU, but it seems > quite likely to happen. Last year most of those who commented on the > EBU Appeals also did the WBU Appeals. > > So, please let me know if you are willing to do the EBU Appeals, the > WBU Appeals, or both. > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From pellegri@hotmail.com Thu Nov 6 06:12:29 2003 From: pellegri@hotmail.com (jorge pellegrini) Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 03:12:29 -0300 Subject: [blml] rule please Message-ID: Hi, can i have your opinion please, ty. Jorge. RULE PLEASE : IMP pairs tourney Board : 25 Dealer : North Vul. : East/West TD’s Rule = No Avalaible S A K Q 10 8 4 3 H A 2 D 10 C 10 6 3 S J 7 5 2 N S H 9 4 O E H J 10 7 D 8 6 4 S D A Q J 9 7 2 C J 8 7 5 C K Q 4 2 S 9 6 H K Q 8 6 5 3 D K 5 3 C A 9 North - East - South - West 4D(1) X Pass 4S Pass Pass 5D Pass Pass(2) X 5H Pass 5S Pass Pass X Pass Pass Pass Result. 5Sx made 7 …. N/S = 850 The Facs. 1. South alert 7 card in H, and 1 Ace or 8 cards in H a) Alter Double (by east), South change his Alert, and say is weak in D, and say to east you can change your bid (double). b) East stands his double. 2. After south bid 5D and west pass, in his turn, North stand up and go to talk with TD, he come back at the table and pass, now south bid 5h. 3. cc. n/s say 4D is namyats (S suit) _________________________________________________________________ ¿Estás buscando un auto nuevo? http://www.yupimsn.com/autos/ From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Tue Nov 4 18:54:58 2003 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 19:54:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Spectatiors References: <000801c3a295$a6f09f80$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <000801c3a379$2003dc00$29053dd4@c6l8v1> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_010B_01C3A30D.86793AA0 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: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 6:36 AM Subject: [blml] Spectatiors Is there a law other that 76 and 11 relating to Spectators and the = right of a player to ban a spectator from the table? As I understand = it, a player may ban 1 spectator. Is the player allowed to ban any = spectator no matter who they are watching or only from watching that = player? Thanks, Nancy Maybe the interpretation of Law 76A4: due to feelings of annoyance or = embarrassment. At low level it happens that a player refuses and the spectator will = look for an other table. Ben ------=_NextPart_000_010B_01C3A30D.86793AA0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Nancy = T=20 Dressing
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, = 2003 6:36=20 AM
Subject: [blml] = Spectatiors

Is there a law other that 76 and 11 = relating to=20 Spectators and the right of a player to ban a spectator from the = table? =20 As I understand it, a player may ban 1 spectator.  Is the = player=20 allowed to ban any spectator no matter who they are watching or only = from=20 watching that player?  Thanks, Nancy
 
Maybe the interpretation of Law 76A4: = due to=20 feelings of annoyance or embarrassment.
At low level it happens that a = player=20 refuses and the spectator will look for an other=20 table.
 
Ben
------=_NextPart_000_010B_01C3A30D.86793AA0-- From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Nov 6 08:32:25 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 09:32:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] rule please In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3FAA0719.1070300@hdw.be> Wow! nice and complicated! jorge pellegrini wrote: > Hi, can i have your opinion please, ty. > Jorge. >=20 > RULE PLEASE : > IMP pairs tourney > Board : 25 > Dealer : North > Vul. : East/West > TD=92s Rule =3D No Avalaible > S A K Q 10 8 4 3 > H A 2 > D 10 > C 10 6 3 >=20 > S J 7 5 2 N S > H 9 4 O E H J = 10 7 > D 8 6 4 S D A= =20 > Q J 9 7 2 > C J 8 7 5 C = K=20 > Q 4 2 > S 9 6 > H K Q 8 6 5 3 > D K 5 3 > C A 9 >=20 > North - East - South - We= st > 4D(1) X Pass = 4S > Pass Pass 5D = =20 > Pass > Pass(2) X 5H = =20 > Pass > 5S Pass =20 > Pass X > Pass Pass Pass >=20 > Result. 5Sx made 7 =85. N/S =3D 850 >=20 > The Facs. > 1. South alert 7 card in H, and 1 Ace or 8 cards in H > a) Alter Double (by east), South change his Alert, and say is weak=20 > in D, > and say to east you can change your bid (double). > b) East stands his double. >=20 > 2. After south bid 5D and west pass, in his turn, North stand up and > go to talk with TD, he come back at the table and pass, now south bi= d=20 > 5h. >=20 > 3. cc. n/s say 4D is namyats (S suit) >=20 >=20 1- We shall not complicate things and accept the CC. North has bid=20 according to system, South has misexplained. 2- East doubles, based on diamonds. I don't believe he is damaged by=20 being told North has hearts, not spades. 3- South changes his explanation. North has diamonds. East maintains=20 his pass. 4- South passes, but South has no UI or MI, so South's actions are not=20 under scrutiny. 5- West bids 4S. He is not damaged by the MI. OK, he might have bid=20 4He with a correct explanation but that will only matter if we were to=20 decide the bidding ends here. 6- North passes. What else can he do? If the bidding ends, there may=20 be a ruling, but not yet. 7- East passes. Nothing to add. 8- South calls again: 5Di. I presume this means, in the correct=20 meaning of the 4Di bid:"I want to play 5Sp, and am bidding a=20 Di-control by the way". 9- West passes. 10- Back to North. He has UI. He should suppose that South has spade=20 support, but he hasn't. Actually passing is the action that is=20 suggested by the UI. But I can well understand that he passes,=20 accepting the worse contract to the better one. However, he also goes=20 to the TD, and gives UI to South in that way. 11- East doubles. Well, we can hardly call that a gambling action, can we= ? 12- South now wakes up. This is partly due to the double, partly to=20 the UI he has from North leaving the table. However, he has already=20 shown (by changing his initial explanation) that he was uncertain of=20 the meaning of 4Di. I can well understand that he takes the escape=20 offered by the double. After all, East had also doubled 4Di (no, that=20 is UI to South). I am accepting 5He, although reluctantly. 13- Now North has a problem. He has heard an auction which to him=20 means: I am agreeing spades and showing control in diamonds, but when=20 you pass diamonds I'm trying hearts. Even behind screens North knows=20 something is going on. I can well understand that he retreats to the=20 only suit he knows his side actually have. 14- Now West doubles - based on what? Surely not his 4 trumps and 2=20 jacks. An expectation of a ruling is the most likely reason for the=20 double. I'm not taking that away from him. My ruling: result stands. --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From david.barton@boltblue.com Thu Nov 6 10:33:15 2003 From: david.barton@boltblue.com (David Barton) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 10:33:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] rule please References: <3FAA0719.1070300@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001201c3a451$661eb2e0$0307a8c0@PlusNet> Had W received the correct explanation at his first turn it would be clear for him to pass. N would presumably correct to 4S. I can see no reason why anyone should now take any further action. So I adjust the contract to 4S (undoubled). We now come to the slightly trickier decision of how many tricks to award. We were not given details of the play, but I imagine the opening lead was the KC and, tipped off by the double, immediately ran the S9. Without the warning penalty double he will probably play Spades from the top. So my ruling is adjust to 4S (undoubled) making 10 tricks. ********************************** David.Barton@BoltBlue.com ********************************** ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 8:32 AM Subject: Re: [blml] rule please Wow! nice and complicated! jorge pellegrini wrote: > Hi, can i have your opinion please, ty. > Jorge. > > RULE PLEASE : > IMP pairs tourney > Board : 25 > Dealer : North > Vul. : East/West > TD’s Rule = No Avalaible > S A K Q 10 8 4 3 > H A 2 > D 10 > C 10 6 3 > > S J 7 5 2 N S > H 9 4 O E H J 10 7 > D 8 6 4 S D A > Q J 9 7 2 > C J 8 7 5 C K > Q 4 2 > S 9 6 > H K Q 8 6 5 3 > D K 5 3 > C A 9 > > North - East - South - West > 4D(1) X Pass 4S > Pass Pass 5D > Pass > Pass(2) X 5H > Pass > 5S Pass > Pass X > Pass Pass Pass > > Result. 5Sx made 7 …. N/S = 850 > > The Facs. > 1. South alert 7 card in H, and 1 Ace or 8 cards in H > a) Alter Double (by east), South change his Alert, and say is weak > in D, > and say to east you can change your bid (double). > b) East stands his double. > > 2. After south bid 5D and west pass, in his turn, North stand up and > go to talk with TD, he come back at the table and pass, now south bid > 5h. > > 3. cc. n/s say 4D is namyats (S suit) > > 1- We shall not complicate things and accept the CC. North has bid according to system, South has misexplained. 2- East doubles, based on diamonds. I don't believe he is damaged by being told North has hearts, not spades. 3- South changes his explanation. North has diamonds. East maintains his pass. 4- South passes, but South has no UI or MI, so South's actions are not under scrutiny. 5- West bids 4S. He is not damaged by the MI. OK, he might have bid 4He with a correct explanation but that will only matter if we were to decide the bidding ends here. 6- North passes. What else can he do? If the bidding ends, there may be a ruling, but not yet. 7- East passes. Nothing to add. 8- South calls again: 5Di. I presume this means, in the correct meaning of the 4Di bid:"I want to play 5Sp, and am bidding a Di-control by the way". 9- West passes. 10- Back to North. He has UI. He should suppose that South has spade support, but he hasn't. Actually passing is the action that is suggested by the UI. But I can well understand that he passes, accepting the worse contract to the better one. However, he also goes to the TD, and gives UI to South in that way. 11- East doubles. Well, we can hardly call that a gambling action, can we? 12- South now wakes up. This is partly due to the double, partly to the UI he has from North leaving the table. However, he has already shown (by changing his initial explanation) that he was uncertain of the meaning of 4Di. I can well understand that he takes the escape offered by the double. After all, East had also doubled 4Di (no, that is UI to South). I am accepting 5He, although reluctantly. 13- Now North has a problem. He has heard an auction which to him means: I am agreeing spades and showing control in diamonds, but when you pass diamonds I'm trying hearts. Even behind screens North knows something is going on. I can well understand that he retreats to the only suit he knows his side actually have. 14- Now West doubles - based on what? Surely not his 4 trumps and 2 jacks. An expectation of a ruling is the most likely reason for the double. I'm not taking that away from him. My ruling: result stands. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Nov 6 10:51:57 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 10:51:57 +0000 Subject: [blml] rule please In-Reply-To: <3FAA0719.1070300@hdw.be> Message-ID: <3DBA4EB8-1047-11D8-97D0-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Thursday, November 6, 2003, at 08:32 am, Herman De Wael wrote >> 3. cc. n/s say 4D is namyats (S suit) > > 1- We shall not complicate things and accept the CC. North has bid > according to system, South has misexplained. Is this not accepting the CC? > > 2- East doubles, based on diamonds. Do we know this? Have we been told what the double means? I t might have been takeout of spades. > I don't believe he is damaged by being told North has hearts, not > spades. Without checking the meaning of the double, we can't be sure of this. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Nov 4 03:52:10 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 03:52:10 -0000 Subject: [blml] Lost deposit Message-ID: <000601c3a28c$edd0a160$099868d5@tinyhrieuyik> On Sunday, at a county event, I was co-opted onto an AC that decided to keep the deposit lodged by the appellants. At the time, the decision seemed OK, but I felt bad about it, afterwards. Should there be *minimum* criteria that must be satisfied before an AC can contemplate keeping the deposit e.g. You must return the deposit if... (1) Before the appeal, the appellants sought an independent legal expert who advised them that they had some kind of case. (2) There is any doubt about pertinent facts. (3) The relevant law is parochial, complex, ambiguous, or spuriously subjective. (4) The TD and AC don't uphold the TD's ruling, *exactly* and *unanimously*. (5) The AC aren't unanimous in deciding to keep the deposit. Are there other minimum criteria? Should such criteria be enshrined in the TFLB, in 2015? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.534 / Virus Database: 329 - Release Date: 31/10/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.534 / Virus Database: 329 - Release Date: 31/10/2003 From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Nov 6 13:40:22 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:40:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] rule please In-Reply-To: <001201c3a451$661eb2e0$0307a8c0@PlusNet> References: <3FAA0719.1070300@hdw.be> <001201c3a451$661eb2e0$0307a8c0@PlusNet> Message-ID: <3FAA4F46.7060202@hdw.be> David Barton wrote: > Had W received the correct explanation at his first turn it would be clear > for him to pass. No David, it would not. Remember that East originally doubled a presumed heart pre-empt. Next it became a diamond pre-empt, and he maintained his double. All this is AI to West, and he decided to bid. Your assertion that West would pass should be based on a clean story, without any knowledge of a misunderstanding. He sees 4Di (spades) - X - pass. Yes, you're probably right - he would pass. > N would presumably correct to 4S. I can see no reason > why anyone should now take any further action. So I adjust the contract > to 4S (undoubled). > > We now come to the slightly trickier decision of how many tricks to award. > We were not given details of the play, but I imagine the opening lead was > the KC and, tipped off by the double, immediately ran the S9. Without the > warning penalty double he will probably play Spades from the top. > > So my ruling is adjust to 4S (undoubled) making 10 tricks. > There may be something said for this as well. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Nov 6 14:17:24 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 09:17:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] Lost deposit In-Reply-To: <000601c3a28c$edd0a160$099868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031106091227.01fe3cb0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:52 PM 11/3/03, Nigel wrote: >On Sunday, at a county event, I was co-opted >onto an AC that decided to keep the deposit >lodged by the appellants. >At the time, the decision seemed OK, but I felt >bad about it, afterwards. Should there be >*minimum* criteria that must be satisfied before >an AC can contemplate keeping the deposit e.g. >You must return the deposit if... >(1) Before the appeal, the appellants sought an > independent legal expert who advised them > that they had some kind of case. >(2) There is any doubt about pertinent facts. >(3) The relevant law is parochial, complex, > ambiguous, or spuriously subjective. >(4) The TD and AC don't uphold the TD's > ruling, *exactly* and *unanimously*. >(5) The AC aren't unanimous in deciding to keep > the deposit. >Are there other minimum criteria? Should such >criteria be enshrined in the TFLB, in 2015? IMO (4) by itself should be sufficient. It should, however, include not only the TD and AC, but also any other official of the appeal process, such as a pre-screener. Deposits should be kept only when the appeal was an obvious time-waster. If any of the officials involved do not believe it to be a time-waster, then it cannot be considered an "obvious" one from the point of view of the player, who must be assumed to know less about the laws than the TD staff or the AC members. 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 Nov 6 14:51:36 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 09:51:36 -0500 Subject: [blml] Lost deposit In-Reply-To: <002301c3a36d$7a9d5580$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <5.1.1.6.0.20031104192815.00bc26b8@mail.vzavenue.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031106094538.01ff1db0@pop.starpower.net> At 02:21 AM 11/5/03, Marvin wrote: >From: "David J. Grabiner" > > > I would say that this should apply if there is such a policy. That > is, if > > there is a screener (the ACBL often uses one) and the screener, > given all > > of the facts, recommends the appeal, there should not be any penalty, > > either monetary or procedural, for the appeal > >The ACBL screener (at NABCs, at least) does not recommend appeals. All he >does is go over the matter with the appellants, make sure they understand >the legal issues, and warn them if he believes the appeal to be without >merit. The AC is not told of the screener's opinion, if he has one. He >plays >no part in the AC's deliberations. The screener should play no part in the AC's deliberations on the appeal itself, but it is ludicrously unfair for his actions to have no bearing on deliberations on an appeal-without-merit warning. If it is the screener's job to warn the player if he believes the appeal to be without merit, then if he issues no such warning the player is entitled to assume that he believes the appeal to be warranted. TDs must be assumed to know more about such matters than the players they are directing. Even a player who might think his own appeal potentially subject to an AWMW must be fully entitled to accede to the opinion of a professional TD who has been assigned to the task of communicating such an opinion. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From kaima13@hotmail.com Thu Nov 6 14:53:44 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (Raija Davis) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 06:53:44 -0800 Subject: Fw: [blml] Lost deposit Message-ID: Oops, this went to Nigel only. Copied here to the list. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Raija Davis" To: "Nigel Guthrie" Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 6:52 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Lost deposit > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > To: > Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 7:52 PM > Subject: [blml] Lost deposit > > > > On Sunday, at a county event, I was co-opted > > onto an AC that decided to keep the deposit > > lodged by the appellants. > > At the time, the decision seemed OK, but I felt > > bad about it, afterwards. Should there be > > *minimum* criteria that must be satisfied before > > an AC can contemplate keeping the deposit e.g. > > You must return the deposit if... > > (1) Before the appeal, the appellants sought an > > independent legal expert who advised them > > that they had some kind of case. > > (2) There is any doubt about pertinent facts. > > (3) The relevant law is parochial, complex, > > ambiguous, or spuriously subjective. > > (4) The TD and AC don't uphold the TD's > > ruling, *exactly* and *unanimously*. > > (5) The AC aren't unanimous in deciding to keep > > the deposit. > > Are there other minimum criteria? Should such > > criteria be enshrined in the TFLB, in 2015? > > > I believe that once you have paid your entry fee to the event, the right to > use the appeals process should be at no additional charge to the player. 50 > dollars or whatever number of euros etc. is a significant amount of money to > some folks. And certainly the criteria for a ruling to be reviewed by an > Appeals Committee, should ideally be other than the *player's ability to > pay* > > Raija Davis > > From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Nov 6 19:56:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 19:56 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Possible fielding In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Gordon wrote: > > Taking "preference" would require that the auction shows longer spades > > than hearts. South has shown limited values and length in both > > majors but this is consistent with Axxx,JTxxx,xx,xx as well as > > JTxxx,Axxx,xx,xx (at least in my approach) so pass is reasonable. > > I am curious ... is this a common approach, in Acol-land? ("Longest suit > first, hearts with 4-4, spades with 5-5" is textbook Standard > American... among non-beginners there's a 90%+ chance that south has 5 > spades on this auction. The problem with 5cM is if the auction goes (as expected) West North East South Pass Pass 1C Dbl 1H 2D Pass Pass ? The spade suit is lost - at least it is when I play 5cM. If I bid 1S first I can get both suits in at the 2 level on very limited values. > You will see the occasional deviation - but the most common one > of those is bidding 1H rather than 1S with a 5-5 after a 1D opening.) > > > Would "1S = either spades or a weak hand with club support" be a legal > > system in this jurisdiction? Assuming it would and had been alerted > > as such would the auction have been different? > > Funny you should mention that. In fact, this South psychs 1M responses > so often (even when there is no double or when he isn't a passed hand) > that he HAS been ordered to alert 1H and 1S in this auction, which he > failed to do. (I didn't include that in the original post since North, > in the online environment, isn't affected one way or the other by that.) Obviously the order can only apply with a regular partner. I got the impression this was pick-up. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Nov 6 22:42:52 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 08:42:52 +1000 Subject: [blml] Lost deposit Message-ID: Eric Landau: >The screener should play no part in the AC's >deliberations on the appeal itself, but it is >ludicrously unfair for his actions to have no >bearing on deliberations on an appeal-without- >merit warning. If it is the screener's job to >warn the player if he believes the appeal to be >without merit, then if he issues no such warning >the player is entitled to assume that he believes >the appeal to be warranted. TDs must be assumed >to know more about such matters than the players >they are directing. Even a player who might >think his own appeal potentially subject to an >AWMW must be fully entitled to accede to the >opinion of a professional TD who has been >assigned to the task of communicating such an >opinion. Richard James Hills: A very sensible complaint by Eric about current ACBL rules for AWMWs. However, I have one caveat. Screeners (known as Appeals Advisors in Australia) only hear one side of the story when giving their advice, the self- interested set of factoids provided by the potential appellant. Therefore, Screeners/Appeals Advisors who stated that the appellant had a prima facie meritorious appeal, should provide a statement of the factoids they based their judgement upon to the AC. If the AC determines that the Screener/Appeal Advisor recommendation was based upon biased evidence, then the AC should be permitted to withold the deposit or issue an AWMW. 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 Thu Nov 6 22:32:32 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 17:32:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] Spectatiors In-Reply-To: <000801c3a379$2003dc00$29053dd4@c6l8v1> Message-ID: <1D06B2E5-10A9-11D8-8697-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Nov 4, 2003, at 13:54 US/Eastern, Ben Schelen wrote: > Maybe the interpretation of Law 76A4: due to feelings of annoyance or=20= > embarrassment. > At low level it happens that=A0a player refuses=A0and the = spectator=A0will=20 > look for=A0an other table. Does "in any way" include the spectator's mere presence? Or does it=20 require some overt action on the part of the spectator? From adam@irvine.com Fri Nov 7 03:05:08 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 19:05:08 -0800 Subject: [blml] Lost deposit In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 07 Nov 2003 08:42:52 +1000." Message-ID: <200311070305.TAA16651@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard wrote: > Eric Landau: > > >The screener should play no part in the AC's > >deliberations on the appeal itself, but it is > >ludicrously unfair for his actions to have no > >bearing on deliberations on an appeal-without- > >merit warning. If it is the screener's job to > >warn the player if he believes the appeal to be > >without merit, then if he issues no such warning > >the player is entitled to assume that he believes > >the appeal to be warranted. TDs must be assumed > >to know more about such matters than the players > >they are directing. Even a player who might > >think his own appeal potentially subject to an > >AWMW must be fully entitled to accede to the > >opinion of a professional TD who has been > >assigned to the task of communicating such an > >opinion. > > Richard James Hills: > > A very sensible complaint by Eric about current > ACBL rules for AWMWs. > > However, I have one caveat. Screeners (known as > Appeals Advisors in Australia) only hear one side > of the story when giving their advice, the self- > interested set of factoids provided by the > potential appellant. > > Therefore, Screeners/Appeals Advisors who stated > that the appellant had a prima facie meritorious > appeal, should provide a statement of the factoids > they based their judgement upon to the AC. If the > AC determines that the Screener/Appeal Advisor > recommendation was based upon biased evidence, > then the AC should be permitted to withold the > deposit or issue an AWMW. What do you mean by "biased evidence"? If the appellants knowingly withheld material information they should have told the screener, I'd agree with you. But aside from that, the appellants are going to be telling the story from their own point of view, and that fact shouldn't be enough to get an AC to keep the deposit or issue an AWMW if the screener believed the appeal was meritorious. As Eric implied, one of the purposes of the screening is so that players with potentially meritorious appeals aren't scared away from the process by the prospect that an AC might judge their appeal "without merit", and letting the AC judge that way when a screener has already judged the other way, when no information has been deliberately withheld, would defeat the purpose. -- Adam From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Nov 7 04:58:59 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 23:58:59 -0500 Subject: [blml] Lost deposit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1909B3DB-10DF-11D8-8697-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Nov 6, 2003, at 17:42 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > If the > AC determines that the Screener/Appeal Advisor > recommendation was based upon biased evidence, > then the AC should be permitted to withold the > deposit or issue an AWMW. I presume you will have a mechanism in place which will educate potential appellants as to how to eliminate biased evidence from their presentation to the Appeal Advisor. If not, what you're saying to players is pretty much "you can take a shot, but we may decide you wasted our time and penalize you for it". Which is pretty much the situation *without* Appeal Advisors, so why waste peoples' time with the additional step? From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Nov 7 05:35:21 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 15:35:21 +1000 Subject: [blml] Spirited Away Message-ID: WBF Alerting Policy (Adopted July 1997, revised August 2002): [snip] >>3. Full disclosure is vital. However, players who >>participate in WBF events are expected to protect >>themselves to a large extent. They are also expected >>to observe the spirit of the Laws as well as the >>letter. [snip] >>Nevertheless, players must respect the spirit of the >>Policy as well as the letter. WBF Code of Practice (Originally published 1999, Revised December 2001): [snip] >A contestant may only be penalized for a lapse of >ethics where a player is in breach of the provisions >of the laws in respect of the conduct of players. A >player who has conformed to the laws and regulations >is not subject to criticism. Richard James Hills: There seems to be a contradiction between the WBF Code of Practice and the WBF Alerting Policy. A player who has conformed to the WBF Alert reg is simultaneously subjected and unsubjected to criticism, if that player did not conform to the "spirit" of the WBF alert reg. And, of course, what is the "spirit" of a reg? Since the word "spirit" does not appear in the Chapter 1 Definitions of the Laws, once must opt for a relevant dictionary definition (Concise Oxford Dictionary): "The principle or meaning or purpose underlying the form of a law". In other words, a player is subject to criticism if the player fails to guess what regulators *intended* to write in a reg, but did not *actually* write. :-( 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 Nov 7 06:43:49 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 16:43:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] Lost deposit Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >I presume you will have a mechanism in place >which will educate potential appellants as to >how to eliminate biased evidence from their >presentation to the Appeal Advisor. [snip] Richard James Hills: Aussie official Appeals Advisors are usually experienced TDs (sometimes Laws-savvy expert players). These Advisors do not give off-the- cuff Yes/No advice, but rather ask intelligent clarifying questions first, which limits the biased evidence to a great extent. But, there is always the possibility that the potential appellant falls into a self-deceptive trap when conversing with the Appeals Adviser. It is natural for the potential appellant to highlight issues favourable to their cause, and skate over issues detrimental to their cause. Ed: >If not, what you're saying to players is >pretty much "you can take a shot, but we may >decide you wasted our time and penalize you >for it". Which is pretty much the situation >*without* Appeal Advisors, so why waste >peoples' time with the additional step? RJH: Not so. At the very least, Appeals Advisors save time as a winnowing process, discouraging frivolous appeals that might otherwise have occurred. For example, a number of years ago, a rather inexperienced opponent infracted Law 16, and the TD consequently adjusted the score in my partnership's favour. All fired up, the bunny opponent decided to appeal. But then the Appeals Advisor explained the principles of Law 16 to the bunny, demonstrating the futility of the appeal. The bunny withdrew the appeal and sportingly personally informed our partnership of his changed decision. Without an Appeals Advisor system, lots of people would have had their time wasted, plus the bunny would have been further irritated by the loss of his deposit. 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@tameware.com Fri Nov 7 11:22:08 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 12:22:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] WBF Alert question: 1m-1M-2M Message-ID: NS are playing a variable NT. On the board in question their NT range is 12-14, and they play that a raise to 2M shows 15-17 HCP or the unbalanced equivalent in terms of support strength. The event is the Round Robin stage of the Bermuda Bowl. Does the raise to 2M require an alert? Should it? A bonus for anyone who can provide a link to the current version of the WBF alerting policy. I could not locate it on either the WBF or the ECats site. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Fri Nov 7 11:16:08 2003 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 12:16:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Spectatiors References: <1D06B2E5-10A9-11D8-8697-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <009301c3a522$27340ea0$ab053dd4@c6l8v1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 11:32 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Spectatiors On Tuesday, Nov 4, 2003, at 13:54 US/Eastern, Ben Schelen wrote: > Maybe the interpretation of Law 76A4: due to feelings of annoyance or > embarrassment. > At low level it happens that a player refuses and the spectator will > look for an other table. Does "in any way" include the spectator's mere presence? Or does it require some overt action on the part of the spectator? Ben: It happens now and then that at low level players make faults. I believe it is a false shame. From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Nov 7 12:05:38 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 12:05:38 +0000 Subject: [blml] WBF Alert question: 1m-1M-2M In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Friday, November 7, 2003, at 11:22 am, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > NS are playing a variable NT. On the board in question their NT range > is 12-14, and they play that a raise to 2M shows 15-17 HCP or the > unbalanced equivalent in terms of support strength. > > The event is the Round Robin stage of the Bermuda Bowl. Does the raise > to 2M require an alert? Should it? > > A bonus for anyone who can provide a link to the current version of > the WBF alerting policy. I could not locate it on either the WBF or > the ECats site. It's under Departments-Systems-Alerting Policy at http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/systems/alerts.asp. The substance of it is: POLICY The following classes of calls should be alerted: 1 Conventional bids should be alerted, non-conventional bids should not. 2 Those bids which have special meanings or which are based on or lead to special understandings between the partners. (A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization). See Law 40(b). 3 Non-forcing jump changes of suit responses to opening bids or overcalls, and nonforcing new suit responses by an unpassed hand to opening bids of one of a suit. I would have thought your sequence is covered by 2 above, and therefore should be alerted. The whole policy is sufficiently vague that one could argue endlessly as to precisely what is alertable based on the first sentence of that one paragraph. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Fri Nov 7 12:12:35 2003 From: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 13:12:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_[blml]_WBF_Alert_question=3A_1m-1M-2M?= Message-ID: Adam Wildavsky Envoy=E9 par : blml-admin@rtflb.org 07/11/2003 12:22 =20 Pour : blml@rtflb.org cc :=20 Objet : [blml] WBF Alert question: 1m-1M-2M NS are playing a variable NT. On the board in question their NT range=20 is 12-14, and they play that a raise to 2M shows 15-17 HCP or the=20 unbalanced equivalent in terms of support strength. The event is the Round Robin stage of the Bermuda Bowl. Does the=20 raise to 2M require an alert? Should it? A bonus for anyone who can provide a link to the current version of=20 the WBF alerting policy. I could not locate it on either the WBF or=20 the ECats site. *** http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/systems/alerts.asp jpr *** --=20 Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/SC/D 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Nov 7 12:34:51 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 13:34:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] WBF Alert question: 1m-1M-2M In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3FAB916B.1010102@hdw.be> Adam, At this moment you are not a member of blml, you are a player. As such, you are not entitled to our help. Go and win your world title all by yourself. :-) Good Luck! Adam Wildavsky wrote: > NS are playing a variable NT. On the board in question their NT range is > 12-14, and they play that a raise to 2M shows 15-17 HCP or the > unbalanced equivalent in terms of support strength. > > The event is the Round Robin stage of the Bermuda Bowl. Does the raise > to 2M require an alert? Should it? > > A bonus for anyone who can provide a link to the current version of the > WBF alerting policy. I could not locate it on either the WBF or the > ECats site. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm@cix.co.uk Fri Nov 7 13:12:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 13:12 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] WBF Alert question: 1m-1M-2M In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Adam wrote: > NS are playing a variable NT. On the board in question their NT range > is 12-14, and they play that a raise to 2M shows 15-17 HCP or the > unbalanced equivalent in terms of support strength. Do you mean 2H in the sequence: 1D - 1H 2H Playing weak NT this will either be about 15/16 or have a singleton (two doubletons) to avoid having been opened 1N. Ie will have about 16 points or equivalent distributional support. Pretty much as played by your opps and it wouldn't occur to me to alert. Tim From nancy@dressing.org Fri Nov 7 14:25:36 2003 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 09:25:36 -0500 Subject: [blml] Spectatiors References: <1D06B2E5-10A9-11D8-8697-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <009301c3a522$27340ea0$ab053dd4@c6l8v1> Message-ID: <005301c3a53b$02da99c0$6401a8c0@hare> Again, does this include the director??? If the directors sits or stands behind a player, watching the play, may another player ask him to leave???? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ben Schelen" To: "Ed Reppert" ; "blml" Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 6:16 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Spectatiors > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ed Reppert" > To: "blml" > Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 11:32 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Spectatiors > > > > On Tuesday, Nov 4, 2003, at 13:54 US/Eastern, Ben Schelen wrote: > > > Maybe the interpretation of Law 76A4: due to feelings of annoyance or > > embarrassment. > > At low level it happens that a player refuses and the spectator will > > look for an other table. > > Does "in any way" include the spectator's mere presence? Or does it > require some overt action on the part of the spectator? > > Ben: > It happens now and then that at low level players make faults. > I believe it is a false shame. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From svenpran@online.no Fri Nov 7 14:41:15 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 15:41:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Spectatiors In-Reply-To: <005301c3a53b$02da99c0$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <000001c3a53d$32d7afd0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Nancy T Dressing > Again, does this include the director??? If the directors sits or = stands > behind a player, watching the play, may another player ask him to > leave???? According to regulations: Maybe According to law (76): No, not unless he violates any of the = restrictions in law 76. But as a Director I would without any discussion accept a request from a player who claimed he felt disturbed by my presence (Law 76A4) and move away. Sven From blml@blakjak.com Fri Nov 7 15:32:44 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 15:32:44 +0000 Subject: [blml] Spectatiors In-Reply-To: <000001c3a53d$32d7afd0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <005301c3a53b$02da99c0$6401a8c0@hare> <000001c3a53d$32d7afd0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran >> Nancy T Dressing > >> Again, does this include the director??? If the directors sits or stands >> behind a player, watching the play, may another player ask him to >> leave???? >According to regulations: Maybe > >According to law (76): No, not unless he violates any of the restrictions in >law 76. > >But as a Director I would without any discussion accept a request from a >player who claimed he felt disturbed by my presence (Law 76A4) and move >away. I wouldn't! I never watch except for a good reason, so if I am there, I have a reason to be there. There have been a couple of English players who play far too slowly. They are also the only ones who tend to object to the presence of a TD, but since he is there to monitor their actions, tough. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Fri Nov 7 15:38:37 2003 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 10:38:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] WBF Alert question: 1m-1M-2M In-Reply-To: from "Tim West-Meads" at Nov 07, 2003 01:12:00 PM Message-ID: <200311071538.hA7FcbE8003467@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Tim West-Meads writes: > > Adam wrote: > > > NS are playing a variable NT. On the board in question their NT range > > is 12-14, and they play that a raise to 2M shows 15-17 HCP or the > > unbalanced equivalent in terms of support strength. > > Do you mean 2H in the sequence: > > 1D - 1H > 2H > > Playing weak NT this will either be about 15/16 or have a singleton (two > doubletons) to avoid having been opened 1N. Ie will have about 16 points > or equivalent distributional support. Pretty much as played by your opps > and it wouldn't occur to me to alert. > I suspect that the regs will vary from place to place. I do however know from personal experience that Eric Kokish alerts this sequence. Whether or not the sequence has to be alerted under the letter of the law, at least in North America it should be. Most opponents won't be aware of the implications. Not sure in the EBU. Weak NT is of course much more common, but this particular style isn't close to being universal I don't think. Could be wrong. From svenpran@online.no Fri Nov 7 16:04:34 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 17:04:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Spectatiors In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3a548$d6465df0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson > Sent: 7. november 2003 16:33 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Spectatiors >=20 > Sven Pran > >> Nancy T Dressing > > > >> Again, does this include the director??? If the directors sits or > stands > >> behind a player, watching the play, may another player ask him to > >> leave???? >=20 > >According to regulations: Maybe > > > >According to law (76): No, not unless he violates any of the = restrictions > in > >law 76. > > > >But as a Director I would without any discussion accept a request = from a > >player who claimed he felt disturbed by my presence (Law 76A4) and = move > >away. >=20 > I wouldn't! >=20 > I never watch except for a good reason, so if I am there, I have a > reason to be there. >=20 > There have been a couple of English players who play far too = slowly. > They are also the only ones who tend to object to the presence of a = TD, > but since he is there to monitor their actions, tough. OK - I was imprecise, I do sometimes watch when there is nothing else to attend to at the moment. (Yes, that happens!) My assumption was (of course) that I was watching purely as a spectator. = If I am watching a table in my capacity as a Director (for instance as = David mentions: Because of slow play) I shall naturally not accept any player asking me to refrain from executing what I consider my duties. And incidentally, I have had exactly that experience with slow players telling me that my presence will disturb and delay their play. In such = cases I just inform them that my presence is because of them being late, that = I am watching to prevent them from wasting any more time and that either they finish their board with no further delay or they will face a substantial procedure penalty for failing to comply with instruction of the Director = and for slowing down the event. No disagreement here. Regards Sven From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Nov 6 14:22:03 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 09:22:03 -0500 Subject: [blml] Spectatiors In-Reply-To: <000801c3a295$a6f09f80$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031106091817.01ff0e30@pop.starpower.net> --=====================_5714124==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 12:36 AM 11/4/03, Nancy wrote: >Is there a law other that 76 and 11 relating to Spectators and the >right of a player to ban a spectator from the table? As I understand >it, a player may ban 1 spectator. Is the player allowed to ban any >spectator no matter who they are watching or only from watching that >player? Thanks, Nancy Only the latter makes sense. The rationale for giving players a "preemptory challenge" is that there may be a spectator whose presense at the table a player finds disconcerting. It doesn't mean anything if all that player can do is require the spectator to make a small adjustment in the position of his chair. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 --=====================_5714124==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" At 12:36 AM 11/4/03, Nancy wrote:

Is there a law other that 76 and 11 relating to Spectators and the right of a player to ban a spectator from the table?  As I understand it, a player may ban 1 spectator.  Is the player allowed to ban any spectator no matter who they are watching or only from watching that player?  Thanks, Nancy

Only the latter makes sense.  The rationale for giving players a "preemptory challenge" is that there may be a spectator whose presense at the table a player finds disconcerting.  It doesn't mean anything if all that player can do is require the spectator to make a small adjustment in the position of his chair.

Eric Landau                     ehaa@starpower.net
1107 Dale Drive                 (301) 608-0347
Silver Spring MD 20910-1607     Fax (301) 589-4618 --=====================_5714124==.ALT-- From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Nov 6 15:10:54 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 15:10:54 +0000 Subject: [blml] Lost deposit In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031106094538.01ff1db0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6ACC9A6C-106B-11D8-97D0-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> --Apple-Mail-2--370058496 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On Thursday, November 6, 2003, at 02:51 pm, Eric Landau wrote: > > The screener should play no part in the AC's deliberations on the > appeal itself, but it is ludicrously unfair for his actions to have no > bearing on deliberations on an appeal-without-merit warning. Indeed. I can see no reason why the information about the screener's recommendation should not be provided to the AC after they make their ruling but before they consider any appeal-without-merit warning. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK --Apple-Mail-2--370058496 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=US-ASCII On Thursday, November 6, 2003, at 02:51 pm, Eric Landau wrote: The screener should play no part in the AC's deliberations on the appeal itself, but it is ludicrously unfair for his actions to have no bearing on deliberations on an appeal-without-merit warning. Indeed. I can see no reason why the information about the screener's recommendation should not be provided to the AC after they make their ruling but before they consider any appeal-without-merit warning. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK --Apple-Mail-2--370058496-- From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Nov 6 22:31:36 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 22:31:36 +0000 Subject: [blml] Possible fielding In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --Apple-Mail-2--343617041 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > > Gordon wrote: > >>> Taking "preference" would require that the auction shows longer >>> spades >>> than hearts. South has shown limited values and length in both >>> majors but this is consistent with Axxx,JTxxx,xx,xx as well as >>> JTxxx,Axxx,xx,xx (at least in my approach) so pass is reasonable. >> >> I am curious ... is this a common approach, in Acol-land? No, it's not. It's the first time I've ever encountered such a suggestion as Tim's. Ever. >> ("Longest suit >> first, hearts with 4-4, spades with 5-5" is textbook Standard >> American... among non-beginners there's a 90%+ chance that south has 5 >> spades on this auction. Among non-TWMs in Acol-land, I think the figure would be rather higher. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK --Apple-Mail-2--343617041 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=US-ASCII Gordon wrote: Taking "preference" would require that the auction shows longer spades than hearts. South has shown limited values and length in both majors but this is consistent with Axxx,JTxxx,xx,xx as well as JTxxx,Axxx,xx,xx (at least in my approach) so pass is reasonable. I am curious ... is this a common approach, in Acol-land? No, it's not. It's the first time I've ever encountered such a suggestion as Tim's. Ever. ("Longest suit first, hearts with 4-4, spades with 5-5" is textbook Standard American... among non-beginners there's a 90%+ chance that south has 5 spades on this auction. Among non-TWMs in Acol-land, I think the figure would be rather higher. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK --Apple-Mail-2--343617041-- From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Nov 7 18:23:35 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 18:23:35 -0000 Subject: [blml] Spectatiors References: <000001c3a548$d6465df0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <006f01c3a55c$42e84b40$629868d5@tinyhrieuyik> > [Nancy T Dressing] > If the directors sits or stands behind a > player, watching the play, may another player > ask him to leave???? [Nigel] The regulation needs rephrasing because, in normal English usage, any watcher is a spectator; but, as with most local rules, it would be better scrapped, altogether. If a spectator distracts a player or wanders from table to table, a player should be allowed to complain to the director and, at his discretion, the TD may then expel the spectator. Otherwise, IMO, at an open table, a player should *not* be allowed to ask a spectator to leave, because it makes it harder to crack down on cheating and obnoxious behaviour by players [#1]. The ACBL regulation seems to allow such a pair to virtually eliminate spectators, by (a) Asking spectators to leave, as soon as they are about to sit down. If both partners do this, the partnership can guarantee being spectator- free, as long as three spectators do not simultaneously join the table. (b) Creating a reputation of asking spectators to leave. This should be a sufficient deterrent to all but the most hard-nosed kibitzers. #1. I am assuming that David Burn is wrong about the semantic significance of the comma in law 76B. Specifically IMO: a TD may allow a kibitzer to report a player who is guilty of cheating, blatant legal infraction, or disgraceful behaviour. I have resuscitated that thread. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.537 / Virus Database: 332 - Release Date: 06/11/2003 From mfrench1@san.rr.com Fri Nov 7 18:23:42 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 10:23:42 -0800 Subject: [blml] WBF Alert question: 1m-1M-2M References: <200311071538.hA7FcbE8003467@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <006501c3a55c$48a73dc0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Ron Johnson" > Tim West-Meads writes: > > > > Adam wrote: > > > > > NS are playing a variable NT. On the board in question their NT range > > > is 12-14, and they play that a raise to 2M shows 15-17 HCP or the > > > unbalanced equivalent in terms of support strength. > > > > Do you mean 2H in the sequence: > > > > 1D - 1H > > 2H > > > > Playing weak NT this will either be about 15/16 or have a singleton (two > > doubletons) to avoid having been opened 1N. Ie will have about 16 points > > or equivalent distributional support. Pretty much as played by your opps > > and it wouldn't occur to me to alert. > > > I suspect that the regs will vary from place to place. I do however > know from personal experience that Eric Kokish alerts this sequence. > > Whether or not the sequence has to be alerted under the letter of the > law, at least in North America it should be. Most opponents won't be > aware of the implications. > The ACBL is lately discouraging the Alerting of "negative inferences," although still requiring some. E. g., a weak notrumper's 1NT rebid showing 15+ is Alertable, but the inferences of a raise of 1M to 2M (strong, or unbalanced) are not. The failure to make a support double/redouble, or a raise showing four-card support, is not Alertable even though many are Alerting these calls. I don't know why such Alerts are discouraged. Perhaps because Alerting the plethora of negative inferences accompanying most bids would be too much of a burden for players and for the game itself. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Fri Nov 7 18:27:54 2003 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 18:27:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] WBF Alert question: 1m-1M-2M Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB12FC@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of > Adam Wildavsky > Sent: 07 November 2003 11:22 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] WBF Alert question: 1m-1M-2M >=20 >=20 > NS are playing a variable NT. On the board in question their NT range=20 > is 12-14, and they play that a raise to 2M shows 15-17 HCP or the=20 > unbalanced equivalent in terms of support strength. >=20 > The event is the Round Robin stage of the Bermuda Bowl. Does the=20 > raise to 2M require an alert? Should it? >=20 [Frances] Let me re-phrase. "A raise to 2M shows a minimum opening bid with = support."=20 I cannot imagine having to alert this in any jurisdiction under any=20 circumstances. The additional information in your description simply = points out that opener won't have a weak NT because he didn't open one. Do you seriously believe this is alertable in the ACBL? If so, why? If this raise is alertable, then so is the auction: 1H - 1S 2S on the grounds that because opener isn't playing canape and is playing 5-card majors he/she will have strictly longer hearts than spades or so is the auction 1D - 2NT (11-12) 3NT (playing strong NT) because you could say "shows either a maximum weak NT, 18-19 balanced or semi-balanced not = suitable for slam, or 15-17 HCP suitable for play in NT but will not be 4432, = 4333 or=20 5332 as 1NT was not opened" > A bonus for anyone who can provide a link to the current version of=20 > the WBF alerting policy. I could not locate it on either the WBF or=20 > the ECats site. >=20 > --=20 > Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC > adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com >=20 >=20 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Nov 7 18:47:05 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 18:47:05 -0000 Subject: [blml] WBF Alert question: 1m-1M-2M References: Message-ID: <011901c3a55f$c010aba0$629868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Adam Wildavsky] ...a raise to 2M shows 15-17 HCP or the unbalanced equivalent in terms of support strength. The event is the Round Robin stage of the Bermuda Bowl. Does the raise to 2M require an alert? Should it? [WBF Alerting Policy - courtesy of Gordon Rainsford] Conventional bids should be alerted, NON-CONVENTIONAL BIDS SHOULD NOT. [TFLB 1997 Glossary] Convention: A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, AN AGREEMENT AS TO OVERALL STRENGTH DOES NOT MAKE A CALL A CONVENTION. [Nigel] Hence, according to the laws, you mustn't alert. Of course Adam's implication is right: the law is an ass [what's new?]: in logic and in equity, such understandings *should* be alerted unless they are bog-standard. PS. Good luck Adam! --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.537 / Virus Database: 332 - Release Date: 06/11/2003 From svenpran@online.no Fri Nov 7 19:14:55 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 20:14:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] WBF Alert question: 1m-1M-2M In-Reply-To: <011901c3a55f$c010aba0$629868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <000001c3a563$6e119fe0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Nigel Guthrie ........... > [WBF Alerting Policy - courtesy of Gordon Rainsford] > Conventional bids should be alerted, NON-CONVENTIONAL > BIDS SHOULD NOT. > > [TFLB 1997 Glossary] > Convention: A call that, by partnership agreement, > conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in > the denomination named (or in the last denomination > named), or high-card strength or length (three cards > or more) there. However, AN AGREEMENT AS TO OVERALL > STRENGTH DOES NOT MAKE A CALL A CONVENTION. > > [Nigel] > Hence, according to the laws, you mustn't alert. No, according to the LAWS it is NEVER wrong to alert! You should distinguish between laws and regulations, regulations may exist (as in fact I believe they do in ACBL) which make it wrong to alert a call that does not need alert, but if you read law 21B carefully you will see that failing to alert when required by regulation is considered misinformation while alerting when not required is not. > Of course Adam's implication is right: the law is > an ass [what's new?]: in logic and in equity, such > understandings *should* be alerted unless they are > bog-standard. There is nothing wrong with the laws in this respect, but if a regulation stipulates that (for instance) a non-conventional call shall not be alerted then I consider this regulation a failure. It should state that non-conventional calls NEED not be alerted. Sven From richard_willey@symantec.com Fri Nov 7 19:34:04 2003 From: richard_willey@symantec.com (Richard Willey) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 11:34:04 -0800 Subject: [blml] WBF Alert question: 1m-1M-2M In-Reply-To: <000001c3a563$6e119fe0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: >No, according to the LAWS it is NEVER wrong to alert! Then the laws need to be rewritten, since this is unworkable. My natural reaction would be the following: 1. I can be punished if I fail to alert a call that should be alerted. 2. I can not be punished if I alert a call that should not be alerted. 3. I will alert every call in every auction to ensure that I am not punished. From adam@irvine.com Fri Nov 7 19:43:03 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 11:43:03 -0800 Subject: [blml] WBF Alert question: 1m-1M-2M In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 07 Nov 2003 18:47:05 GMT." <011901c3a55f$c010aba0$629868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <200311071942.LAA07819@mailhub.irvine.com> Nigel wrote: > [Adam Wildavsky] > ...a raise to 2M shows 15-17 HCP or the unbalanced > equivalent in terms of support strength. The event > is the Round Robin stage of the Bermuda Bowl. Does > the raise to 2M require an alert? Should it? > > [WBF Alerting Policy - courtesy of Gordon Rainsford] > Conventional bids should be alerted, NON-CONVENTIONAL > BIDS SHOULD NOT. Yes, but you only quoted a little piece of the text Gordon posted. Here's the entire policy from Gordon's post (except for a quote from the Laws which I've deleted): # POLICY # The following classes of calls should be alerted: # 1 Conventional bids should be alerted, non-conventional bids should not. # 2 Those bids which have special meanings or which are based on or lead # to special understandings between the partners. . . . # 3 Non-forcing jump changes of suit responses to opening bids or # overcalls, and nonforcing new suit responses by an unpassed hand to # opening bids of one of a suit. According to this, natural bids which have "special meanings", are based on "special understandings", or are certain nonforcing new-suit bids, are alertable. This appears to contradict #1, which means the wording ought to be tightened up, perhaps. However, the only reasonable interpretation of this is that when a non-conventional bid meets the conditions set forth by #2 or #3, the bid is alertable, and this supersedes the phrase "non-conventional bids should not" be alerted in #1. So your conclusion that "you mustn't alert" isn't necessarily correct. We still have to determine whether the raise here is considered a "special meaning", and of course no one knows for sure how to do that. -- Adam From svenpran@online.no Fri Nov 7 19:58:38 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 20:58:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] WBF Alert question: 1m-1M-2M In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3a569$8970b540$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Richard Willey > Sven wrote: >=20 > >No, according to the LAWS it is NEVER wrong to alert! >=20 > Then the laws need to be rewritten, since this is unworkable. My = natural > reaction would be the following: >=20 > 1. I can be punished if I fail to alert a call that should be > alerted. > 2. I can not be punished if I alert a call that should not be > alerted. > 3. I will alert every call in every auction to ensure that I am = not > punished. Please check your local regulations. It is not the laws that stipulate = which calls must be alerted. The laws stipulate the duties of the players when alerting is required by regulation. The laws stipulate no restriction against alerting (except that excessive alerting might be considered a violation of law 74A2 etc.) For your information: In Norway we use alert as a warning to opponents = that they may find it advisable to ask question(s) on the alerted call. Our regulation specifies certain criteria which make calls alertable, but = the regulations do not forbid alerting when not required. I am not aware = that we have any problem with this. Regards Sven From walt1@verizon.net Fri Nov 7 20:15:28 2003 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 15:15:28 -0500 Subject: [blml] Spectators In-Reply-To: <000001c3a548$d6465df0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c3a548$d6465df0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.0.0.22.0.20031107142925.036ecd80@incoming.verizon.net> >Nancy T Dressing >If the directors sits or > > stands > > >> behind a player, watching the play, may another player ask him to > > >> leave???? Just a comment: I do not mind someone sitting and looking at one hand, but someone standing (and especially standing in a position where they can look at two hands as they frequently do) is usually very distracting. Walt From adam@irvine.com Fri Nov 7 20:24:35 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 12:24:35 -0800 Subject: [blml] WBF Alert question: 1m-1M-2M In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 07 Nov 2003 11:34:04 PST." Message-ID: <200311072024.MAA09130@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard Willey wrote: > Sven wrote: > > >No, according to the LAWS it is NEVER wrong to alert! > > Then the laws need to be rewritten, since this is unworkable. My natural > reaction would be the following: > > 1. I can be punished if I fail to alert a call that should be > alerted. > 2. I can not be punished if I alert a call that should not be > alerted. > 3. I will alert every call in every auction to ensure that I am not > punished. I think you could (and should) certainly be penalized for slowing down the game if you alert every call, and perhaps creating a situation in which you are in effect misinforming the opponents, because they will sooner or later realize that you alert every call and thus your alert becomes equivalent to a failure to alert. Other than that, however (and probably this is what Sven was trying to say), you cannot have a score adjusted against you on grounds of misinformation if you alert a non-alertable call, because even if such an alert is considered "misinformation" it cannot cause damage. -- Adam From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Nov 7 20:37:41 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 20:37:41 -0000 Subject: [blml] Comma References: <7912409.1053606726564.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <012c01c3a56e$ff1bbf60$629868d5@tinyhrieuyik> >>> [TFLB L76B] >>> A spectator may not call attention to any >>> irregularity or mistake, nor speak on any >>> question of fact or law except by request >>> of the Director. > [David Burn] > This means: > (1) A spectator may not call attention to > any irregularity or mistake. > (2) A spectator may not speak on any question > of fact or law except by request of the > Director. > It does not mean that a spectator may call > attention to an irregularity or mistake by > request of the Director. > If it meant that, it would say: > A spectator may not call attention to any > irregularity or mistake, nor speak on any > question of fact or law, except by request > of the Director. > Of course, the wording in the 1997 Laws is > the usual cockup; there ought to be two > sentences. Maybe in 2007... [Nigel] I agree with David's last sentence; but not with his interpretation of the meaning of 76B. I seem to be alone in BLML, in being unconvinced by David's cunning "Case of the missing comma." I am sure that many Law and English graduates would agree with me that this law is ambiguous. Other punctuation marks, like full stops, may significantly influence meaning but, usually, in English, the comma is an *optional* syntactical device -- used, for example, to help indicate where to pause, whilst reading. In informal writing, the comma is sometimes used to clarify meaning; but, in a legal document, in that particular context, imbuing it with major semantic significance, is a practice to be eschewed. >> [Japp van der Neut] >> It only gets interesting what to do if someone >> claims 'illegal evidence' after a spectator >> takes the initiative to go to the TD to inform >> him about an infraction. > [David] > It is, of course, true that all the evidence > brought in the Buenos Aires case against Reese > and Schapiro involved attention being drawn to > an irregularity by a spectator, and was thus > inadmissible per the Laws of bridge. But no > one seems to have noticed this at the time, > and it is probably a bit late now... [Nigel] It is understandable that the corrupt management of real-world organisations expel, vilify and do all they can to discourage "whistleblowers" and "tell-tales". Bridge is just a game, however. In a game, played for enjoyment, why should the law be so keen to protect cheats and law-breakers from discovery? Whatever the law now means, it should be amended to clearly state that the TD may welcome and even solicit reports of law-breaking from kibitzers: "A spectator may not speak to players on any question of fact; nor call their attention to any irregularity or mistake. The spectator may speak on such matters, only to the Director, out of ear-shot of the players". Many BLMLers argue that players at tables without kibitzers would gain an advantage. IMO this objection is unsustainable. A purpose of law is to protect *victims* rather than *offenders*. At Bridge, as in real-life, most law-breaking goes undetected and unpunished. Hence, in most jurisdictions, ordinary eye-witness testimony is admissible evidence. I appreciate that mine is *not* the majority interpretation of the current law; and I agree with those who opine that we should obey the law; but I find difficult to understand those who argue that it is good, *in principle*, to stop kibitzer's reports about offences. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.537 / Virus Database: 332 - Release Date: 06/11/2003 From svenpran@online.no Fri Nov 7 20:38:26 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 21:38:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Spectators In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.0.20031107142925.036ecd80@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <000001c3a56f$185c2230$6900a8c0@WINXP> Walt ......... > >If the directors sits or stands behind a player, > >watching the play, may another player ask him to > >leave???? If he is watching the play in his capacity of a Director the answer is certainly NO. >=20 > Just a comment: I do not mind someone sitting and looking at one hand, = but > someone standing (and especially standing in a position where they can > look > at two hands as they frequently do) is usually very distracting. >=20 > Walt You might want to look up Law 76A1 Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Fri Nov 7 21:07:51 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 22:07:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Comma In-Reply-To: <012c01c3a56e$ff1bbf60$629868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <000001c3a573$34c95e20$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Nigel Guthrie > >>> [TFLB L76B] > >>> A spectator may not call attention to any > >>> irregularity or mistake, nor speak on any > >>> question of fact or law except by request > >>> of the Director. ............. > >> [Japp van der Neut] > >> It only gets interesting what to do if someone > >> claims 'illegal evidence' after a spectator > >> takes the initiative to go to the TD to inform > >> him about an infraction. ............. > > [David] > > It is, of course, true that all the evidence > > brought in the Buenos Aires case against Reese > > and Schapiro involved attention being drawn to > > an irregularity by a spectator, and was thus > > inadmissible per the Laws of bridge. But no > > one seems to have noticed this at the time, > > and it is probably a bit late now... I do not see how any "evidence" can be inadmissible as such. The applicable law in this respect must be Law 11B which leaves the decision on whether or not (and how) to act on such evidence is entirely up to the discretion of the Director. > [Nigel] .............. > Whatever the law now means, it should be amended > to clearly state that the TD may welcome and even > solicit reports of law-breaking from kibitzers: > > "A spectator may not speak to players on any > question of fact; nor call their attention to > any irregularity or mistake. The spectator may > speak on such matters, only to the Director, > out of ear-shot of the players". Change your last clause to: "only to the Director, and in a way not raising attention to his initiative with any of the affected players" and I agree completely. In fact this is how I (and I believe most if not all my Norwegian fellow directors) already apply Law 76B. > I appreciate that mine is *not* the majority > interpretation of the current law; and I agree > with those who opine that we should obey the > law; but I find difficult to understand those > who argue that it is good, *in principle*, to > stop kibitzer's reports about offences. I see no reason to understand any law in the book as preventing a spectator from informing the Director on any matter that he thinks the Director ought to know about. As a Director I reserve the right to let Law 11 take precedence over Law 81C6 when both laws are relevant if I find this most equitable when I have been informed of an irregularity solely from a spectator. Regards Sven From walt1@verizon.net Fri Nov 7 21:28:51 2003 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 16:28:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] Spectators In-Reply-To: <000001c3a56f$185c2230$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <6.0.0.22.0.20031107142925.036ecd80@incoming.verizon.net> <000001c3a56f$185c2230$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.0.0.22.0.20031107162455.034adec0@incoming.verizon.net> At 03:38 PM 7/11/2003, Sven Pran wrote: >Walt >......... > > >If the directors sits or stands behind a player, > > >watching the play, may another player ask him to > > >leave???? > >If he is watching the play in his capacity of a Director the answer is >certainly NO. > > > > > Just a comment: I do not mind someone sitting and looking at one hand, but > > someone standing (and especially standing in a position where they can > > look > > at two hands as they frequently do) is usually very distracting. > > > > Walt > >You might want to look up Law 76A1 Sven I'm familiar with the law but I see more kibitzers attempting to break it than I see trying to abide by it. I usually just hold my hand a bit closer when someone looking at another hand tries to look at mine also. Walt From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Nov 7 21:48:09 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 16:48:09 -0500 Subject: [blml] Spectators In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.0.20031107142925.036ecd80@incoming.verizon.net> References: <000001c3a548$d6465df0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000001c3a548$d6465df0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031107164609.01f9ba80@pop.starpower.net> At 03:15 PM 11/7/03, Walt wrote: >Just a comment: I do not mind someone sitting and looking at one hand, >but someone standing (and especially standing in a position where they >can look at two hands as they frequently do) is usually very distracting. ...and explicitly forbidden by L76A1 ("except by permission"). Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Nov 7 23:38:12 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 18:38:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] Spectatiors In-Reply-To: <009301c3a522$27340ea0$ab053dd4@c6l8v1> Message-ID: <7397D3A4-117B-11D8-9F25-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Nov 7, 2003, at 06:16 US/Eastern, Ben Schelen wrote: > It happens now and then that at low level players make faults. > I believe it is a false shame. Then why cater to it? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Nov 7 23:45:28 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 18:45:28 -0500 Subject: [blml] WBF Alert question: 1m-1M-2M In-Reply-To: <000001c3a563$6e119fe0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <7743702A-117C-11D8-9F25-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Nov 7, 2003, at 14:14 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > No, according to the LAWS it is NEVER wrong to alert! I believe you are mistaken. The laws say only that one must disclose one's partnership agreements "IAW SO regulations" or words to that effect. If such regulations say it's sometimes wrong to alert, then it is. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Nov 7 23:48:26 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 18:48:26 -0500 Subject: [blml] WBF Alert question: 1m-1M-2M In-Reply-To: <200311072024.MAA09130@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: On Friday, Nov 7, 2003, at 15:24 US/Eastern, Adam Beneschan wrote: > thus your alert becomes equivalent to a failure to alert. I fail to see the logic in this assertion. From adam@irvine.com Sat Nov 8 00:06:04 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 16:06:04 -0800 Subject: [blml] WBF Alert question: 1m-1M-2M In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 07 Nov 2003 18:48:26 EST." Message-ID: <200311080005.QAA14642@mailhub.irvine.com> Ed wrote: > On Friday, Nov 7, 2003, at 15:24 US/Eastern, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > thus your alert becomes equivalent to a failure to alert. > > I fail to see the logic in this assertion. An "alert" carries the meaning that a call may have some special meaning that you may need to ask about. If the opponents are making a policy of alerting every call, and you know that they're doing it, then when they say "alert" it no longer carries that meaning, but instead becomes effectively a meaningless sequence of phonemes. Thus, they are no longer informing you that any of their calls may have some special meaning. That's what I meant by "becoming equivalent to a failure to alert". Hope this explains it. -- Adam From richard_willey@symantec.com Sat Nov 8 00:07:27 2003 From: richard_willey@symantec.com (Richard Willey) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 16:07:27 -0800 Subject: [blml] WBF Alert question: 1m-1M-2M In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Adam is making exactly the same point that I was If the alert bit is always on [I am required to alert everything], then the alert provides no information equivalently, if the alert bit is always off [I am never supposed to alert], then the failure to alert provides no information. Ed Reppert Sent by: blml-admin@rtflb.org 11/07/2003 03:48 PM To blml cc Subject Re: [blml] WBF Alert question: 1m-1M-2M On Friday, Nov 7, 2003, at 15:24 US/Eastern, Adam Beneschan wrote: > thus your alert becomes equivalent to a failure to alert. I fail to see the logic in this assertion. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From adam@irvine.com Sat Nov 8 00:55:06 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 16:55:06 -0800 Subject: [blml] Twister (was 100%) Message-ID: <200311080054.QAA15968@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard wrote: > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > >>You're talking about a common occurrence > > [snip] > > >>I'm talking about a situation that virtually never happens > > [snip] > > >>You can't compare the two situations. They're not the same. > > Juvenal asked: > > >Quis custodes ipsos custodiet? > > Richard James Hills asked: > > Who shall direct the Director? > > If, as Adam desires, the TD may freely ignore the Laws if the > TD determines that a virtually-never-happening situation has > occurred, then why have a set of Laws in the first place? My guess would be---to tell players and TD's what to do in the 99.999% of situations that do come up commonly, or at least that were foreseen by the Laws' drafters. > Better would be for the WBFLC to frame Laws, and the SO to > frame regulations, that permit a TD to have some leeway in > some pre-defined exceptional circumstances. This still limits the "exceptional circumstances" to those that the Lawmakers had the foresight to write about. No matter what regulations they would come up with permitting the TD leeway, there will always be something that comes up that isn't covered. I generally think it's best to trust people to use common sense. I also think that if a TD who is faced with an exceptional situation like this decides to do the practical, sensible thing rather try to examine the Laws to see what silly session score to assign, this is *not* going to go to his head so that he starts thinking it's OK to toss out this Law, and then that Law, until he becomes a Law unto himself. Most people aren't like that. This approach can lead to problems. Trusting people's judgment can lead to grief when the person I trust turns out not to have good judgment, or abuses my trust. But the opposite approach---handcuffing people so that they are bound by the rules come hell or high water, and are not allowed to use judgment even in exceptional cases such as this one, has bad consequences from the benign (giving a pair an indisputably silly 100% score---and I don't think one can dispute that giving a pair 100% for a session because they got a top on one board is a silly result) to the not-so-benign (letting a fire get out of control and threaten thousands of homes and lives because it's ten minutes past the official grounding time for water-dropping aircraft). I know it sounds extreme to draw an analogy between these two "bad" consequences, but I do believe they arise from the same basic approach to decision-making. -- Adam From svenpran@online.no Sat Nov 8 00:57:30 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 01:57:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] WBF Alert question: 1m-1M-2M In-Reply-To: <7743702A-117C-11D8-9F25-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000201c3a593$49424040$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > On Friday, Nov 7, 2003, at 14:14 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: >=20 > > No, according to the LAWS it is NEVER wrong to alert! >=20 > I believe you are mistaken. The laws say only that one must disclose > one's partnership agreements "IAW SO regulations" or words to that > effect. If such regulations say it's sometimes wrong to alert, then it > is. >From Law 21B1: ..... (failure to alert promptly to a conventional call = or special understanding, where such alert is required by the sponsoring organization, is deemed misinformation) ..... It is up to regulations to stipulate when alerts are required, and = according to Law 21B1 failure to alert calls when so required is misinformation.=20 There is no similar statement anywhere in the laws to the effect that an alert contrary to requirements (by regulation) is also misinformation. However, any REGULATION may contain such statements. The LAWS do not. Sven =20 From wayne@ebridgenz.com Sat Nov 8 02:09:53 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 15:09:53 +1300 Subject: [blml] WBF Alert question: 1m-1M-2M In-Reply-To: <011901c3a55f$c010aba0$629868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <009c01c3a59d$6bc8dc00$d02d37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Nigel Guthrie > > [Nigel] > Hence, according to the laws, you mustn't alert. > > Of course Adam's implication is right: the law is > an ass [what's new?]: in logic and in equity, such > understandings *should* be alerted unless they are > bog-standard. Of course then the law would be an ass as nothing or so little is "bog-standard" so almost everything would need to be alerted. Wayne From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Nov 8 03:03:49 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 03:03:49 -0000 Subject: [blml] WBF Alert question: 1m-1M-2M Message-ID: <037b01c3a5a4$ef574780$629868d5@tinyhrieuyik> >> [Nigel] >> Of course Adam's implication is right: the law is >> an ass [what's new?]: in logic and in equity, such >> understandings *should* be alerted unless they are >> bog-standard. [Wayne] > Of course then the law would be an ass as nothing or > so little is "bog-standard" so almost everything > would need to be alerted. [Nigel] Thank you Wayne -- I hoped someone would discern my hidden agenda -- Ideally, you should explain only *unexpected and conventional* bids. Unfortunately *conventional* is hard to define. Also, *unexpected* depends on where you play. Hence the sensible rule is to explain departures from a universal *standard* --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.537 / Virus Database: 332 - Release Date: 07/11/2003 From nancy@dressing.org Sat Nov 8 04:14:52 2003 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 23:14:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] Spectators References: <000001c3a548$d6465df0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <6.0.0.22.0.20031107142925.036ecd80@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <002a01c3a5ae$dbe004d0$6401a8c0@hare> This is what I was referring to, and a player who sits (as required) quietly beside a player, watches only the kibitzed player's cards and no others, can the player across the table, for example, bar that kibitzer or can he bar only a kibitzer watching him? We allow a player to bar 1 kibitzer only, and if another one appears at the table, this particular player now may not bar the new kibitzer. (he has used up his barring right). I just want to know if the player can bar any kibitzer no matter where the kibitzer is sitting. (Standing is not allowed, except by the director) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Walt" To: "Sven Pran" ; "blml" Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 3:15 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Spectators > > >Nancy T Dressing > > >If the directors sits or > > > stands > > > >> behind a player, watching the play, may another player ask him to > > > >> leave???? > > > > > Just a comment: I do not mind someone sitting and looking at one hand, but > someone standing (and especially standing in a position where they can look > at two hands as they frequently do) is usually very distracting. > > Walt > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From walt1@verizon.net Sat Nov 8 05:25:06 2003 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2003 00:25:06 -0500 Subject: [blml] Communication difficulties In-Reply-To: <000901c39bfc$04e6e310$b58c403e@endicott> References: <000901c39bfc$04e6e310$b58c403e@endicott> Message-ID: <6.0.0.22.0.20031108002027.03305ec0@incoming.verizon.net> At 03:01 PM 26/10/2003, Grattan Endicott wrote: >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. >================================== > >+=+ My attempt to put a question to 118 or so >NBOs in three multiple mailings was 'intelligently' >identified as sp*m by some filter somewhere >and blocked. !!!!! +=+ I think I have seen mailings which were split into individual mailings. For example, in Grattan's case the mailer would have sent 118 individual messages rather than one message to 118 people. My assumption is that this is a way to get around the spam filters which are triggering on "large" mailings as one indication of spam. Can anyone confirm that there are mailers which will do this? Walt From walt1@verizon.net Sat Nov 8 05:38:43 2003 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2003 00:38:43 -0500 Subject: [blml] Spectators In-Reply-To: <002a01c3a5ae$dbe004d0$6401a8c0@hare> References: <000001c3a548$d6465df0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <6.0.0.22.0.20031107142925.036ecd80@incoming.verizon.net> <002a01c3a5ae$dbe004d0$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <6.0.0.22.0.20031108003145.033056c0@incoming.verizon.net> At 11:14 PM 7/11/2003, Nancy T Dressing wrote: >This is what I was referring to, and a player who sits (as required) quietly >beside a player, watches only the kibitzed player's cards and no others, can >the player across the table, for example, bar that kibitzer or can he bar >only a kibitzer watching him? We allow a player to bar 1 kibitzer only, and >if another one appears at the table, this particular player now may not bar >the new kibitzer. (he has used up his barring right). I just want to know >if the player can bar any kibitzer no matter where the kibitzer is sitting. >(Standing is not allowed, except by the director) Nancy I was barred without cause from kibitzing a friend at a Raleigh, North Carolina, USA ACBL Regional Tournament in the summer of the year 2000. I checked with a nationally rated tournament director who was working the tournament and he affirmed that a player could bar without cause one player from kibitzing the table at which he was playing. His partner, of course, could also bar one player without cause as could each of their opponents. Walt From walt1@verizon.net Sat Nov 8 05:43:54 2003 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2003 00:43:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] Spectators In-Reply-To: <002a01c3a5ae$dbe004d0$6401a8c0@hare> References: <000001c3a548$d6465df0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <6.0.0.22.0.20031107142925.036ecd80@incoming.verizon.net> <002a01c3a5ae$dbe004d0$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <6.0.0.22.0.20031108003933.0353b010@incoming.verizon.net> At 11:14 PM 7/11/2003, Nancy T Dressing wrote: >This is what I was referring to, and a player who sits (as required) quietly >beside a player, watches only the kibitzed player's cards and no others, can >the player across the table, for example, bar that kibitzer or can he bar >only a kibitzer watching him? We allow a player to bar 1 kibitzer only, and >if another one appears at the table, this particular player now may not bar >the new kibitzer. (he has used up his barring right). I just want to know >if the player can bar any kibitzer no matter where the kibitzer is sitting. >(Standing is not allowed, except by the director) Nancy I think as a matter of courtesy and to keep from distracting the players that a director who is at the moment a kibitzer should if at all possible find a chair and quietly bring it the table and sit. Walt From blml@blakjak.com Sat Nov 8 12:41:02 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 12:41:02 +0000 Subject: [blml] Spectators In-Reply-To: <002a01c3a5ae$dbe004d0$6401a8c0@hare> References: <000001c3a548$d6465df0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <6.0.0.22.0.20031107142925.036ecd80@incoming.verizon.net> <002a01c3a5ae$dbe004d0$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: Nancy wrote >This is what I was referring to, and a player who sits (as required) quietly >beside a player, watches only the kibitzed player's cards and no others, can >the player across the table, for example, bar that kibitzer or can he bar >only a kibitzer watching him? We allow a player to bar 1 kibitzer only, and >if another one appears at the table, this particular player now may not bar >the new kibitzer. (he has used up his barring right). I just want to know >if the player can bar any kibitzer no matter where the kibitzer is sitting. >(Standing is not allowed, except by the director) Control of kibitzers is a matter of regulation, not Law [note for pedants: yes, regulations are enabled by Law] so your club which is your SO can have any rules it likes for kibitzers. So it is up to your club as to whether a player can bar a kibitzer from anywhere round the table. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From twm@cix.co.uk Sat Nov 8 12:57:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 12:57 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Possible fielding In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Gordon wrote: > > > >>> Taking "preference" would require that the auction shows longer > >>> spades > >>> than hearts. South has shown limited values and length in both > >>> majors but this is consistent with Axxx,JTxxx,xx,xx as well as > >>> JTxxx,Axxx,xx,xx (at least in my approach) so pass is reasonable. > >> > >> I am curious ... is this a common approach, in Acol-land? > > No, it's not. It's the first time I've ever encountered such a > suggestion as Tim's. Ever. > > > Among non-TWMs in Acol-land, I think the figure would be rather higher. You could be right. But bidding 1H first will lose a spade fit all too often. You are too weak to compete in spades over 2D and rebidding a Jack high suit is horrid. Opposite KQxx,xx,xx,AKxxx you are left festering in defense. Tim From adam@tameware.com Sat Nov 8 14:03:09 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 15:03:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] WBF Alert question: 1m-1M-2M In-Reply-To: <011901c3a55f$c010aba0$629868d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <011901c3a55f$c010aba0$629868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: At 6:47 PM +0000 11/7/03, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >Of course Adam's implication is right: the law is >an ass [what's new?]: in logic and in equity, such >understandings *should* be alerted unless they are >bog-standard. I didn't mean to imply any such thing. I was just wondering. I've always alerted this sequence. I know what it means and my opponents might not -- surely that's the purpose of the alert, and to the extent that there is scope for interpretation the regulations should be interpreted that way. I alerted this sequence at my table but the opponents did not alert at the other table. My teammate, not realizing the implications of the call, bid and eventually achieved a poor result. The TD (after checking with the CTD) ruled that the call did not require an alert, saying it was "obvious" that playing a weak NT a raise must show extras. This seems to be an instance of a TD arrogating to himself a player's knowledge -- I am certain that many weak NT pairs do not play the raise that way. In old fashioned Acol, for instance, the raise does not promise more than a minimum opener. To my mind even if a pair using a weak NT do not alert this sequence a pair using a variable NT must do so. They might have had the same auction on the previous board with a balanced 12 count! My captain refused to appeal the ruling, so we won't know how an AC would have ruled. >PS. Good luck Adam! Thanks! We're in 9th place with two matches to go, but a long way from 8th. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From twm@cix.co.uk Sat Nov 8 17:45:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 17:45 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] WBF Alert question: 1m-1M-2M In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Adam wrote: > I didn't mean to imply any such thing. I was just wondering. I've > always alerted this sequence. I know what it means and my opponents > might not -- surely that's the purpose of the alert, When playing with a regular partner almost every sequence contains inferences of which opponents might be unaware so to me this isn't the purpose of alerting. Closer would be "this call has a surprise meaning ". I would no more expect an alert of the raise denying a weak NT hand than I would if it denied a strong NT. "Surprise" would include things like it being forcing/denying 4+card support. > and to the > extent that there is scope for interpretation the regulations should > be interpreted that way. I alerted this sequence at my table but the > opponents did not alert at the other table. My teammate, not > realizing the implications of the call, bid and eventually achieved a > poor result. Personally I would expect players at a world championship to be aware of strong/weak/mini NT, 4/5 card majors and strong club approaches (At least until Nigel has us all adopting an international standard next millennium). > The TD (after checking with the CTD) ruled that the call did not > require an alert, saying it was "obvious" that playing a weak NT a > raise must show extras. This seems to be an instance of a TD > arrogating to himself a player's knowledge -- I am certain that many > weak NT pairs do not play the raise that way. Almost all weak NT pairs play the raise that way (well OK some will jump with a flat 17). Most of them don't realise they play it that way and if asked would describe it as "12-16 with support" without considering the fact that, having failed to open 1N the "support points" in the hand will always be at least 14. > In old fashioned Acol, for instance, the raise does not promise more > than minimum opener. It certainly does. Either the shape or points are wrong for a 1N so there are no hands which do *not* have extras in one sense or the other which would use this sequence. Even AJxx,AQxxx,xx,xx or AJx,AQxxx,x,xxx have "extras" in support of spades. > To my mind even if a pair using a weak NT do not alert this sequence > a pair using a variable NT must do so. They might have had the same > auction on the previous board with a balanced 12 count! Not sure why this is relevant. They could open 1N on consecutive deals showing different point ranges and neither would be alertable. PS Well done against China, good luck against NZ in the last! Tim From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Nov 8 22:08:14 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 17:08:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] WBF Alert question: 1m-1M-2M In-Reply-To: <000001c3a630$161fce10$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <0CAF4C02-1238-11D8-8C99-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Saturday, Nov 8, 2003, at 14:39 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > But regulations are not part of the laws; they are extensions to the > laws > empowered by Law 80F (as are special conditions for contests by Law > 80E). > > It was not my intention to be splitting hairs, but rather to point out > the > difference between LAWS and REGULATIONS. Hm. Well, maybe I'm the one splitting hairs - my point was that you asserted the laws make a positive statement about when it is or is not wrong to alert, and they don't. Never mind. From lruswtikosgb@msn.com Sun Nov 9 10:02:44 2003 From: lruswtikosgb@msn.com (bwalker@yahoo.com) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 18:02:44 +0800 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) join the many Americans enlarging their penises! m,. Message-ID: <20031109095818.5FEFD2C63C@rhubarb.custard.org> PCFET0NUWVBFIEhUTUwgUFVCTElDICItLy9XM0MvL0RURCBIVE1MIDQuMDEgVHJhbnNpdGlvbmFs Ly9FTiI+DQoNCjxodG1sPg0KPGhlYWQ+DQo8dGl0bGU+bmE8L3RpdGxlPg0KPC9oZWFkPg0KPGJv ZHkgdG9wbWFyZ2luPSIwIiBiZ2NvbG9yPSIjMzMwMDY2Ij4NCjxkaXYgYWxpZ249ImNlbnRlciI+ PGJyPjxmbHJnaHVpPg0KPHRhYmxlIHdpZHRoPTUwMHB4IGJnY29sb3I9IndoaXRlIj48dHI+PHRk IGFsaWduPSJjZW50ZXIiPjxmb250IGZhY2U9InZlcmRhbmEiIGNvbG9yPSJibGFjayIgc2l6ZT0i NSI+PGI+R1VBUkFOVEVFRCBSRVNVTFRTITwvYj48L2ZvbnQ+PC90ZD48L3RyPjwvdGFibGU+DQo8 dGFibGUgd2lkdGg9NTAwcHg+DQo8dHI+DQo8dGQgYmdjb2xvcj0ibmF2eSIgYWxpZ249ImNlbnRl ciI+PGZvbnQgZmFjZT0idmVyZGFuYSIgc2l6ZT0yIGNvbG9yPSJ5ZWxsb3ciPjEwMCUgR3VhcmFu dGVlZCBSZXN1bHRzIE9yIFlvdXIgTW9uZXkgQmFjaw0KPC90cj4NCjx0cj48dGQgYmdjb2xvcj0i Ymx1ZSIgYWxpZ249ImNlbnRlciI+PGZvbnQgZmFjZT0idmVyZGFuYSIgc2l6ZT00IGNvbG9yPSJ3 aGl0ZSI+PGI+DQo8YnI+DQpIb3cgZGlkIHlvdSBjb21wYXJlIHRvIHRoZSBvdGhlciBndXlzIGlu IHRoZSBsb2NrZXIgcm9vbT8gaXMgaGUgbG9va2luZyBhIGJpdCBzbWFsbCBhdCB0aGUgbW9tZW50 Pzxicj48YnI+DQo8IS0tIGxhc2hkNyAtLT4NCk5vdCBvbmx5IHdpbGwgYSBsYXJnZXIgcGVuaXMg bWFrZSB5b3UgZmVlbCBiZXR0ZXIsIGl0IHdpbGwgbWFrZSB5b3UgbG9vayBiZXR0ZXIhPGJyPjxi cj4NClNlZSB0aGUgcmVzdWx0cyBpbiBhIG1heGltdW0gdGhyZWUgbW9udGggcGVyaW9kISBPdXIg cGVuaXMgcGlsbHMgYXJlIHRoZSBtb3N0IEVGRkVDVElWRSBvbiB0aGUgbWFya2V0ITxicj48YnI+ DQo8QSBocmVmPSJodHRwOi8vZGlzbmV5QHd3dy5oZXJiYWx1c2EuYml6L3doaXRlbGluZS92cC8/ ZmxyZ2h1aSI+PGZvbnQgY29sb3I9InllbGxvdyI+VGFrZSBhIGxvb2sgYXQgaG93IGl0IHdvcmtz PC9hPjxicj48YnI+DQo8L3RkPjwvdHI+DQo8dHI+DQo8dGQgYmdjb2xvcj0ibmF2eSIgYWxpZ249 ImNlbnRlciI+PGZvbnQgZmFjZT0idmVyZGFuYSIgc2l6ZT0yIGNvbG9yPSJ5ZWxsb3ciPldvcmxk cyBNb3N0IEVmZmVjdGl2ZSBFbmxhcmdlbWVudCBUZWNobmlxdWUNCjwvdHI+DQo8L3RhYmxlPjxs YXNoZDc+DQo8dGFibGUgd2lkdGg9NTAwcHggYmdjb2xvcj0id2hpdGUiPjx0cj48dGQgYWxpZ249 ImNlbnRlciI+PGZvbnQgZmFjZT0idmVyZGFuYSIgY29sb3I9ImJsYWNrIiBzaXplPSI1Ij48Yj5D T01FIFRBS0UgQSBMT09LITwvYj48L2ZvbnQ+PC90ZD48L3RyPjwvdGFibGU+DQo8YnI+PGJyPjxi cj48YnI+PGJyPjxicj48YnI+PGJyPg0KPGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0iMXB4IiBmYWNlPSJ2ZXJkYW5hIiBj b2xvcj0iIzAwMDAwIj5sYXNoZDcgZmxyZ2h1aSBsYXNoZDc8L2ZvbnQ+DQo8bGFzaGQ3Pg0KPGEg aHJlZj0iaHR0cDovL2Rpc25leUB3d3cuaGVyYmFsdXNhLmJpei93aGl0ZWxpbmUvb3V0Lmh0bWwi Pjxmb250IGNvbG9yPSJ5ZWxsb3ciIHNpemU9IjIiPnRvIGdldCBvZmY8L2E+DQo8L2JvZHk+DQo8 L2h0bWw+DQo= From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Nov 9 10:57:27 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 10:57:27 -0000 Subject: [blml] WBF Alert question: 1m-1M-2M References: <200311071942.LAA07819@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <004201c3a6b0$44eddcc0$339c68d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Adam Beneschan] According to this, natural bids which have "special meanings", are based on "special understandings", or are certain nonforcing new-suit bids, are alertable. This appears to contradict #1, which means the wording ought to be tightened up, perhaps. [Nigel] As Adam points out: the definition of "convention" in TFLB by the WBFLC conflicts with the definition implicit in the "Alerting Rules" by the WBF. I had assumed that the alerting regulations #2 & #3 must be subject to #1; but I now agree that Adam's resolution of the paradox is closer to what the regulator probably intended. Unfortunately, TFLB has no detailed law on methods of disclosure; hence the WBF, as the SO, cannot be blamed for following the SO tradition of plugging the hole with an unfair, inconsistent idiosyncratic set of regulations, hastily cobbled together. The resulting morass of woolly laws and regulations rely on clairvoyant TDs and ACs; and leave players with a valid grudge, whenever they are on the losing side of a disputed infraction. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.537 / Virus Database: 332 - Release Date: 06/11/2003 From toddz@att.net Sun Nov 9 18:19:22 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 13:19:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] WBF Alert question: 1m-1M-2M In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Wildavsky > Subject: Re: [blml] WBF Alert question: 1m-1M-2M > > The TD (after checking with the CTD) ruled that the > call did not > require an alert, saying it was "obvious" that playing > a weak NT a raise must show extras. Is it also obvious that one of the two possible hand types that could be shown is unbalanced? While there are extras, the nature of them is not known. Playing weak NT, I also alerted the sequence 1m-1H-1S, though perhaps not all partnerships will agree that shows an unbalanced hand. -Todd From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Nov 9 23:14:47 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:14:47 +1000 Subject: [blml] Possible fielding Message-ID: >>"Longest suit first, hearts with 4-4, spades with 5-5" is >>textbook Standard American... among non-beginners there's a >>90%+ chance that south has 5 spades on this auction. >Among non-TWMs in Acol-land, I think the figure would be >rather higher. > >Gordon Rainsford Richard James Hills: Merely because a particular Acol treatment has particular popularity at a particular user's particular time and place, does *not* mean that that treatment has almost universal tablets-of-stone incorporation into "The" Acol System. Septuagenarian George Jesner, Scottish and Australian international player, is still regularly beating opponents half his age in many Canberra-region congress Swiss teams. George plays a consistent and comprehensive Acol system of 1950s vintage very effectively, and in that style he does indeed open and respond with 1S when holding 4-4 in the majors. In other words, if 50 Acol partnerships were marooned on a desert island, that island would be home to 100 different versions of Acol. :-) So, in the stem case of this thread, I maintain my previous position that the auction by itself is *not* - without further evidence - sufficient to rule a Law 40B 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 Mon Nov 10 03:08:24 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 13:08:24 +1000 Subject: [blml] WBF Alert question: 1m-1M-2M Message-ID: Adam Wildavsky: [snip] >To my mind even if a pair using a weak NT do not >alert this sequence a pair using a variable NT >must do so. They might have had the same auction >on the previous board with a balanced 12 count! > >My captain refused to appeal the ruling, so we >won't know how an AC would have ruled. Richard James Hills: In my opinion, this was a wise decision by Adam's captain. If there had been an appeal, and if I had been a member of the WBF AC, then I would have voted to fine Adam's team a penalty of 2 VPs for a frivolous appeal. WBF alert rules (extract): >>>3. Full disclosure is vital. However, players who >>>participate in WBF events are expected to protect >>>themselves to a large extent. RJH continues: In my opinion, obvious inferences of the opponents' basic system should have been analysed and discussed by Adam's team-mates *before* the match, as part of their pre-match homework. Team-mates failing to do basic homework in a World Championship are *not* "protecting themselves to a large extent". Even in a relatively trivial event such as the Aussie Interstate Teams, our team and captain discussed the implications of the opponents' methods weeks *before* travelling to the venue in Darwin. In my opinion, this was why the Dallas Aces were so dominant in American and World bridge 1970-1971, because they protected themselves to a large extent with large and extensive homework. Nigel Guthrie >>PS. Good luck Adam! Adam Wildavsky: >Thanks! We're in 9th place with two matches to go, but >a long way from 8th. Richard James Hills: Congratulations, Adam, on stylishly qualifying with one VP to spare. Congratulations also to your non-playing captain for avoiding a 2 VP fine for a frivolous appeal. :-) 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 petson@zwallet.com Thu Nov 13 03:12:19 2003 From: petson@zwallet.com (BULINGA) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 03:12:19 GMT Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) blml,SOLICITATION FOR YOUR PARTNERSHIP Message-ID: FROM: Miss THEMBI TENDAI SUBJECT:Please Help EMAIL FROM: thembi79@zwallet.com REPLY EMAIL: thembi79@zwallet.com Dear Sir/Madam, You may be surprised to receive this letter from me, Since you do not know me personally "My Name is THEMBI TENDAI" The purpose of my introduction is that Before the death of my father, he had taken me to Johannesburg to deposit the sum of US6 Million (Six Million United States dollars),in one of the private security company, as he foresaw the looming danger in Zimbabwe this money was deposited in a box as gem stones to avoid much demurrage from security company. This amount was meant for the purchase of new machines and chemicals for the Farms and establishment of new farms in Swaziland. This land problem came when Zimbabwean President Mr. Robert Mugabe introduced a new Land Act Reform wholly affecting the rich white farmers and some few black Farmers and this resulted to the killing and mob action by Zimbabwean war veterans and some lunatics in the society. In fact a lot of people were killed because of this Land reform Act for which my father " Mudada Abba " was one of the victims. It is against this back round that, I and my Mother and three younger ones fled Zimbabwe for fear of our lives and I currently staying in the Netherlands in a village called Zwolle, where my family are seeking political asylum and more so I have decided to transfer my father's money to a more reliable foreign account. As the eldest daughter of my father, I am saddled with the responsibility of seeking a genuine foreign account where this money could be transferred without the knowledge of my government who are bent on taking everything we have got. The South African government seems to be playing along with them. I am faced with the dilemma of moving this amount of money out of South Africa for fear of going through the same experience in future, both countries have similar political history. As the Eldest daughter, I am seeking for a partner who I have to entrust my future and that of my family in his hands, I must let you know that this transaction is risk free. If you accept to assist me and my family, all I want you to do for me, is to make an arrangements with the security company to clear the consignment (funds) from their affiliate office here in the Netherlands as I have already given directives for the consignment to be brought to the Netherlands from South Africa.But before then all modalities will have to be put in place like change of ownership to the consignment and more importantly this money I intend to use for investment. I have two options for you. Firstly you can choose to have certain percentage of the money for nominating your account for this transaction. Or you can go into Partnership with me for the proper profitable investment of the money in your country. Whichever the option you want, feel free to notify me. If you do not prefer a partnership I am willing to give you 10% of the money while the remaining 90% will be for my investment in your country. Should you which to assist me, please furnish me with your telephone and fax number me with the above via e-mail while I implore you to maintain the absolute secrecy required in this transaction. God Bless, MISS THEMBI TENDAI From byshopfrom@yahoo.com Wed Nov 12 16:04:06 2003 From: byshopfrom@yahoo.com (Freeee) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 16:04:06 Subject: [blml] Tobacco shop Message-ID: <20031112150328.396FD2B9D4@rhubarb.custard.org> Dear sir or Madam, If you are a smoker in the UK, ROI or Scandinavia, please just take a few minutes of your time to read this. If you are not a smoker please accept my apologies for this E mail, it is not my intention to upset anyone. Smokers - are you still paying high street prices for your cigarettes, cigars or rolling/pipe tobacco. For instance, I can send you by registered post, 800 cigarettes for 180 euros. This works out to about £3.20 a packet (depending on exchange rate). For this price, and it includes all brands (see note at bottom of page), they will be sent by registered post direct to your door. Just click on the link below:- http://www.whsaletobacco.0catch.com Yours faithfully A believer in the rights of the British Smokers P.S. If this E at all offends you mail - that is not my intention ---- YOU WILL NOT BE E MAILED AGAIN Brands supplied including:- B & H, Dunhill, Lamb & But, Silk Cut, Marlboro, JPS, Gitanes, Fortuna, Berkeley, Superkings, Embassy, Regal, St Bruno, Golden Virginia, Old Holborn, Samson, Clan, Vogue, MORE, Kent, Davidoff , Peter Stuyvesant, Gauloises, Sovereign, Lucky Strike, Havana, Monte Cristo, Flor de Cano, Rothmans, Camel etc. http://www.whsaletobacco.0catch.com If you would like to be removed from our database please email the address below with removes in the subject remtobacdb@yahoo.com From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Wed Nov 12 17:52:27 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 06:52:27 +1300 Subject: [blml] Disconcerting an opponent Message-ID: <01e901c3a945$bfab0680$df2e56d2@Desktop> Bermuda Bowl Semi-Final Segment 5/6 Brd 13 3 Dlr N QT All Vul AQ54 AKQ842 AQJT952 876 A52 J94 96 KJT873 3 J K4 K8763 2 T9765 W N E S ================ 1C 2D 2H 4S 5C 5S 6C X P P P After a spade lead and a diamond return. Declarer drew trumps and went to table. He then led a low heart from the table and left the defender to 'work-out' whether to play ace or not. The defender took sometime to make this play. Declarer is in a no-play contract and could easily claim down one. I believe declarer should claim. The only purpose in playing on is to disconcert the opponent. Comments please? Wayne From svenpran@online.no Wed Nov 12 19:30:49 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:30:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Disconcerting an opponent In-Reply-To: <01e901c3a945$bfab0680$df2e56d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <000001c3a953$7a901af0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Wayne Burrows > Bermuda Bowl Semi-Final Segment 5/6 >=20 > Brd 13 3 > Dlr N QT > All Vul AQ54 > AKQ842 > AQJT952 876 > A52 J94 > 96 KJT873 > 3 J > K4 > K8763 > 2 > T9765 >=20 > W N E S > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > 1C 2D 2H > 4S 5C 5S 6C > X P P P >=20 > After a spade lead and a diamond return. >=20 > Declarer drew trumps and went to table. >=20 > He then led a low heart from the table and left the defender to > 'work-out' whether to play ace or not. The defender took sometime to > make this play. >=20 > Declarer is in a no-play contract and could easily claim down one. >=20 > I believe declarer should claim. The only purpose in playing on is to > disconcert the opponent. >=20 > Comments please? >=20 > Wayne Really, please! There is nothing wrong in declarer's play. He puts West to an "honest" = test: If West fails this test, believing that North is void in hearts, and = plays low then declarer wins his contract (the loser disappears afterwards on = KS). Regards Sven=20 From uxioud@jkdksd.com Wed Nov 12 19:49:57 2003 From: uxioud@jkdksd.com (uxioud@jkdksd.com) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 03:49:57 +0800 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) HGH 3Bottles ONLY $69 Message-ID: [remove link http://life.21hgh.com/lifehghonline/remove/ ] AD. Never Pay Retail for HGH Again. Click Here to get the most popular HGH Anti-Aging oral spray on the Internet now. As seen on NBC, CBS, and CNN, and even Oprah! HGH actually helps to reverse aging while burning fat without dieting or exercise! What Can HGH Revolution Do For You? You've most likely heard about the breakthrough in homeopathic HGH Products. Millions of men and women across the world are turning back the hands of time with this all-natural formula. * Decrease Body-fat. * Improve Muscle Tone. * Improved skin texture resulting in a more youthful appearance. * Fewer skin wrinkles. * Enhances overall physical and mental well being. * Helps provide deeper, more restful sleep. SPECIAL LIMITED TIME OFFER CLICK HERE NOW to take advantage of our BUY 2 GET 1 FREE! special limited time offer. For only $ 69.95 you can have a 90 day supply of this incredible product. Look and feel fantastic for just 69 cents a day!We manufacture and ship directly to your door. 100% SATISFACTION GUARANTEE! Please visit our web site,click here. http://life.21hgh.com/?99111559 From adam@irvine.com Wed Nov 12 19:52:59 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 11:52:59 -0800 Subject: [blml] Disconcerting an opponent In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:30:49 +0100." <000001c3a953$7a901af0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <200311121952.LAA10129@mailhub.irvine.com> Sven wrote: > > Wayne Burrows > > Bermuda Bowl Semi-Final Segment 5/6 > > > > Brd 13 3 > > Dlr N QT > > All Vul AQ54 > > AKQ842 > > AQJT952 876 > > A52 J94 > > 96 KJT873 > > 3 J > > K4 > > K8763 > > 2 > > T9765 > > > > W N E S > > ================ > > 1C 2D 2H > > 4S 5C 5S 6C > > X P P P > > > > After a spade lead and a diamond return. > > > > Declarer drew trumps and went to table. > > > > He then led a low heart from the table and left the defender to > > 'work-out' whether to play ace or not. The defender took sometime to > > make this play. > > > > Declarer is in a no-play contract and could easily claim down one. > > > > I believe declarer should claim. The only purpose in playing on is to > > disconcert the opponent. > > > > Comments please? > > > > Wayne > > Really, please! > > There is nothing wrong in declarer's play. He puts West to an "honest" test: > If West fails this test, believing that North is void in hearts, and plays > low then declarer wins his contract (the loser disappears afterwards on KS). > > Regards Sven Sorry, Sven---North is declaring, and the opening spade lead has gone through declarer's king. (I personally think it makes life easiest when the hands are rotated so that South is always declarer, so that I don't have to rotate my head or turn my monitor upside down to figure out what's going on.) -- Adam From ken.johnston@btinternet.com Wed Nov 12 20:03:32 2003 From: ken.johnston@btinternet.com (Ken Johnston) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:03:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] Disconcerting an opponent References: <000001c3a953$7a901af0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <011a01c3a958$0cc418a0$ef428051@e8m4u6> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 7:30 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Disconcerting an opponent > Wayne Burrows > Bermuda Bowl Semi-Final Segment 5/6 > > Brd 13 3 > Dlr N QT > All Vul AQ54 > AKQ842 > AQJT952 876 > A52 J94 > 96 KJT873 > 3 J > K4 > K8763 > 2 > T9765 > > W N E S > ================ > 1C 2D 2H > 4S 5C 5S 6C > X P P P > > After a spade lead and a diamond return. > > Declarer drew trumps and went to table. > > He then led a low heart from the table and left the defender to > 'work-out' whether to play ace or not. The defender took sometime to > make this play. > > Declarer is in a no-play contract and could easily claim down one. > > I believe declarer should claim. The only purpose in playing on is to > disconcert the opponent. > > Comments please? > > Wayne Really, please! There is nothing wrong in declarer's play. He puts West to an "honest" test: If West fails this test, believing that North is void in hearts, and plays low then declarer wins his contract (the loser disappears afterwards on KS). Regards Sven I think you'll find the SK is not a trick :) Ken _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Nov 12 20:19:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:19 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Disconcerting an opponent In-Reply-To: <01e901c3a945$bfab0680$df2e56d2@Desktop> Message-ID: > Bermuda Bowl Semi-Final Segment 5/6 > > Brd 13 3 > Dlr N QT > All Vul AQ54 > AKQ842 > AQJT952 876 > A52 J94 > 96 KJT873 > 3 J > K4 > K8763 > 2 > T9765 > He then led a low heart from the table and left the defender to > 'work-out' whether to play ace or not. The defender took sometime to > make this play. Brd 13a 3 Dlr N QT All Vul AQ54 AKQ842 AQJT95 8762 A9542 J 9 KJT9873 3 J K4 K8763 2 T9765 Declarer plays the same way and the Ace is ducked, crosses back and tries it again. Sure I'm clutching at straws but clutching at straws is natural when one has just bid a no-play slam in the BB (North didn't know his team-mates were +30 in the other room). Tim From jrhind@therock.bm Wed Nov 12 20:24:10 2003 From: jrhind@therock.bm (Jack A. Rhind) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 16:24:10 -0400 Subject: [blml] Disconcerting an opponent In-Reply-To: <01e901c3a945$bfab0680$df2e56d2@Desktop> Message-ID: Sorry Wayne, I cannot agree with you here. I see nothing wrong with Declarer making West come up with the right play. Clearly it is not as clear as you see it, and West had something to think about or he would have played the Ace immediately. Regards, Jack On 11/12/03 1:52 PM, "Wayne Burrows" wrote: > Bermuda Bowl Semi-Final Segment 5/6 > > Brd 13 3 > Dlr N QT > All Vul AQ54 > AKQ842 > AQJT952 876 > A52 J94 > 96 KJT873 > 3 J > K4 > K8763 > 2 > T9765 > > W N E S > ================ > 1C 2D 2H > 4S 5C 5S 6C > X P P P > > After a spade lead and a diamond return. > > Declarer drew trumps and went to table. > > He then led a low heart from the table and left the defender to > 'work-out' whether to play ace or not. The defender took sometime to > make this play. > > Declarer is in a no-play contract and could easily claim down one. > > I believe declarer should claim. The only purpose in playing on is to > disconcert the opponent. > > Comments please? > > Wayne > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Wed Nov 12 20:38:53 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 21:38:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Disconcerting an opponent In-Reply-To: <200311121952.LAA10129@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <000001c3a95c$fd06ea00$6900a8c0@WINXP> Adam Beneschan ......... > > > He then led a low heart from the table and left the defender to > > > 'work-out' whether to play ace or not. The defender took sometime = to > > > make this play. > > > > > > Declarer is in a no-play contract and could easily claim down one. > > > > > > I believe declarer should claim. The only purpose in playing on = is to > > > disconcert the opponent. > > > > > > Comments please? > > > > > > Wayne > > > > Really, please! > > > > There is nothing wrong in declarer's play. He puts West to an = "honest" > test: > > If West fails this test, believing that North is void in hearts, and > plays > > low then declarer wins his contract (the loser disappears afterwards = on > KS). > > > > Regards Sven >=20 > Sorry, Sven---North is declaring, and the opening spade lead has gone > through declarer's king. (I personally think it makes life easiest > when the hands are rotated so that South is always declarer, so that I > don't have to rotate my head or turn my monitor upside down to figure > out what's going on.) Indeed it was, and yes; although I was aware that North was declaring I = sure overlooked the fact that SK had been "killed" in trick one. So back to the original call for comments: At really top level I might = issue a mild warning to North that he ought to have claimed one down right = away, but I never penalize a player below such top level who prefers to play = it out rather than claim or concede. (And I take it for granted that this incident would never have happened at top level?) Regards Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Nov 12 22:50:08 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 08:50:08 +1000 Subject: [blml] Disconcerting an opponent Message-ID: Tim suggested: >Brd 13a 3 >Dlr N QT >All Vul AQ54 > AKQ842 >AQJT95 8762 >A9542 J >9 KJT9873 >3 J > K4 > K8763 > 2 > T9765 > >Declarer plays the same way and the Ace is >ducked, crosses back and tries it again. Sure >I'm clutching at straws but clutching at straws >is natural when one has just bid a no-play slam >in the BB (North didn't know his team-mates >were +30 in the other room). RJH notes: There is an old chess saying, "Nobody ever won by resigning". A simpler suggestion -> Brd 13b - An overconfident West revokes, letting the no-play slam make. By claiming for one down, the revoke is stillborn. Note that the indicative example in Law 74B4 is: "playing on although he knows that all the tricks are surely his". That is, truly disconcerting an opponent is based on *unnecessarily* playing on. The actual original hand was a slightly different case of *hopefully* playing on. 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 Nov 12 23:23:10 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 09:23:10 +1000 Subject: [blml] EBU 2001 Casebook, appeal 7 Message-ID: Tournament Director: Jim Proctor Appeals Committee: John Young (Chairman) Su Burn Nick Sandqvist Swiss Pairs Board no 5 Dealer North N/S vulnerable QT86 T85 AK72 T2 J942 AK3 A9762 K3 95 83 84 AKQ975 75 QJ4 QJT64 J63 Basic systems: East-West play Strong Club WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass 1C(A)(1) Pass 1D(A) Dbl 2C(2) Pass 2H Pass 3NT Pass Pass Pass (1) Strong (2) East asked meaning of double, South replied "I presume other two suits" Result at table: 3NT-1 by East, NS +50, lead DQ Director first called: At end of hand Director's statement of facts: TD was called by E/W after North said he intended his double as lead directing. N/S had a defence to strong club on convention card but this did not apply after 1D response. They had "lead directing" among other things under "Special Use of Doubles". E/W claimed damage Director's ruling: Table result stands Details of ruling: East should be more thorough in "checking up" by calling the tournament director after South's reply expressing doubt, or when he really needed to know before making his third call, it being a situation in which misunderstandings occur. South should not answer East's question as she did (Orange book 3.4.3). Note by editor: The Orange book is the EBU Handbook of Directives. 3.4.3 says: "Explain only your partnership agreement: if you do not know the meaning of your partner's call, or you have no agreement, you must not say how you intend to interpret it." Appeal lodged by: East-West Appeals Committee decision: Artificial score awarded: Average plus to N/S, average minus to E/W Deposit returned Appeals Committee's comments: The committee had sympathy for the inexperienced pair N/S but their action of the incomplete explanation damaged E/W by taking away any "forcing" bid. The bidding following was unclear to the development of the auction and final resting place. It was felt that it was a close decision to overturn the director's ruling. Richard James Hills comments: E/W were so-called "damaged" because N/S did not have a partnership agreement about the meaning of a double after a strong 1C and a negative 1D response. Tough. N/S are not required to have a comprehensive defence to E/W's unusual artificial methods. 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 gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Nov 12 22:56:09 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 22:56:09 +0000 Subject: [blml] EBU 2001 Casebook, appeal 7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <67A5C3C6-1563-11D8-8FB7-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Wednesday, November 12, 2003, at 11:23 pm, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Tournament Director: > Jim Proctor > > Appeals Committee: > John Young (Chairman) Su Burn Nick Sandqvist > > Swiss Pairs > Board no 5 > Dealer North > N/S vulnerable > QT86 > T85 > AK72 > T2 > J942 AK3 > A9762 K3 > 95 83 > 84 AKQ975 > 75 > QJ4 > QJT64 > J63 > > Basic systems: > East-West play Strong Club > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass 1C(A)(1) Pass > 1D(A) Dbl 2C(2) Pass > 2H Pass 3NT Pass > Pass Pass > > (1) Strong > (2) East asked meaning of double, South > replied "I presume other two suits" > > Result at table: > 3NT-1 by East, NS +50, lead DQ > > Director first called: > At end of hand > > Director's statement of facts: > TD was called by E/W after North said he > intended his double as lead directing. N/S > had a defence to strong club on convention > card but this did not apply after 1D > response. They had "lead directing" among > other things under "Special Use of > Doubles". E/W claimed damage > > Director's ruling: > Table result stands > > Details of ruling: > East should be more thorough in "checking > up" by calling the tournament director > after South's reply expressing doubt, or > when he really needed to know before > making his third call, it being a situation > in which misunderstandings occur. South > should not answer East's question as she > did (Orange book 3.4.3). > > Note by editor: > The Orange book is the EBU Handbook of > Directives. 3.4.3 says: > "Explain only your partnership agreement: > if you do not know the meaning of your > partner's call, or you have no agreement, > you must not say how you intend to > interpret it." > > Appeal lodged by: > East-West > > Appeals Committee decision: > Artificial score awarded: > Average plus to N/S, average minus to E/W > Deposit returned > > Appeals Committee's comments: > The committee had sympathy for the > inexperienced pair N/S but their action of > the incomplete explanation damaged E/W by > taking away any "forcing" bid. The bidding > following was unclear to the development of > the auction and final resting place. It was > felt that it was a close decision to overturn > the director's ruling. > > Richard James Hills comments: > > E/W were so-called "damaged" because N/S did > not have a partnership agreement about the > meaning of a double after a strong 1C and a > negative 1D response. Tough. N/S are not > required to have a comprehensive defence to > E/W's unusual artificial methods. Isn't the committee's ruling an illegal ruling? Since a result was obtained, any adjusted score should be assigned not artificial. 3H making would seem reasonable *if* they were going to adjust the score. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From toddz@att.net Wed Nov 12 22:52:48 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 17:52:48 -0500 Subject: [blml] Disconcerting an opponent In-Reply-To: <01e901c3a945$bfab0680$df2e56d2@Desktop> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Wayne Burrows > Subject: [blml] Disconcerting an opponent > > He then led a low heart from the table and left the defender to > 'work-out' whether to play ace or not. The defender > took sometime to make this play. > > Declarer is in a no-play contract and could easily > claim down one. > > I believe declarer should claim. The only purpose in > playing on is to disconcert the opponent. > > Comments please? I've heard various opinions on this one. Some players (G.S. Jade Barret in particular) believe it's a legitimate strategy in a long team-game to play a war of attrition on their opponents' mental faculties. If you can tire them out by giving them problems that don't exist, they're more likely to be too tired to work out the problems that do exist. I've also heard some drivel about keeping up the show -- if you only play it out when the opponents' plays matter, they're more likely to make certain their plays count. I guess it all depends on how competitively you want to play. :/ But in as much as I don't like playing that way, the purpose is to exhaust your opponents, not to annoy them. The strategy seems allowable by the letter of the law and widespread. -Todd From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Nov 12 23:22:55 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:22:55 -0000 Subject: [blml] Disconcerting an opponent Message-ID: <014001c3a973$eacc5a20$f39868d5@tinyhrieuyik> > [Wayne] > Bermuda Bowl Semi-Final Segment 5/6 > Brd 13 3 > Dlr N QT > All Vul AQ54 > AKQ842 > AQJT952 876 > A52 J94 > 96 KJT873 > 3 J > K4 > K8763 > 2 > T9765 After a spade lead and diamond return, Declarer drew trumps, went to table and led a low heart. Declarer is in a no-play contract and could easily claim down one. I believe declarer should claim. The only purpose in playing on is to disconcert the opponent. [Richard James Hills, quoting old chess saying] "Nobody ever won by resigning". [Nigel] Richard is right, as usual: Even at the highest level, many contracts make that are doomed on routine defence. e.g. A Meckstroth 3NT in the Bermuda Bowl, yesterday. Of course, if you the rest of the tricks are yours, you should claim. Otherwise, a player may play on, hoping for a mistake. If a TD ruled against such a player, and I were on the AC, I would rule that the TD fork out the deposit. :) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.537 / Virus Database: 332 - Release Date: 06/11/2003 From john@asimere.com Thu Nov 13 02:13:20 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 02:13:20 +0000 Subject: [blml] Disconcerting an opponent In-Reply-To: References: <01e901c3a945$bfab0680$df2e56d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <2Tg8YUAAjus$EwiM@asimere.com> In article , Todd Zimnoch writes >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Wayne Burrows >> Subject: [blml] Disconcerting an opponent >> >> He then led a low heart from the table and left the defender to >> 'work-out' whether to play ace or not. The defender >> took sometime to make this play. >> >> Declarer is in a no-play contract and could easily >> claim down one. >> >> I believe declarer should claim. The only purpose in >> playing on is to disconcert the opponent. >> >> Comments please? > > I've heard various opinions on this one. Some players (G.S. Jade >Barret in particular) believe it's a legitimate strategy in a long >team-game to play a war of attrition on their opponents' mental >faculties. If you can tire them out by giving them problems that >don't exist, they're more likely to be too tired to work out the >problems that do exist. I've also heard some drivel about keeping >up the show -- if you only play it out when the opponents' plays >matter, they're more likely to make certain their plays count. I >guess it all depends on how competitively you want to play. :/ > > But in as much as I don't like playing that way, the purpose is >to exhaust your opponents, not to annoy them. The strategy seems >allowable by the letter of the law and widespread. I think it's perfectly reasonable to play on at this point. It's only playing on when all the tricks are surely yours which is contrary to the proprieties. I've seen no play slams make at the 10 pound table - why shouldn't they make here? > >-Todd > > >_______________________________________________ >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 karel@esatclear.ie Thu Nov 13 02:21:34 2003 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 02:21:34 -0000 Subject: [blml] MI case Message-ID: Pairs event dealer N, nil all ...North ...S AQ82 ...H KJ5 ...D 74 ...C J962 ..............East ..............S J93 ..............H AQ842 ..............D 92 ..............C T73 ...South ...S KT4 ...H 6 ...D AKJ6 ...C AQ854 N E S W 1C P 2C(1) P P 2H 3H P 3NT P 4NT P P P (1) alerted as inverted minor 10-12 pts denies a 4CM by N. No CC or written agreement available. Opening lead D9 - result 4NT making. East claims damage. He felt that on the information he had the points were 23/17 or there abouts. Pd rated to have 8-11 points and 3+ hearts making the balancing 2H bid far more attractive. If he knew 2C was 10+ F he would never balance. As for the defence, East stated against 3NT he would lead a heart - but against 4NT and only needing 4 tricks and pd having an almost certain trick leading a heart away from the AQ tenance could give declarer his 10th trick. Your ruling K. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.537 / Virus Database: 332 - Release Date: 06/11/2003 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Nov 13 04:04:57 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 14:04:57 +1000 Subject: [blml] MI case Message-ID: Karel wrote: [snip] >No CC or written agreement available. [snip] Footnote to Law 75: ".....the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Bid, in the absence of evidence to the contrary....." RJH replies: On the facts given, it seems that either -> (1) North misunderstood the North-South partnership agreement to play inverted minors, or (2) South had an erroneous belief that the North-South partnership had a partnership agreement about the forcing nature of an inverted minor. North-South were careless in failing to discuss the finer points of their agreements. Worse, North-South were reckless in infracting Law 40E1 by failing to provide a CC, despite them playing a system with exotic conventions. Therefore, I will join the De Wael School just this once, rule MI under option (1), and adjust the score to 2C +150. 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 Thu Nov 13 03:04:22 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 22:04:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] Disconcerting an opponent In-Reply-To: <2Tg8YUAAjus$EwiM@asimere.com> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: John (MadDog) Probst > Subject: Re: [blml] Disconcerting an opponent > > I think it's perfectly reasonable to play on at this > point. It's only > playing on when all the tricks are surely yours which > is contrary to the > proprieties. I've seen no play slams make at the 10 > pound table - why shouldn't they make here? No reason it can't, though it shouldn't. I think that's beside the point I was trying to make. For me it's a question of motive. Is it ethical to intentionally fatigue your opponents for later boards when you have no likely chance of improving your result on the current board? -Todd From blml@blakjak.com Thu Nov 13 03:15:17 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 03:15:17 +0000 Subject: [blml] Disconcerting an opponent In-Reply-To: <01e901c3a945$bfab0680$df2e56d2@Desktop> References: <01e901c3a945$bfab0680$df2e56d2@Desktop> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows wrote >Bermuda Bowl Semi-Final Segment 5/6 > >Brd 13 3 >Dlr N QT >All Vul AQ54 > AKQ842 >AQJT952 876 >A52 J94 >96 KJT873 >3 J > K4 > K8763 > 2 > T9765 > > W N E S >================ > 1C 2D 2H > 4S 5C 5S 6C > X P P P > >After a spade lead and a diamond return. > >Declarer drew trumps and went to table. > >He then led a low heart from the table and left the defender to >'work-out' whether to play ace or not. The defender took sometime to >make this play. > >Declarer is in a no-play contract and could easily claim down one. > >I believe declarer should claim. The only purpose in playing on is to >disconcert the opponent. Lots of no-play contracts are made every day. So you are wrong: another purpose in playing on is to see if they will let it through. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Thu Nov 13 03:22:03 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 03:22:03 +0000 Subject: [blml] MI case In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Karel wrote >Pairs event dealer N, nil all > >...North >...S AQ82 >...H KJ5 >...D 74 >...C J962 >..............East >..............S J93 >..............H AQ842 >..............D 92 >..............C T73 >...South >...S KT4 >...H 6 >...D AKJ6 >...C AQ854 > > >N E S W >1C P 2C(1) P >P 2H 3H P >3NT P 4NT P >P P > >(1) alerted as inverted minor 10-12 pts denies a 4CM by N. No CC or written >agreement available. > >Opening lead D9 - result 4NT making. > >East claims damage. He felt that on the information he had the >points were 23/17 or there abouts. Pd rated to have 8-11 points and 3+ >hearts making >the balancing 2H bid far more attractive. If he knew 2C was 10+ F he would >never balance. > >As for the defence, East stated against 3NT he would lead a heart - but >against 4NT and only needing 4 tricks and pd having an almost certain trick >leading a heart away from the AQ tenance could give declarer his 10th trick. > >Your ruling If there is MI then I adjust to 2C making up 3. East would be unlikely to protect on 6HCP if the 2C bid was described as forcing. As to whether there was MI I would ask N/S for a convincing argument that there was no MI. Without CCs they are unlikely to find one. The defence is irrelevant, of course. Not leading a heart is not irrational, wild or gambling, merely a wrong view. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From wayne@ebridgenz.com Thu Nov 13 04:34:06 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:34:06 +1300 Subject: [blml] Disconcerting an opponent In-Reply-To: <01e901c3a945$bfab0680$df2e56d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <005801c3a99f$6a8178b0$3ae436d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Wayne Burrows > Sent: Thursday, 13 November 2003 5:52 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] Disconcerting an opponent > > > Bermuda Bowl Semi-Final Segment 5/6 > > Brd 13 3 > Dlr N QT > All Vul AQ54 > AKQ842 > AQJT952 876 > A52 J94 > 96 KJT873 > 3 J > K4 > K8763 > 2 > T9765 > > W N E S > ================ > 1C 2D 2H > 4S 5C 5S 6C > X P P P > > After a spade lead and a diamond return. > > Declarer drew trumps and went to table. > > He then led a low heart from the table and left the defender to > 'work-out' whether to play ace or not. The defender took sometime to > make this play. > > Declarer is in a no-play contract and could easily claim down one. > > I believe declarer should claim. The only purpose in playing on is to > disconcert the opponent. > > Comments please? > > Wayne L74B4. prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he knows that all the tricks are surely his) for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent. Richard Hills quoted the the parenthetical remark of this law. I believe that that remark could easily be "as in playing on although he knows that 'x'-tricks are surely his (and n-x tricks are surely not his" Wayne From wayne@ebridgenz.com Thu Nov 13 04:36:05 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:36:05 +1300 Subject: [blml] Disconcerting an opponent In-Reply-To: <2Tg8YUAAjus$EwiM@asimere.com> Message-ID: <005901c3a99f$aee6ee90$3ae436d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of John (MadDog) Probst > Sent: Thursday, 13 November 2003 2:13 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Disconcerting an opponent > > > In article , Todd Zimnoch > writes > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Wayne Burrows > >> Subject: [blml] Disconcerting an opponent > >> > >> He then led a low heart from the table and left the defender to > >> 'work-out' whether to play ace or not. The defender > >> took sometime to make this play. > >> > >> Declarer is in a no-play contract and could easily > >> claim down one. > >> > >> I believe declarer should claim. The only purpose in > >> playing on is to disconcert the opponent. > >> > >> Comments please? > > > > I've heard various opinions on this one. Some > players (G.S. Jade > >Barret in particular) believe it's a legitimate strategy in a long > >team-game to play a war of attrition on their opponents' mental > >faculties. If you can tire them out by giving them problems that > >don't exist, they're more likely to be too tired to work out the > >problems that do exist. I've also heard some drivel about keeping > >up the show -- if you only play it out when the opponents' plays > >matter, they're more likely to make certain their plays count. I > >guess it all depends on how competitively you want to play. :/ > > > > But in as much as I don't like playing that way, the > purpose is > >to exhaust your opponents, not to annoy them. The strategy seems > >allowable by the letter of the law and widespread. > > I think it's perfectly reasonable to play on at this point. It's only > playing on when all the tricks are surely yours which is > contrary to the > proprieties. Not so. "...as in playing on although he knows that all the tricks are surely his..." is merely a parenthetical example. Wayne I've seen no play slams make at the 10 pound table - why > shouldn't they make here? > > > >-Todd > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >blml mailing list > >blml@rtflb.org > >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- > John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 > 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou > London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com > +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Nov 13 07:59:10 2003 From: guthrie@ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 07:59:10 -0000 Subject: [blml] Re: Bermuda Bowl Final References: <20031112175127.11586.00000102@mb-m22.aol.com> <1g4cd19.1j7mzhzx3vk6mN%rgb@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <1g4ceir.6fyys4qqxknxN%rgb@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <00ed01c3a9bc$065e6060$369468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Mark Jones] The match can go either way. [John Blubaugh] USA I will kick the Italians asses and they won't have to cheat to do it. I could certainly understand that [the USA shouldn't have two teams] and wouldn't disagree with it. [Raija] Maybe there should be at least three?? [Paul Friedman]Italia by 17 imps. They dress better:) [Josprung] I will take Italy in a very close match. [Richard Willey] I expect the Italians to beat USA 1. [Bill Jacobs] Italy by 27. [Ida Jones] Does 4 NT bid after a lower NT bid still mean asking for Aces? Or is it suggesting a raise to 6 NT only? [Nigel] IMO, the teams are evenly matched. Neither side will cheat. USA should have only one team. Italy will win by 53 imps in a thrilling match. A four notrump raise is usually "quantitative" i.e. natural, non-forcing, and invitational to slam. If you do decide to go on, you may as well show aces. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.538 / Virus Database: 333 - Release Date: 10/11/2003 From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Thu Nov 13 08:04:27 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 09:04:27 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] EBU 2001 Casebook, appeal 7 Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EBCA@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Gordon Rainsford wrote On Wednesday, November 12, 2003, at 11:23 pm,=20 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Tournament Director: > Jim Proctor > > Appeals Committee: > John Young (Chairman) Su Burn Nick Sandqvist > > Swiss Pairs > Board no 5 > Dealer North > N/S vulnerable > QT86 > T85 > AK72 > T2 > J942 AK3 > A9762 K3 > 95 83 > 84 AKQ975 > 75 > QJ4 > QJT64 > J63 > > Basic systems: > East-West play Strong Club > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass 1C(A)(1) Pass > 1D(A) Dbl 2C(2) Pass > 2H Pass 3NT Pass > Pass Pass > > (1) Strong > (2) East asked meaning of double, South > replied "I presume other two suits" > > Result at table: > 3NT-1 by East, NS +50, lead DQ > > Director first called: > At end of hand > > Director's statement of facts: > TD was called by E/W after North said he > intended his double as lead directing. N/S > had a defence to strong club on convention > card but this did not apply after 1D > response. They had "lead directing" among > other things under "Special Use of > Doubles". E/W claimed damage > > Director's ruling: > Table result stands > > Details of ruling: > East should be more thorough in "checking > up" by calling the tournament director > after South's reply expressing doubt, or > when he really needed to know before > making his third call, it being a situation > in which misunderstandings occur. South > should not answer East's question as she > did (Orange book 3.4.3). > > Note by editor: > The Orange book is the EBU Handbook of > Directives. 3.4.3 says: > "Explain only your partnership agreement: > if you do not know the meaning of your > partner's call, or you have no agreement, > you must not say how you intend to > interpret it." > > Appeal lodged by: > East-West > > Appeals Committee decision: > Artificial score awarded: > Average plus to N/S, average minus to E/W > Deposit returned ----- Average plus to OS, or is this a typo? ----- > > Appeals Committee's comments: > The committee had sympathy for the > inexperienced pair N/S but their action of > the incomplete explanation damaged E/W by > taking away any "forcing" bid. The bidding > following was unclear to the development of > the auction and final resting place. It was > felt that it was a close decision to overturn > the director's ruling. > > Richard James Hills comments: > > E/W were so-called "damaged" because N/S did > not have a partnership agreement about the > meaning of a double after a strong 1C and a > negative 1D response. Tough. N/S are not > required to have a comprehensive defence to > E/W's unusual artificial methods. Isn't the committee's ruling an illegal ruling? Since a result was=20 obtained, any adjusted score should be assigned not artificial. 3H making would seem reasonable *if* they were going to adjust the=20 score. ----- The committee's ruling is illegal, in my opinion. They should award an assi= gned adjusted score. And if an artificial score is legal, the NOS should ge= t Av+, not Av-. I would have ruled 3C making 5. Regards, Harald Skj=E6ran Oslo ----- -- Gordon Rainsford London UK _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ********************************************************************** This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports ********************************************************************** ************************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error=20 please notify NIF at postmaster@nif.idrett.no.=20 Abuse can be reported to abuse@nif.idrett.no This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports ************************************************************************** From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Nov 13 08:51:10 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 09:51:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Disconcerting an opponent In-Reply-To: <005801c3a99f$6a8178b0$3ae436d2@Desktop> References: <005801c3a99f$6a8178b0$3ae436d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <3FB345FE.7090900@hdw.be> wayne@ebridgenz.com wrote: > >> >>Declarer is in a no-play contract and could easily claim down one. >> >>I believe declarer should claim. The only purpose in playing on is to >>disconcert the opponent. >> >>Comments please? >> >>Wayne > > > L74B4. > prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he knows that > all the tricks are surely his) for the purpose of disconcerting an > opponent. > > Richard Hills quoted the the parenthetical remark of this law. I > believe > that that remark could easily be "as in playing on although he knows > that > 'x'-tricks are surely his (and n-x tricks are surely not his" > I too had already noticed the "as in", suggesting that there might be other cases in which this law could be used. However, I believve we can easily construct a case that is an "as in", without having to go as far as also including the Monaco case: If a player knows he has all tricks, except the single outstanding highest trump, he should also claim. Nothing can be gained from playing on. In Monaco, there still is the outside chance that West gets it wrong twice. I would claim in this position as well, but then I'm not likely to play in a BB-SF. > 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 gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Nov 13 11:29:03 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 11:29:03 +0000 Subject: [blml] Re: Bermuda Bowl Final In-Reply-To: <00ed01c3a9bc$065e6060$369468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <95CD0424-15CC-11D8-8632-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Thursday, November 13, 2003, at 07:59 am, Guthrie wrote: > > [Nigel] > IMO, the teams are evenly matched. Neither > side will cheat. USA should have only one team. > Italy will win by 53 imps in a thrilling match. > A four notrump raise is usually "quantitative" > i.e. natural, non-forcing, and invitational to > slam. If you do decide to go on, you may as well > show aces. This appears to have been meant for rgb. It puzzles me how the two seem to get confused at your keyboard with some frequency, Nigel. May I suggest that the solution might be to "Reply" rather than to "Compose" new messages with cut and paste? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From wayne@ebridgenz.com Thu Nov 13 12:11:24 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 01:11:24 +1300 Subject: [blml] Disconcerting an opponent In-Reply-To: <3FB345FE.7090900@hdw.be> Message-ID: <00e201c3a9df$487a94a0$c9b337d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Thursday, 13 November 2003 8:51 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Disconcerting an opponent > > > wayne@ebridgenz.com wrote: > > > > >> > >>Declarer is in a no-play contract and could easily claim down one. > >> > >>I believe declarer should claim. The only purpose in > playing on is to > >>disconcert the opponent. > >> > >>Comments please? > >> > >>Wayne > > > > > > L74B4. > > prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he > knows that > > all the tricks are surely his) for the purpose of disconcerting an > > opponent. > > > > Richard Hills quoted the the parenthetical remark of this law. I > > believe > > that that remark could easily be "as in playing on although he knows > > that > > 'x'-tricks are surely his (and n-x tricks are surely not his" > > > > I too had already noticed the "as in", suggesting that there might be > other cases in which this law could be used. However, I believve we > can easily construct a case that is an "as in", without having to go > as far as also including the Monaco case: > > If a player knows he has all tricks, except the single outstanding > highest trump, he should also claim. Nothing can be gained from > playing on. In Monaco, there still is the outside chance that West > gets it wrong twice. I concede that there is a small possibility of West getting this wrong twice. And in this case that is worth playing for. Wayne > > I would claim in this position as well, but then I'm not likely to > play in a BB-SF. > > > > 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 nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Nov 13 12:30:31 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:30:31 -0000 Subject: [blml] Re: Bermuda Bowl Final References: <95CD0424-15CC-11D8-8632-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <01cd01c3a9e1$fbcda540$369468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Gordon Rainsford] This appears to have been meant for rgb. It puzzles me how the two seem to get confused at your keyboard with some frequency, Nigel. May I suggest that the solution might be to "Reply" rather than to "Compose" new messages with cut and paste? [Nigel] Gordon is right. Sorry Henk. Please delete my first post. I do use "reply" rather than "compose" What confuses me is that BLML includes the sender's address, so I try to remember to delete the "to address" and insert BLML instead. This sometimes has this unfortunate side-effect -- when I should be replying to rgb. Sorry again. I will try harder :( --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.538 / Virus Database: 333 - Release Date: 10/11/2003 From blml@blakjak.com Thu Nov 13 12:59:00 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:59:00 +0000 Subject: [blml] Disconcerting an opponent In-Reply-To: <005801c3a99f$6a8178b0$3ae436d2@Desktop> References: <01e901c3a945$bfab0680$df2e56d2@Desktop> <005801c3a99f$6a8178b0$3ae436d2@Desktop> Message-ID: Some-one said: >L74B4. >prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he knows that >all the tricks are surely his) for the purpose of disconcerting an >opponent. > >Richard Hills quoted the the parenthetical remark of this law. I >believe >that that remark could easily be "as in playing on although he knows >that >'x'-tricks are surely his (and n-x tricks are surely not his" Certainly not. If the Law meant that the Law would say that. The big difference is seen in this example. It may be incredibly unlikely that the defence would let the contract through, but it is not impossible. Playing on is reasonable, therefore, and most players would do so, and it is not illegal or unethical. Have you never played out a contract with no play whatever to find that you have made it at the end? Often not even knowing why? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Thu Nov 13 13:09:46 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 13:09:46 +0000 Subject: [blml] EBU 2001 Casebook, appeal 7 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4aWCG1BaK4s$EwiR@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Richard Hills: >E/W were so-called "damaged" because N/S did >not have a partnership agreement about the >meaning of a double after a strong 1C and a >negative 1D response. Tough. N/S are not >required to have a comprehensive defence to >E/W's unusual artificial methods. Sure - but are they not required to say so? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Nov 13 13:11:37 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 08:11:37 -0500 Subject: [blml] Disconcerting an opponent In-Reply-To: References: <01e901c3a945$bfab0680$df2e56d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031113080406.0206b8a0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:52 PM 11/12/03, Todd wrote: > I've heard various opinions on this one. Some players (G.S. Jade >Barret in particular) believe it's a legitimate strategy in a long >team-game to play a war of attrition on their opponents' mental >faculties. If you can tire them out by giving them problems that >don't exist, they're more likely to be too tired to work out the >problems that do exist. I've also heard some drivel about keeping >up the show -- if you only play it out when the opponents' plays >matter, they're more likely to make certain their plays count. I >guess it all depends on how competitively you want to play. :/ > > But in as much as I don't like playing that way, the purpose is >to exhaust your opponents, not to annoy them. The strategy seems >allowable by the letter of the law and widespread. Well, I for one find being exhausted rather "disconcerting". Of course declarer may play on rather than claim in the hope the opponents will make a mistake. When there's a claim for down one, though, and no possible mistake the opponents can make that will allow the contract to make, determining whether L74B4 has been violated is entirely a question of motivation: did declarer (mistakenly) think there was some way the opponents could let the contract through, or was he simply trying to disconcert them by misleading them into thinking that their play matters, and so wasting their stamina and mental effort on trying to solve a non-problem? If I were convinced that declarer's motivation was "to play a war of attrition", as opposed to "to try to make a slam that should have no play", I would certainly penalize him per L74B4. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From blml@blakjak.com Thu Nov 13 13:10:54 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 13:10:54 +0000 Subject: SV: [blml] EBU 2001 Casebook, appeal 7 In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EBCA@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EBCA@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: Skjaran, Harald wrote >Average plus to OS, or is this a typo? Interesting - I shall check. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Thu Nov 13 13:27:02 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 13:27:02 +0000 Subject: [blml] Disconcerting an opponent In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031113080406.0206b8a0@pop.starpower.net> References: <01e901c3a945$bfab0680$df2e56d2@Desktop> <5.2.0.9.0.20031113080406.0206b8a0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote >At 05:52 PM 11/12/03, Todd wrote: > >> I've heard various opinions on this one. Some players (G.S. Jade >>Barret in particular) believe it's a legitimate strategy in a long >>team-game to play a war of attrition on their opponents' mental >>faculties. If you can tire them out by giving them problems that >>don't exist, they're more likely to be too tired to work out the >>problems that do exist. I've also heard some drivel about keeping >>up the show -- if you only play it out when the opponents' plays >>matter, they're more likely to make certain their plays count. I >>guess it all depends on how competitively you want to play. :/ >> >> But in as much as I don't like playing that way, the purpose is >>to exhaust your opponents, not to annoy them. The strategy seems >>allowable by the letter of the law and widespread. > >Well, I for one find being exhausted rather "disconcerting". > >Of course declarer may play on rather than claim in the hope the >opponents will make a mistake. When there's a claim for down one, >though, and no possible mistake the opponents can make that will allow >the contract to make, determining whether L74B4 has been violated is >entirely a question of motivation: did declarer (mistakenly) think >there was some way the opponents could let the contract through, or was >he simply trying to disconcert them by misleading them into thinking >that their play matters, and so wasting their stamina and mental effort >on trying to solve a non-problem? If I were convinced that declarer's >motivation was "to play a war of attrition", as opposed to "to try to >make a slam that should have no play", I would certainly penalize him per L74B4. But not as in the example. If the defence can let it through then there is nothing wrong with playing it out. What is wrong is playing on when the final result is in no doubt whatever. If declarer has all the rest of the tricks bar one, and that one is the top trump, then he has no right to play on. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From cibor@poczta.fm Thu Nov 13 15:31:34 2003 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:31:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Disconcerting an opponent References: <01e901c3a945$bfab0680$df2e56d2@Desktop> <5.2.0.9.0.20031113080406.0206b8a0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <003001c3a9fb$5628b660$e2274cd5@c5s5d3> > What is wrong is playing on when the final result is in no doubt > whatever. If declarer has all the rest of the tricks bar one, and that > one is the top trump, then he has no right to play on. > Do you mean that it is not a legitimate strategy to keep playing in the hope that the opponents will revoke? If they revoke before taking their top trump then you will still make your contract (assuming that the revoke will become established, that il will cost 1+ trick, etc.). Is playing on in the hope of opponents' committing a revoke illegal? Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland From blml@blakjak.com Thu Nov 13 16:46:58 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:46:58 +0000 Subject: [blml] Disconcerting an opponent In-Reply-To: <003001c3a9fb$5628b660$e2274cd5@c5s5d3> References: <01e901c3a945$bfab0680$df2e56d2@Desktop> <5.2.0.9.0.20031113080406.0206b8a0@pop.starpower.net> <003001c3a9fb$5628b660$e2274cd5@c5s5d3> Message-ID: Konrad Ciborowski wrote >> What is wrong is playing on when the final result is in no doubt >> whatever. If declarer has all the rest of the tricks bar one, and that >> one is the top trump, then he has no right to play on. >Do you mean that it is not a legitimate strategy to keep >playing in the hope that the opponents will revoke? >If they revoke before taking their top trump >then you will still make your contract >(assuming that the revoke will become established, >that il will cost 1+ trick, etc.). >Is playing on in the hope of opponents' committing a revoke >illegal? Yes, in my view. You are deliberately wasting time. You could also play on slowly in a bad contract in the hopes that there will be a fire and the board will be cancelled, but it is also illegal. If people are not prepared to try to win by playing bridge then the officials are going to have to make sure they do for the sake of the vast majority who do try to win by playing bridge. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Nov 13 06:01:45 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 01:01:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] Disconcerting an opponent In-Reply-To: <005801c3a99f$6a8178b0$3ae436d2@Desktop> Message-ID: On Wednesday, Nov 12, 2003, at 23:34 US/Eastern, wayne@ebridgenz.com wrote: > Richard Hills quoted the the parenthetical remark of this law. I > believe > that that remark could easily be "as in playing on although he knows > that > 'x'-tricks are surely his (and n-x tricks are surely not his" You place too much weight on this parenthetical expression. The gist of the law is in "playing on unnecessarily" and "for purposes of disconcerting an opponent". Given that there's a chance that defence might screw up, and given that chance, you'll make (or even might make) your contract, playing on is neither unnecessary nor "for purposes of disconcerting an opponent". From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Nov 13 06:02:15 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 01:02:15 -0500 Subject: [blml] Disconcerting an opponent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wednesday, Nov 12, 2003, at 22:04 US/Eastern, Todd Zimnoch wrote: > Is it ethical to intentionally fatigue your opponents for later > boards when you have no likely chance of improving your result on > the current board? Yes. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Nov 13 06:02:38 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 01:02:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] Disconcerting an opponent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wednesday, Nov 12, 2003, at 22:04 US/Eastern, Todd Zimnoch wrote: > Is it ethical to intentionally fatigue your opponents for later > boards when you have no likely chance of improving your result on > the current board? Yes. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Nov 13 19:01:24 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 11:01:24 -0800 Subject: [blml] Disconcerting an opponent References: Message-ID: <001201c3aa18$89f24980$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Ed Reppert" , Todd Zimnoch wrote: > > > Is it ethical to intentionally fatigue your opponents for later > > boards when you have no likely chance of improving your result on > > the current board? > > Yes. > Make that "no chance" and it becomes very unsportsmanlike if not illegal. But of course the concept of good sportsmanship is rarely found these days in the world of duplicate bridge. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Nov 13 20:39:26 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 15:39:26 -0500 Subject: [blml] Disconcerting an opponent In-Reply-To: <001201c3aa18$89f24980$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <78B3ECE6-1619-11D8-B381-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Nov 13, 2003, at 14:01 US/Eastern, Marvin French wrote: > Make that "no chance" and it becomes very unsportsmanlike if not > illegal. Certainly. If he had said "no chance", I'd have said "no". From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Thu Nov 13 20:57:53 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 21:57:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Disconcerting an opponent References: <001201c3aa18$89f24980$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <002701c3aa28$f2492700$0ff72fd4@vaio> Marvin: > Make that "no chance" and it becomes very unsportsmanlike if not illegal. > But of course the concept of good sportsmanship is rarely found these days > in the world of duplicate bridge. What is sportmanship these days in competitive bridge ? Since relevant authorities nowadays impose (semi) automatic penalties (regardless wether boards were easy or difficult) IN POINTS at all major championships this reality becomes part of the game. IMO all tactics to take advantage of this reality are legal, just as all counter tactics. In other words the authorities have decided time = points so don't blame the players to adapt to that. Anyway, 'intentionally fatigue' makes little sense to me, but 'time management' has become part of the game. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 8:01 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Disconcerting an opponent > > From: "Ed Reppert" > > , Todd Zimnoch wrote: > > > > > Is it ethical to intentionally fatigue your opponents for later > > > boards when you have no likely chance of improving your result on > > > the current board? > > > > Yes. > > > Make that "no chance" and it becomes very unsportsmanlike if not illegal. > But of course the concept of good sportsmanship is rarely found these days > in the world of duplicate bridge. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Nov 13 22:21:06 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 22:21:06 -0000 Subject: [blml] Disconcerting an opponent References: <001201c3aa18$89f24980$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <005901c3aa34$6f3a0300$4c9568d5@tinyhrieuyik> > [Marvin French] > Make that "no chance" and it becomes very > unsportsmanlike if not illegal. But of course the > concept of good sportsmanship is rarely found > these days in the world of duplicate bridge. [Nigel] I agree with Marvin French that playing a hand out is unethical, if your only hope is a revoke. Many questions still remain... Is David Stevenson right in claiming that it is illegal? Is the TD expected to read the player's mind to be sure of his intention? Is this a deliberate application of the TFLB's new basis in "equity" -- another grey area in which the TD may exercise "judgement" -- in his discrimination between friends & enemies? Or does this law need a "could have known" qualifier, as advocated by Richard James Hills in such cases? IMO the old *Proprieties* section of TFLB should be resuscitated, and all "laws" that require a telepath to enforce them, should be designated "etiquette". --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.538 / Virus Database: 333 - Release Date: 10/11/2003 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Nov 13 23:25:24 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 09:25:24 +1000 Subject: [blml] Disconcerting an opponent Message-ID: Konrad Ciborowski asked: >>Is playing on in the hope of opponents' committing a revoke >>illegal? David Stevenson replied: >Yes, in my view. You are deliberately wasting time. > >You could also play on slowly in a bad contract in the hopes >that there will be a fire and the board will be cancelled, >but it is also illegal. > >If people are not prepared to try to win by playing bridge >then the officials are going to have to make sure they do >for the sake of the vast majority who do try to win by >playing bridge. Richard James Hills relates: Twenty years ago, my bidding skills were slightly less accurate than now, so I reached a bad contract of 6C when the opponents had two inescapable winners with two side aces. I did not claim one off, but continued playing. If DWS had been the official TD then, he would no doubt have fined me a PP for deliberately wasting time. Sure enough, at the time the TD was indeed summoned. This was because LHO led the ace of spades out of turn. The TD ruled that the ace of spades was a penalty card, to be played at the first legal opportunity. So, since I was on lead at that time, I simply drew an extra round of trumps, requiring LHO to discard the ace of spades. +920. Did I make my contract by "playing bridge"? 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 Nov 13 23:39:42 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 09:39:42 +1000 Subject: [blml] EBU 2001 Casebook, appeal 7 Message-ID: RJH: >>>E/W were so-called "damaged" because N/S did >>>not have a partnership agreement about the >>>meaning of a double after a strong 1C and a >>>negative 1D response. Tough. N/S are not >>>required to have a comprehensive defence to >>>E/W's unusual artificial methods. DWS: >>Sure - but are they not required to say so? Matthias Berghaus (casebook panellist): >Nobody who starts "I presume..." actually has an >agreement. RJH: Sure, the Laws require explanation of partnership agreements, not explanation of a particular player's presumptions. But, in my experience, most bunnies are totally unaware of the subtle distinction. If E/W were even slightly experienced, they should be as aware as Matthias Berghaus of the implications of the prefatory "I presume..." caveat by a bunny. 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 Nov 13 23:41:38 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 00:41:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Disconcerting an opponent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3aa3f$af166d50$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au .......... > Konrad Ciborowski asked: >=20 > >>Is playing on in the hope of opponents' committing a revoke > >>illegal? >=20 > David Stevenson replied: >=20 > >Yes, in my view. You are deliberately wasting time. This is indeed the question, but how can you tell that he is = "deliberately wasting time" for the (sole) purpose of disconcerting an opponent? Do = you read his mind?=20 > >You could also play on slowly in a bad contract in the hopes > >that there will be a fire and the board will be cancelled, > >but it is also illegal. Is this really a matter in a serious discussion?=20 > > > >If people are not prepared to try to win by playing bridge > >then the officials are going to have to make sure they do > >for the sake of the vast majority who do try to win by > >playing bridge. Who argues that people are not prepared to win by playing bridge? The example by RJH below is IMO a very good illustration. >=20 > Richard James Hills relates: >=20 > Twenty years ago, my bidding skills were slightly less > accurate than now, so I reached a bad contract of 6C when the > opponents had two inescapable winners with two side aces. >=20 > I did not claim one off, but continued playing. If DWS had > been the official TD then, he would no doubt have fined me a > PP for deliberately wasting time. Sure enough, at the time > the TD was indeed summoned. >=20 > This was because LHO led the ace of spades out of turn. The > TD ruled that the ace of spades was a penalty card, to be > played at the first legal opportunity. So, since I was on > lead at that time, I simply drew an extra round of trumps, > requiring LHO to discard the ace of spades. +920. >=20 > Did I make my contract by "playing bridge"? Most certainly you did. You took full advantage of the rights offered to = you in Law 72A4 and there was absolutely nothing wrong in that. For someone = to claim that you had already violated Law 74B4 they must show that there = was no legal play from which you could avoid those two losers and also that = you were aware of this fact. That last condition requires a mind reader! It is frequently said that a game of bridge is most often not won by = good play but by opponents' errors. I have a problem following the logic when someone argue that you are supposed by Law74B4 to claim when the effect = of that claim would mainly be to protect your opponents from making errors = in their continued play. Regards Sven From john@asimere.com Fri Nov 14 03:52:48 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 03:52:48 +0000 Subject: [blml] EBU 2001 Casebook, appeal 7 In-Reply-To: <4aWCG1BaK4s$EwiR@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <4aWCG1BaK4s$EwiR@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: In article <4aWCG1BaK4s$EwiR@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >Richard Hills: > >>E/W were so-called "damaged" because N/S did >>not have a partnership agreement about the >>meaning of a double after a strong 1C and a >>negative 1D response. Tough. N/S are not >>required to have a comprehensive defence to >>E/W's unusual artificial methods. > > Sure - but are they not required to say so? I think they did (well I heard it anyway) > -- 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 HarrisR@missouri.edu Fri Nov 14 20:58:47 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:58:47 -0600 Subject: [blml] A Pair from the Club last night Message-ID: Our regular Director was running the novice game, so we were left with another person directing, and I was asked twice to help. (We have, as usual, a playing Director.) 1. North was in an unknown contract. I was the situation: Dummy S: --- H: x D: AKQxx C: xx and small diamond cards on the table in front of the three closed hands. Declairer had called for the diamond A, and after the play asked to see the played cards. At that point, it turned out the diamond ace was really the heart ace and had been at the top of the diamonds in dummy since the dummy was revealed. (Pretty strange that whoever held the diamond ace didn't notice this earlier.) Now, Declairer had called for a card not in dummy, everyone had folowed suit, but ... Law 46B4 tells us the call is void and Declairer "may designate and legal card." But what about the exposed cards on the table? They seem to be penalty cards for the defenders, but that doesn't seem quite fair. 2. East-West stand up from the table after playing the last board of the round, and one asks the other what happened to card X (I don't know the card.) It turns out one of NS had revoked. Law 64B5 says there is no penalty assessed if attention to the revoke is called after the round has ended. Nobody is calling rounds, so when does the round end for this EW pair? Law 8B says the round ends when the Director gives the signal for the start of the following round, but here there is no signal, and the next table for EW is still playing, so they really can't move away from the table they were playing at. It wasn't the last round of the session, so 8C does not apply, though one is tempted to assume that agreeing to the score and getting ready to leave the table was the end of the round for EW. (This position was maintained by NS, the revoking side.) If a claim or concession had been involved, the end of the round question might not have applied, but rather Laws 69-71 would apply. (I don't know whether a concession or claim was involved.) My hope is for no irregularities next week. I'm directing. REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From adam@irvine.com Fri Nov 14 21:51:30 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:51:30 -0800 Subject: [blml] A Pair from the Club last night In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:58:47 CST." Message-ID: <200311142151.NAA01081@mailhub.irvine.com> Robert wrote: > 1. North was in an unknown contract. I was the situation: > Dummy > S: --- > H: x > D: AKQxx > C: xx > > and small diamond cards on the table in front of the three closed > hands. Declairer had called for the diamond A, and after the play > asked to see the played cards. At that point, it turned out the > diamond ace was really the heart ace and had been at the top of the > diamonds in dummy since the dummy was revealed. (Pretty strange that > whoever held the diamond ace didn't notice this earlier.) However, someone who does hold the ace of diamonds (especially a defender) might be afraid that calling attention to dummy's incorrect arrangement of cards (in violation of L41D) might tip off to the opponents that he holds that card. This is a problem that the Laws don't directly address. If someone does point this out as soon as dummy comes down, an opponent takes advantage of the information, the TD might have to apply L84E, with the violation of L41D being the irregularity for which no penalty is provided. Even though the irregularity didn't cause any *direct* damage in this case, since the error was corrected immediately, I think it could be argued that it led to an opponent receiving information to which he wasn't entitled, and that is enough damage for an L84E ruling. I wonder if anyone has deliberately done this as a discovery play? If dummy suspects that the contract will hinge on declarer guessing who has the queen of spades, dummy can stick the queen of clubs in with his spades and then see which defender is the first to notice. Of course, anyone who tries this should be summarily guillotined and then suspended from the league. We'd have to use L84E and/or L72B1 to make sure the NOs aren't damaged. > Now, Declairer had called for a card not in dummy, everyone had > folowed suit, but ... > > Law 46B4 tells us the call is void and Declairer "may designate and > legal card." > > But what about the exposed cards on the table? They seem to be > penalty cards for the defenders, but that doesn't seem quite fair. Law 45D applies: If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did not name, the card must be withdrawn if attention is drawn to it before each side has played to the next trick, and a defender may withdraw (without penalty) a card played after the error but before attention was drawn to it; if declarer's RHO changes his play, declarer may withdraw a card he had subsequently played to that trick (see Law 16C2). -- Adam From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Nov 13 11:39:01 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 11:39:01 +0000 Subject: [blml] Disconcerting an opponent In-Reply-To: <005801c3a99f$6a8178b0$3ae436d2@Desktop> Message-ID: --Apple-Mail-2-222028286 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On Thursday, November 13, 2003, at 04:34 am, wrote: > L74B4. > prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he knows that > all the tricks are surely his) for the purpose of disconcerting an > opponent. > > Richard Hills quoted the the parenthetical remark of this law. I > believe > that that remark could easily be "as in playing on although he knows > that > 'x'-tricks are surely his (and n-x tricks are surely not his" > > Wayne No doubt it could. That is not the situation you presented though, since declarer appers to believe that there is some small chance that one of n-x tricks might possibly be his if he continues to play on. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK --Apple-Mail-2-222028286 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=US-ASCII On Thursday, November 13, 2003, at 04:34 am, < wrote: L74B4. prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he knows that all the tricks are surely his) for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent. Richard Hills quoted the the parenthetical remark of this law. I believe that that remark could easily be "as in playing on although he knows that 'x'-tricks are surely his (and n-x tricks are surely not his" Wayne No doubt it could. That is not the situation you presented though, since declarer appers to believe that there is some small chance that one of n-x tricks might possibly be his if he continues to play on. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK --Apple-Mail-2-222028286-- From HarrisR@missouri.edu Fri Nov 14 23:18:02 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 17:18:02 -0600 Subject: [blml] A Pair from the Club last night In-Reply-To: <200311142151.NAA01081@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200311142151.NAA01081@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: >Robert wrote: > >> 1. North was in an unknown contract. I was the situation: >> Dummy >> S: --- >> H: x >> D: AKQxx >> C: xx >> >> and small diamond cards on the table in front of the three closed >> hands. Declairer had called for the diamond A, and after the play >> asked to see the played cards. At that point, it turned out the >> diamond ace was really the heart ace and had been at the top of the >> diamonds in dummy since the dummy was revealed. (Pretty strange that >> whoever held the diamond ace didn't notice this earlier.) Adam wrote: >However, someone who does hold the ace of diamonds (especially a >defender) might be afraid that calling attention to dummy's incorrect >arrangement of cards (in violation of L41D) might tip off to the >opponents that he holds that card. This is a problem that the Laws >don't directly address. If someone does point this out as soon as >dummy comes down, an opponent takes advantage of the information, the >TD might have to apply L84E, with the violation of L41D being the >irregularity for which no penalty is provided. Even though the >irregularity didn't cause any *direct* damage in this case, since the >error was corrected immediately, I think it could be argued that it >led to an opponent receiving information to which he wasn't entitled, >and that is enough damage for an L84E ruling. > >I wonder if anyone has deliberately done this as a discovery play? If >dummy suspects that the contract will hinge on declarer guessing who >has the queen of spades, dummy can stick the queen of clubs in with >his spades and then see which defender is the first to notice. Of >course, anyone who tries this should be summarily guillotined and then >suspended from the league. We'd have to use L84E and/or L72B1 to make >sure the NOs aren't damaged. > > >> Now, Declairer had called for a card not in dummy, everyone had >> folowed suit, but ... >> >> Law 46B4 tells us the call is void and Declairer "may designate and >> legal card." > > > > But what about the exposed cards on the table? They seem to be > > penalty cards for the defenders, but that doesn't seem quite fair. > >Law 45D applies: > > If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did > not name, the card must be withdrawn if attention is drawn to it > before each side has played to the next trick, and a defender may > withdraw (without penalty) a card played after the error but > before attention was drawn to it; if declarer's RHO changes his > play, declarer may withdraw a card he had subsequently played to > that trick (see Law 16C2). > > -- Adam Thanks. I missed it. Had them pick up and play, as that seemed right. Gut feelings and laws agree, again. REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From svenpran@online.no Fri Nov 14 23:46:04 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 00:46:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] A Pair from the Club last night In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3ab09$77e9c410$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Robert E. Harris > Sent: 14. november 2003 21:59 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] A Pair from the Club last night >=20 > Our regular Director was running the novice game, so we were left > with another person directing, and I was asked twice to help. (We > have, as usual, a playing Director.) >=20 > 1. North was in an unknown contract. I was the situation: > Dummy > S: --- > H: x > D: AKQxx > C: xx >=20 > and small diamond cards on the table in front of the three closed > hands. Declairer had called for the diamond A, and after the play > asked to see the played cards. At that point, it turned out the > diamond ace was really the heart ace and had been at the top of the > diamonds in dummy since the dummy was revealed. (Pretty strange that > whoever held the diamond ace didn't notice this earlier.) >=20 > Now, Declairer had called for a card not in dummy, everyone had > folowed suit, but ... >=20 > Law 46B4 tells us the call is void and Declairer "may designate and > legal card." >=20 > But what about the exposed cards on the table? They seem to be > penalty cards for the defenders, but that doesn't seem quite fair. Adam has already pointed you to Law 45D, in addition Law 47B may be = relevant for all other players if the card eventually played from dummy is not = from the diamond suit (The rule to follow suit takes precedence over any = other rule in the book). =20 > 2. East-West stand up from the table after playing the last board of > the round, and one asks the other what happened to card X (I don't > know the card.) It turns out one of NS had revoked. Law 64B5 says > there is no penalty assessed if attention to the revoke is called > after the round has ended. Nobody is calling rounds, so when does > the round end for this EW pair? >=20 > Law 8B says the round ends when the Director gives the signal for the > start of the following round, but here there is no signal, and the > next table for EW is still playing, so they really can't move away > from the table they were playing at. It wasn't the last round of the > session, so 8C does not apply, though one is tempted to assume that > agreeing to the score and getting ready to leave the table was the > end of the round for EW. (This position was maintained by NS, the > revoking side.) >=20 > If a claim or concession had been involved, the end of the round > question might not have applied, but rather Laws 69-71 would apply. > (I don't know whether a concession or claim was involved.) Laws 69-71 has effect on the possibility to contest a claim or a = concession, they are not relevant to revokes as such even when there has been a = claim.=20 The round never ends for a pair simply because they have completed all boards and agreed to the score. Law 8B states precisely when the round = ends, and in this case the Director has not given any signal to such effect = and a table is still playing so I would certainly maintain that the round had = not yet ended.=20 You are I hope aware of Law 65C which you may apply regardless of any dispute about whether the round had ended or not when you feel that the non-offending side had been "damaged" by the revoke? >=20 > My hope is for no irregularities next week. I'm directing. >=20 > REH Cross fingers and touch wood. Regards Sven From adam@irvine.com Sat Nov 15 00:19:13 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:19:13 -0800 Subject: [blml] A Pair from the Club last night In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:58:47 CST." Message-ID: <200311150019.QAA05350@mailhub.irvine.com> Robert Harris wrote: > 2. East-West stand up from the table after playing the last board of > the round, and one asks the other what happened to card X (I don't > know the card.) It turns out one of NS had revoked. Law 64B5 says > there is no penalty assessed if attention to the revoke is called > after the round has ended. Nobody is calling rounds, so when does > the round end for this EW pair? > > Law 8B says the round ends when the Director gives the signal for the > start of the following round, but here there is no signal, and the > next table for EW is still playing, so they really can't move away > from the table they were playing at. It wasn't the last round of the > session, so 8C does not apply, though one is tempted to assume that > agreeing to the score and getting ready to leave the table was the > end of the round for EW. (This position was maintained by NS, the > revoking side.) I don't think the Laws envision a case where nobody is calling rounds, but I can't find anything specific in the Laws that lists that as one of the Director's duties. I guess that's just assumed. Actually, it seems to me that in the rare cases where I've played in games with a playing director, the TD still finds a way to call the rounds. So I don't know why that didn't happen in your case. I do remember a time when my partner called a round, though. It was at a regional, and I was a novice at the time, and we were probably playing in a Flight C event that had a three-board movement where the other flights had two boards, and the TD's, I guess were paying more attention to the Flight A and B events than to us. So at the end of one round, after it was five minutes or so after the round had been called and everybody was wondering what we were all waiting for, my partner stood up and told everybody to move for the next round. Surprisingly, the roof did not cave in. Anyway, L8B actually says: In general, a round ends when the Director gives the signal for the start of the following round; but if any table has not completed play by that time, the round continues for that table until there has been a progression of players. Since the Law doesn't seem to envision a case where the Director isn't calling the rounds, and the players are just moving on their own initiative, I'd probably rule that the spirit of L8B applies and that the round ends when "there has been a progression of players". Not when the pairs agree to the score: it's clear that L8B does not make this the end of the round except for the last round. -- Adam From HarrisR@missouri.edu Sat Nov 15 03:44:38 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 21:44:38 -0600 Subject: [blml] A Pair from the Club last night In-Reply-To: <200311150019.QAA05350@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200311150019.QAA05350@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Adam wrote: >Robert Harris wrote: > >> 2. East-West stand up from the table after playing the last board of >> the round, and one asks the other what happened to card X (I don't >> know the card.) It turns out one of NS had revoked. Law 64B5 says >> there is no penalty assessed if attention to the revoke is called >> after the round has ended. Nobody is calling rounds, so when does >> the round end for this EW pair? >> >> Law 8B says the round ends when the Director gives the signal for the >> start of the following round, but here there is no signal, and the >> next table for EW is still playing, so they really can't move away >> from the table they were playing at. It wasn't the last round of the >> session, so 8C does not apply, though one is tempted to assume that >> agreeing to the score and getting ready to leave the table was the >> end of the round for EW. (This position was maintained by NS, the >> revoking side.) > >I don't think the Laws envision a case where nobody is calling rounds, >but I can't find anything specific in the Laws that lists that as one >of the Director's duties. I guess that's just assumed. Actually, it >seems to me that in the rare cases where I've played in games with a >playing director, the TD still finds a way to call the rounds. So I >don't know why that didn't happen in your case. When I'm directing the rounds get called. Seldom happens with our other Directors. >I do remember a time when my partner called a round, though. It was >at a regional, and I was a novice at the time, and we were probably >playing in a Flight C event that had a three-board movement where the >other flights had two boards, and the TD's, I guess were paying more >attention to the Flight A and B events than to us. So at the end of >one round, after it was five minutes or so after the round had been >called and everybody was wondering what we were all waiting for, my >partner stood up and told everybody to move for the next round. >Surprisingly, the roof did not cave in. Some of try this, from time to time, to little effect. > >Anyway, L8B actually says: > > In general, a round ends when the Director gives the signal for the > start of the following round; but if any table has not completed > play by that time, the round continues for that table until there > has been a progression of players. > >Since the Law doesn't seem to envision a case where the Director isn't >calling the rounds, and the players are just moving on their own >initiative, I'd probably rule that the spirit of L8B applies and that >the round ends when "there has been a progression of players". Not >when the pairs agree to the score: it's clear that L8B does not make >this the end of the round except for the last round. This is my view also. Director ruled this way, after asking me what I thought. (I usually don't come to the game with a law book in my pocket, unless I expect to direct.) REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From HarrisR@missouri.edu Sat Nov 15 03:33:22 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 21:33:22 -0600 Subject: Fwd: RE: [blml] A Pair from the Club last night Message-ID: --============_-1143255293==_ma============ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" I neglected to send this to BLML. > > >I wrote: > >(snip) > >> >> > 2. East-West stand up from the table after playing the last board of >>> the round, and one asks the other what happened to card X (I don't >>> know the card.) It turns out one of NS had revoked. Law 64B5 says >>> there is no penalty assessed if attention to the revoke is called >>> after the round has ended. Nobody is calling rounds, so when does >>> the round end for this EW pair? >>> >>> Law 8B says the round ends when the Director gives the signal for the >>> start of the following round, but here there is no signal, and the >>> next table for EW is still playing, so they really can't move away >> > from the table they were playing at. It wasn't the last round of the >> > session, so 8C does not apply, though one is tempted to assume that >> > agreeing to the score and getting ready to leave the table was the >>> end of the round for EW. (This position was maintained by NS, the >>> revoking side.) >>> >>> If a claim or concession had been involved, the end of the round >>> question might not have applied, but rather Laws 69-71 would apply. >>> (I don't know whether a concession or claim was involved.) > > >Sven wrote: > >>Laws 69-71 has effect on the possibility to contest a claim or a concession, >>they are not relevant to revokes as such even when there has been a claim. >> >>The round never ends for a pair simply because they have completed all >>boards and agreed to the score. Law 8B states precisely when the round ends, >>and in this case the Director has not given any signal to such effect and a >>table is still playing so I would certainly maintain that the round had not >>yet ended. >> >>You are I hope aware of Law 65C which you may apply regardless of any >>dispute about whether the round had ended or not when you feel that the >>non-offending side had been "damaged" by the revoke? > > >Yes (REH.) > >> >>> >>> My hope is for no irregularities next week. I'm directing. >>> >>> REH >> >>Cross fingers and touch wood. > > >Thanks. > >Half my great grandparents were born in Norway, so I tend to like >Norwegian advice. The other half were from Great Britain (long ago) >so I llike British advice also, when I get it. Luck I'll take if I >can get it. > > >REH > >-- > >Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 >Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia >Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 --============_-1143255293==_ma============ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Fwd: RE: [blml] A Pair from the Club last night

I neglected to send this to BLML.



I wrote:

(snip)

 
> 2.  East-West stand up from the table after playing the last board of
> the round, and one asks the other what happened to card X (I don't
> know the card.)  It turns out one of NS had revoked.   Law 64B5 says
> there is no penalty assessed if attention to the revoke is called
> after the round has ended.  Nobody is calling rounds, so when does
> the round end for this EW pair?
>
> Law 8B says the round ends when the Director gives the signal for the
> start of the following round, but here there is no signal, and the
> next table for EW is still playing, so they really can't move away
> from the table they were playing at.  It wasn't the last round of the
> session, so 8C does not apply, though one is tempted to assume that
> agreeing to the score and getting ready to leave the table was the
> end of the round for EW.  (This position was maintained by NS, the
> revoking side.)
>
> If a claim or concession had been involved, the end of the round
> question might not have applied, but rather Laws 69-71 would apply.
> (I don't know whether a concession or claim was involved.)


Sven wrote:
Laws 69-71 has effect on the possibility to contest a claim or a concession,
they are not relevant to revokes as such even when there has been a claim.

The round never ends for a pair simply because they have completed all
boards and agreed to the score. Law 8B states precisely when the round ends,
and in this case the Director has not given any signal to such effect and a
table is still playing so I would certainly maintain that the round had not
yet ended.

You are I hope aware of Law 65C which you may apply regardless of any
dispute about whether the round had ended or not when you feel that the
non-offending side had been "damaged" by the revoke?


Yes (REH.)

>
> My hope is for no irregularities next week.  I'm directing.
>
> REH

Cross fingers and touch wood.


Thanks.

Half my great grandparents were born in Norway, so I tend to like Norwegian advice.  The other half were from Great Britain (long ago) so I llike British advice also, when I get it.  Luck I'll take if I can get it.


REH

--
 
Robert E. Harris  Phone: 573-882-3274.  Fax:  573-882-2754
Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia
Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211


--
Robert E. Harris  Phone: 573-882-3274.  Fax:  573-882-2754
Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia
Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211
--============_-1143255293==_ma============-- From fsb@ip-worldcom.ch Sat Nov 15 18:30:26 2003 From: fsb@ip-worldcom.ch (Yvan Calame) Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 19:30:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] BB Drama In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20031115193026.011bf298@ip-worldcom.ch> >From the bulletin: In perhaps the most dramatic finish in Bermuda Bowl history, USA I gained 12 IMPs on the last board of the event to emerge with an amazing 304-303 victory over Italy. The issue was not settled, however, until an appeals committee had rendered a ruling on a disputed ending to the final board. In the closed room, Eric Rodwell and Jeff Meckstroth had gone plus 400 against 4=A9 by Italy=92s Norberto Bocchi and Giorgio Duboin. In the open room, Paul Soloway had doubled Lorenzo Lauria in 5=A8. If Lauria could get out for down one =96 minus 100 =96 it would be an 11-IMP gain and = the match would be tied. As play wound down, Lauria had already lost two tricks and still had the trump ace out against him =96 plus the losing =A99 in his hand. With a singleton spade in his hand, Lauria had played the king from dummy=92s holding of =AAK Q to five. Soloway could have cashed the =A910 to guarantee = two down, but he played back a spade instead. Lauria=92s partner had left the table after putting down the dummy, so Lauri= a was playing the cards himself. Lauria apparently expected Soloway to cash his winning heart, so he pulled the =AA7 from dummy =96 which held only club= s and spades =96 realizing too late that a spade had been played. He tried to change his play to the queen, which would have allowed him to discard the losing heart and get out for minus 100. Hamman, who had started with the =AA= J 10 doubleton, had played the jack to the first lead of the suit, and he covered the =AA7 with the 10. A tournament director was called, and the ruling was that the =AA7 was a played card, resulting in two down for minus 300. That gave the Americans a 12-IMP gain and a 1-IMP victory. The Italians appealed the ruling, but the appeals committee, citing rule 45B from the law book, backed the director. The rule states that when a card is touched it is played. From fsb@ip-worldcom.ch Sat Nov 15 18:45:09 2003 From: fsb@ip-worldcom.ch (Yvan Calame) Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 19:45:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] BB Drama (corrected) Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20031115194509.011e35d8@ip-worldcom.ch> >From the bulletin: In perhaps the most dramatic finish in Bermuda Bowl history, USA I gained 12 IMPs on the last board of the event to emerge with an amazing 304-303 victory over Italy. The issue was not settled, however, until an appeals committee had rendered a ruling on a disputed ending to the final board. In the closed room, Eric Rodwell and Jeff Meckstroth had gone plus 400 against 4H by Italy=92s Norberto Bocchi and Giorgio Duboin. In the open room, Paul Soloway had doubled Lorenzo Lauria in 5D. If Lauria could get out for down one =96 minus 100 =96 it would be an 11-IMP gain and = the match would be tied. As play wound down, Lauria had already lost two tricks and still had the trump ace out against him =96 plus the losing H9 in his hand. With a singleton spade in his hand, Lauria had played the king from dummy=92s holding of S K Q to five. Soloway could have cashed the =A910 to guarantee two down, but he played back a spade instead. Lauria=92s partner had left the table after putting down the dummy, so Lauri= a was playing the cards himself. Lauria apparently expected Soloway to cash his winning heart, so he pulled the S7 from dummy =96 which held only clubs and spades =96 realizing too late that a spade had been played. He tried to change his play to the queen, which would have allowed him to discard the losing heart and get out for minus 100. Hamman, who had started with the S J 10 doubleton, had played the jack to the first lead of the suit, and he covered the S 7 with the 10. A tournament director was called, and the ruling was that the S 7 was a played card, resulting in two down for minus 300. That gave the Americans a 12-IMP gain and a 1-IMP victory. The Italians appealed the ruling, but the appeals committee, citing rule 45B from the law book, backed the director. The rule states that when a card is touched it is played. From jimfox00@cox.net Sun Nov 16 16:22:38 2003 From: jimfox00@cox.net (jimfox00@cox.net) Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 11:22:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] BLML Postings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002101c3ac5d$da13e9e0$12ec6944@DellDimension> Why no postings from BLML? Is it me? Mmbridge From blml@blakjak.com Mon Nov 17 14:50:31 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 14:50:31 +0000 Subject: [blml] Disconcerting an opponent In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2$$RfnN3AOu$EwQ8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> RJH >Konrad Ciborowski asked: > >>>Is playing on in the hope of opponents' committing a revoke >>>illegal? > >David Stevenson replied: > >>Yes, in my view. You are deliberately wasting time. >> >>You could also play on slowly in a bad contract in the hopes >>that there will be a fire and the board will be cancelled, >>but it is also illegal. >> >>If people are not prepared to try to win by playing bridge >>then the officials are going to have to make sure they do >>for the sake of the vast majority who do try to win by >>playing bridge. > >Richard James Hills relates: > >Twenty years ago, my bidding skills were slightly less >accurate than now, so I reached a bad contract of 6C when the >opponents had two inescapable winners with two side aces. > >I did not claim one off, but continued playing. If DWS had >been the official TD then, he would no doubt have fined me a >PP for deliberately wasting time. Sure enough, at the time >the TD was indeed summoned. > >This was because LHO led the ace of spades out of turn. The >TD ruled that the ace of spades was a penalty card, to be >played at the first legal opportunity. So, since I was on >lead at that time, I simply drew an extra round of trumps, >requiring LHO to discard the ace of spades. +920. > >Did I make my contract by "playing bridge"? Sure. Did I miss something? I cannot see any connection between this and earlier posts. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Mon Nov 17 14:54:03 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 14:54:03 +0000 Subject: [blml] Disconcerting an opponent In-Reply-To: <000001c3aa3f$af166d50$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c3aa3f$af166d50$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <0$QRv8NLEOu$EwRO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Sven Pran wrote >> richard.hills@immi.gov.au >.......... >> Konrad Ciborowski asked: >> >> >>Is playing on in the hope of opponents' committing a revoke >> >>illegal? >> >> David Stevenson replied: >> >> >Yes, in my view. You are deliberately wasting time. > >This is indeed the question, but how can you tell that he is "deliberately >wasting time" for the (sole) purpose of disconcerting an opponent? Do you >read his mind? How do you know what happened at the table - did you take a video? How can you decide what implicit agreements players have? How do you know etc etc etc Every day tens of thousands of TDs make judgement rulings based on known facts - including yourself. >> >You could also play on slowly in a bad contract in the hopes >> >that there will be a fire and the board will be cancelled, >> >but it is also illegal. > >Is this really a matter in a serious discussion? Yes. Players who waste time mess up tournaments. >> >If people are not prepared to try to win by playing bridge >> >then the officials are going to have to make sure they do >> >for the sake of the vast majority who do try to win by >> >playing bridge. >Who argues that people are not prepared to win by playing bridge? The >example by RJH below is IMO a very good illustration. It is irrelevant. Of course if he can make it he will. But wasting time deliberately is not part of bridge - the Laws say so. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From HarrisR@missouri.edu Mon Nov 17 22:36:58 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:36:58 -0600 Subject: [blml] Test Message-ID: Test -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From Ted@merrette.freeserve.co.uk Tue Nov 18 08:52:17 2003 From: Ted@merrette.freeserve.co.uk (Ted Merrette) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 08:52:17 -0000 Subject: [blml] No more BLML? - Subscribe Message-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C3ADB1.487A0A00 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_0001_01C3ADB1.487C53F0" ------=_NextPart_001_0001_01C3ADB1.487C53F0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi My blml mail seems to have dried up. Is there a problem or do I need to re subscribe? Ted Merrette "> ------=_NextPart_001_0001_01C3ADB1.487C53F0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Nachricht
Hi
 
My blml mail seems to have = dried up.=20 Is there a problem or do I need to re subscribe?
 
Ted = Merrette
=  BA28506= 3-5BCE-11D4-AF8D-0050DAC67E112.0LetterElegant = PaperStationeryRice = FieldsSU1CTDEsNDEsgUmBSTAkkcGNgZmVTY0wNCxNhYUoiU0k= OMEoTYGBjYEoJDSZnSyFhUksSU1CTDIsMCwsSU1CTDMsMCwsVHlwZVZlcnNpb24sMywxLjAs<= /X-Extensions>656414808@18112003-2456repeat#eff3f7lefttopANIM3= D00-NONE-0000-0000-0000000000000ANIM3D00-= NONE-0000-0000-00000000000016486DDE0-3EFD-= 11D4-BA3D-0050DAC6803006486DDE0-3EFD-11D4-BA3= D-0050DAC680301C3C52140-4147-11D4-BA3D-0050DA= C680300X-ASN,X-ASH,X-AN,X-AP,X-AD<= X-CNT>;"> ------=_NextPart_001_0001_01C3ADB1.487C53F0-- ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C3ADB1.487A0A00 Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="BackGrnd.jpg" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: <656414808@18112003-2456> /9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAgAAZABkAAD/7AARRHVja3kAAQAEAAAAHgAA/+4AIUFkb2JlAGTAAAAAAQMA EAMCAwYAAAHbAAAC1gAABZX/2wCEABALCwsMCxAMDBAXDw0PFxsUEBAUGx8XFxcXFx8eFxoaGhoX Hh4jJSclIx4vLzMzLy9AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEABEQ8PERMRFRISFRQRFBEUGhQWFhQaJhoaHBoa JjAjHh4eHiMwKy4nJycuKzU1MDA1NUBAP0BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQP/CABEIAGUAcwMBIgACEQEDEQH/ xACAAAEBAQEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQIGAQEBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARABAAICAwEAAgMAAAAA AAAAAQARIQIxQRIiQDIQMFARAAICAgIBBAIDAQEAAAAAAAERACExQVFhcYGRobECEsHhMtHxEgEA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABQ/9oADAMBAAIRAxEAAADtRZYE1ASghQFgUZoCkKSwLmhcllAEqkSkqFAl hUomoAS3IoJqFlDNpFEAQFE1AIVYAWIVKAJRNZpYCwVmmshKACA0CBAUCBYGwf/aAAgBAgABBQD8 B/yP/9oACAEDAAEFAPz6/or8H//aAAgBAQABBQC2+ZeHjbD+saX6hwXeDW1Rg4xLLTa+m7ZiIEsI 1MTiHP1dYpvFADiFM1/X6nq9byuwdPPz5oFofWlEMQ9ULKrWq2ppG9Y2J6INQma9lVTRdlUKgHzX XSEECw1SYu5WsGoJPkisZYpx31GvXZQ/JM3VwShzVTsp1EZbBI8LcaUSih86+s2Zl4Wp6+lAZnVs Dkjdku5m+lJTdXDG2SHM9M2wKX1YxsaZTTwmoVrYnqsMrM652yjs01K0mtbGAz6Y5dpfqNz06qpq 5QNjiIjiZtbhtceNuf0jyeqGgu6rXMvI4omPWbPMYzEfMI+axHnFvOP4/9oACAECAgY/AGP/2gAI AQMCBj8AY//aAAgBAQEGPwB72Yucb1BfIhFEaeZ+xRXFQELN+HEUQdjU0Xn4g9gRCQcpw1yajGYs P/kFvUzvjUBWrIMFHI2OJQNEAjiEEFdTmfG/MTHq5RFOnpTV3kzCBx7x4YOD1AV5uYJvnqMA0hep jfwpYCwC4Bx3q55zeZRBCw9TkoIuHw78RdczSNH2mgqcLpRC+RASAkA3B13mcYd5mR84c/yOx4lW tRAZ6mGDhiP9WgXVyhWA+xDgMOWGMsTg/wBTz8SjjXrP8hHIlX1MZ6mDzgc/cIV/iyN1GBR0MQMK jnEzvvMz8mUkErKlfqU63iV+IKNH7mNZBLFQEpEDeDOV32IVn8WR4caoywqI2p695mbZzNUQIcKf k0bo+0NpCqn7CiQiNGXkdQen1DpjGeZ7WNw3pK+I93maCPc16+Zkf6XxMCsFwAkaiIB57vc/IAhZ /HqZBBbB0ZokAEOGxsYqBgPp8agQBu4VSMJdqx6SwDsGBrTmAR93uZGX6KePowEADAIjoX8gw459 CICaW/MLGvodQfkDW71zBxRHtB3j3jC4PMIYoAgKNfPMCQNN7jCzvlzXPopzhQvNZY3CRya9ZrEF fRE0iCB5mscZuVYfKmAi94uE3Q8qfytQ7xD0svmFcmaxNPI8iMjh3pmF2HbzqeUi+YkiD/MrOl5L mbwPuWVfmXpv3hDH8qAjPpiZHXkRnSd6ZhB53mejzKV6US0K9TCCLyCeIhtETX5MsHBGJkD/ANiF kMCE2qGoCdZ8Q8AMGpYFqEhdhRIYH3CF3d1M/Mexma+4CwdQ2Ddcx0exAlmj04QUQd8QWLB/iB5G xmEg5TENVZqPYzFV8eHAy9T/AEc8a4n3Ov6g/VwvE6lpQ4VNysXzhS8esOO8w/rlF/rypjV3B5H1 Knr8T//Z ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C3ADB1.487A0A00-- From mamos@blueyonder.co.uk Tue Nov 18 09:47:48 2003 From: mamos@blueyonder.co.uk (mamos) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 09:47:48 -0000 Subject: [blml] Misinformation or Misbid Message-ID: <000b01c3adb9$076aca60$ae692452@mikeamos> We are all trained to treat such cases as MisInformation un less there is direct evidence to the contrary Swiss Teams imps The auction goes W N E S 1NT (13-15) 2C (Hearts + another) 3C and more ........... 3C is explained as natural and forcing The hand was KQxx J10x KJxxx x NS convention card - in direct contravention of EBU regs had the single word Lebensohl with no explanation of the the meaning of bids - For some reason when North bid 3C she thought it was some sort of Staymanic enquiry - now of course she asserts vehememtly that her partner has given the correct explanation amd she has misbid (Isn't it amazing how people who make a bid that shows the exact opposite of their hand come up smelling of roses and if I show 11 points when I've got 12 the roof falls in and I lose 15 imps) Should I regard the single word "Lebensohl" as evidence that this is a misbid od should I treat it as MI (Thereby reducing NS's gain on the board from 12imps to 10) Mike From nancy@dressing.org Tue Nov 18 15:19:50 2003 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 10:19:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] A Pair from the Club last night References: <200311150019.QAA05350@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <000a01c3ade7$691636e0$6401a8c0@hare> Is there a problem with the list or is everyone off playing bridge somewhere??? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert E. Harris" To: "Adam Beneschan" ; Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 10:44 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A Pair from the Club last night > Adam wrote: > > >Robert Harris wrote: > > > >> 2. East-West stand up from the table after playing the last board of > >> the round, and one asks the other what happened to card X (I don't > >> know the card.) It turns out one of NS had revoked. Law 64B5 says > >> there is no penalty assessed if attention to the revoke is called > >> after the round has ended. Nobody is calling rounds, so when does > >> the round end for this EW pair? > >> > >> Law 8B says the round ends when the Director gives the signal for the > >> start of the following round, but here there is no signal, and the > >> next table for EW is still playing, so they really can't move away > >> from the table they were playing at. It wasn't the last round of the > >> session, so 8C does not apply, though one is tempted to assume that > >> agreeing to the score and getting ready to leave the table was the > >> end of the round for EW. (This position was maintained by NS, the > >> revoking side.) > > > >I don't think the Laws envision a case where nobody is calling rounds, > >but I can't find anything specific in the Laws that lists that as one > >of the Director's duties. I guess that's just assumed. Actually, it > >seems to me that in the rare cases where I've played in games with a > >playing director, the TD still finds a way to call the rounds. So I > >don't know why that didn't happen in your case. > > When I'm directing the rounds get called. Seldom happens with our > other Directors. > > >I do remember a time when my partner called a round, though. It was > >at a regional, and I was a novice at the time, and we were probably > >playing in a Flight C event that had a three-board movement where the > >other flights had two boards, and the TD's, I guess were paying more > >attention to the Flight A and B events than to us. So at the end of > >one round, after it was five minutes or so after the round had been > >called and everybody was wondering what we were all waiting for, my > >partner stood up and told everybody to move for the next round. > >Surprisingly, the roof did not cave in. > > > Some of try this, from time to time, to little effect. > > > > >Anyway, L8B actually says: > > > > In general, a round ends when the Director gives the signal for the > > start of the following round; but if any table has not completed > > play by that time, the round continues for that table until there > > has been a progression of players. > > > >Since the Law doesn't seem to envision a case where the Director isn't > >calling the rounds, and the players are just moving on their own > >initiative, I'd probably rule that the spirit of L8B applies and that > >the round ends when "there has been a progression of players". Not > >when the pairs agree to the score: it's clear that L8B does not make > >this the end of the round except for the last round. > > > > This is my view also. Director ruled this way, after asking me what I thought. > (I usually don't come to the game with a law book in my pocket, > unless I expect to direct.) > > REH > -- > Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 > Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia > Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From ken.johnston@btinternet.com Tue Nov 18 16:08:54 2003 From: ken.johnston@btinternet.com (Ken Johnston) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:08:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] Test (OT) References: <000001c3ab09$77e9c410$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <060301c3adee$44312900$78638051@e8m4u6> No mail for 3 days? From olivier.beauvillain@wanadoo.fr Wed Nov 19 13:29:43 2003 From: olivier.beauvillain@wanadoo.fr (Olivier Beauvillain) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 14:29:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] test Message-ID: <001c01c3aea1$315dbba0$dd1afac1@olivier> nothing since saturday morning! Kenavo A+ Olivier Beauvillain From blml@blakjak.com Thu Nov 20 00:55:11 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 00:55:11 +0000 Subject: [blml] New Orleans Message-ID: I shall be there from Tuesday onwards, and hope to meet any BLML people there. I have no idea whether I shall have any email access, but if anyone wants to get in touch with me then either try the New Orleans Marriott or try emailing my travelling eddress: bluejak666 {at} hotmail {dot} com -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From henk@ripe.net Thu Nov 20 15:02:23 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:02:23 +0100 (CET) Subject: [blml] Ignore: Restart of list? Message-ID: Has the list been restarted? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 ardelm@bigpond.net.au Thu Nov 20 05:18:37 2003 From: ardelm@bigpond.net.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:18:37 +1100 Subject: [blml] test Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031120161808.02ebeec8@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Havent received any mail for several days. Surely not all spam From fahir@akademibric.org Thu Nov 20 07:41:15 2003 From: fahir@akademibric.org (=?iso-8859-1?B?RmFoaXIg3Hr8bWP8?=) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:41:15 +0200 Subject: [blml] where is the BLML? References: <200311150019.QAA05350@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <007201c3af39$b3db5b80$e618fdd4@fahir> I have not got any email last 4 days. Is the BLML still alive or is there any problem? Fahir =DCz=FCmc=FC Istanbul From henk@ripe.net Thu Nov 20 15:39:23 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:39:23 +0100 (CET) Subject: [blml] Ignore: Restart of list? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > > Has the list been restarted? It looks like it has... What happened was the usual combination of disasters: 1. A power cut in our office last Saturday. The machine was restarted, the list wasn't but the bridgeplayers were all too busy watching Lauria play the S7. 2. Sunday morning, the sys-admin who deals with mailing lists left town. 3. Monday, I was happily enjoying my empty inbox until the complaints came in. 4. Tue-Wed: His backup didn't know what to do. 5. The sys-admin who set up the list returned today and fixed the problem. (And yes, I've asked him to write down what to in cases like this). A pile of mails have been queued, they will be delivered in the next hours. Some other mails may have been lost. If you sent mail to BLML between Saturday morning and Thursday +/- 15:00 CET, DO NOT RESEND NOW but wait until FRIDAY MORNING 9:00 CET for the list to recover. If your contribution has not appeared by then, then please resend. Apologies to everybody who missed his daily fix of BLML, Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Nov 20 16:03:45 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:03:45 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dummy play Message-ID: <01e101c3af7f$fde8b6a0$669868d5@tinyhrieuyik> > [L45B. Play of Card from Dummy] > Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the > card, after which dummy picks up the card and > faces it on the table. In playing from dummy's > hand declarer may, if necessary, pick up the > desired card himself. > [L45C4b. Correction of Inadvertent Designation] > A player may, without penalty, change an > inadvertent designation if he does so without > pause for thought; > [L45C3. Compulsory Play of (Dummy's) Card] > A card in the dummy must be played if it has > been deliberately touched by declarer except > for the purpose of arranging dummy's cards, > or of reaching a card above or below the card > or cards touched. [Nigel] In normal English, this means... (1) To play a card from dummy, declarer should name it. If necessary -- for example, if he is dumb or does not know the local language -- he may pick it up, instead. (2) In nominating a card, he may correct a slip of the tongue but not a slip of the mind. (3) Declarer may rearrange dummy's cards. Otherwise, if he deliberately touches a card (thereby infringing law 45B) it is deemed played. Is this interpretation correct? Does it have any bearing on a recent ruling? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.542 / Virus Database: 336 - Release Date: 18/11/2003 From henk@ripe.net Wed Nov 19 17:31:03 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 18:31:03 +0100 (CET) Subject: [blml] Restart? Message-ID: Did we manage to restart the list... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From wayne@ebridgenz.com Thu Nov 20 18:31:58 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 07:31:58 +1300 Subject: [blml] BB Drama (corrected) In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20031115194509.011e35d8@ip-worldcom.ch> Message-ID: <008501c3af94$9b597e60$782f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Yvan Calame > Sent: Sunday, 16 November 2003 6:45 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] BB Drama (corrected) > > > > The Italians appealed the ruling, but the appeals committee, > citing rule > 45B from the law book, backed the director. The rule states > that when a > card is touched it is played. Actually L45C3 states that a touched card must be played. L45B requires a player to name a card and for dummy to pick up the card but allows instead for declarer to pick up the card. Wayne > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From svenpran@online.no Thu Nov 20 18:38:47 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 19:38:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <01e101c3af7f$fde8b6a0$669868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <000401c3af95$88b0ec70$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Nigel Guthrie .......... > [Nigel] > In normal English, this means... >=20 > (1) To play a card from dummy, declarer should > name it. If necessary -- for example, if he > is dumb or does not know the local language > -- he may pick it up, instead. >=20 > (2) In nominating a card, he may correct a slip > of the tongue but not a slip of the mind. >=20 > (3) Declarer may rearrange dummy's cards. > Otherwise, if he deliberately touches a card > (thereby infringing law 45B) it is deemed > played. >=20 > Is this interpretation correct? Does it have any > bearing on a recent ruling? That is precisely how we apply Law 45B in Norway except that we are = rather lenient about the real necessity for the declarer to play cards from = dummy himself. If he prefers to lean over and do all the playing without using = the assistance of his partner so be it. Regards Sven From wayne@ebridgenz.com Thu Nov 20 18:56:04 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 07:56:04 +1300 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <01e101c3af7f$fde8b6a0$669868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <009601c3af97$f86c3770$782f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Nigel Guthrie > Sent: Friday, 21 November 2003 4:04 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] Dummy play > > > > [L45B. Play of Card from Dummy] > > Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the > > card, after which dummy picks up the card and > > faces it on the table. In playing from dummy's > > hand declarer may, if necessary, pick up the > > desired card himself. > > > [L45C4b. Correction of Inadvertent Designation] > > A player may, without penalty, change an > > inadvertent designation if he does so without > > pause for thought; > > > [L45C3. Compulsory Play of (Dummy's) Card] > > A card in the dummy must be played if it has > > been deliberately touched by declarer except > > for the purpose of arranging dummy's cards, > > or of reaching a card above or below the card > > or cards touched. > > [Nigel] > In normal English, this means... > > (1) To play a card from dummy, declarer should > name it. If necessary -- for example, if he > is dumb or does not know the local language > -- he may pick it up, instead. > > (2) In nominating a card, he may correct a slip > of the tongue but not a slip of the mind. > > (3) Declarer may rearrange dummy's cards. > Otherwise, if he deliberately touches a card > (thereby infringing law 45B) it is deemed > played. As I see it there is a conflict if a card was named and a different card was touched. In that case I would rule the named card (proper procedure) is the played card. Wayne > > Is this interpretation correct? Does it have any > bearing on a recent ruling? > > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system > (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.542 / Virus Database: 336 - Release Date: > 18/11/2003 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From wayne@ebridgenz.com Thu Nov 20 19:53:36 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 08:53:36 +1300 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000401c3af95$88b0ec70$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <009c01c3afa0$0226ef00$782f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Friday, 21 November 2003 6:39 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy play > > > > Nigel Guthrie > .......... > > [Nigel] > > In normal English, this means... > > > > (1) To play a card from dummy, declarer should > > name it. If necessary -- for example, if he > > is dumb or does not know the local language > > -- he may pick it up, instead. > > > > (2) In nominating a card, he may correct a slip > > of the tongue but not a slip of the mind. > > > > (3) Declarer may rearrange dummy's cards. > > Otherwise, if he deliberately touches a card > > (thereby infringing law 45B) it is deemed > > played. > > > > Is this interpretation correct? Does it have any > > bearing on a recent ruling? > > That is precisely how we apply Law 45B in Norway except that > we are rather > lenient about the real necessity for the declarer to play > cards from dummy > himself. If he prefers to lean over and do all the playing > without using the > assistance of his partner so be it. I think that practice has disregard for the rights of the defenders to have the cards named and played properly. Having declarer lean over and play the dummy can obscure the dummy and distract the defenders. Rarely, but on occasion I have called the director and asked that dummy be played correctly. When I do that I would expect the director to ask that proper procedure be followed and if necessary for non-compliance to be accompanied by a procedural penalty. Wayne > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From HarrisR@missouri.edu Thu Nov 20 20:03:09 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 14:03:09 -0600 Subject: [blml] Misinformation or Misbid In-Reply-To: <000b01c3adb9$076aca60$ae692452@mikeamos> References: <000b01c3adb9$076aca60$ae692452@mikeamos> Message-ID: Mike wrote: >We are all trained to treat such cases as MisInformation un less there is >direct evidence to the contrary > >Swiss Teams imps >The auction goes > W N E >S > >1NT (13-15) > > 2C (Hearts + another) 3C and more ........... > >3C is explained as natural and forcing > >The hand was KQxx > J10x > KJxxx > x > >NS convention card - in direct contravention of EBU regs had the single word >Lebensohl with no explanation of the the meaning of bids - For some reason >when North bid 3C she thought it was some sort of Staymanic enquiry - now of >course she asserts vehememtly that her partner has given the correct >explanation amd she has misbid (Isn't it amazing how people who make a bid >that shows the exact opposite of their hand come up smelling of roses and if >I show 11 points when I've got 12 the roof falls in and I lose 15 imps) > >Should I regard the single word "Lebensohl" as evidence that this is a >misbid od should I treat it as MI (Thereby reducing NS's gain on the board >from 12imps to 10) > My understanding of Lebensohl in this position is that 2NT is relay to clubs, to be followed up later. In my partnerships that use Lebensohl, cuebid of the natural overcall is a Stayman enquiry. Since 2C is natural, 3C may be the systematic Stayman enquiry. I suspect South's explanation is wrong, and anyway, since they don't lay out their methods beyond a one word title, misexplanation should be the ruling. (I think. But then, I put up these replies rather in the spirit of answers to the Master Solvers Club in the Bridge World. Maybe I'll make the right guess, after all!) Nice to see the list back. I was reduced to sending emails to my family. REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From svenpran@online.no Thu Nov 20 20:18:52 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 21:18:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <009c01c3afa0$0226ef00$782f37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <000001c3afa3$840c6240$6900a8c0@WINXP> > wayne@ebridgenz.com ............. > > > (1) To play a card from dummy, declarer should > > > name it. If necessary -- for example, if he > > > is dumb or does not know the local language > > > -- he may pick it up, instead. > > > > > > (2) In nominating a card, he may correct a slip > > > of the tongue but not a slip of the mind. > > > > > > (3) Declarer may rearrange dummy's cards. > > > Otherwise, if he deliberately touches a card > > > (thereby infringing law 45B) it is deemed > > > played. > > > > > > Is this interpretation correct? Does it have any > > > bearing on a recent ruling? > > > > That is precisely how we apply Law 45B in Norway except that > > we are rather > > lenient about the real necessity for the declarer to play > > cards from dummy > > himself. If he prefers to lean over and do all the playing > > without using the > > assistance of his partner so be it. >=20 > I think that practice has disregard for the rights of the > defenders to have the cards named and played properly. >=20 > Having declarer lean over and play the dummy can obscure > the dummy and distract the defenders. Rarely, but on occasion > I have called the director and asked that dummy be played > correctly. When I do that I would expect the director to > ask that proper procedure be followed and if necessary for > non-compliance to be accompanied by a procedural penalty. Is this theory or true experience? I believe I take your point perfectly.=20 As a director if I were summoned to a table and shown cause for = opponents to be disturbed by declarer playing the cards from dummy I would of course instruct someone (replacing the original dummy if he were away for a = reason) to sit down and execute the duties of a dummy. So far I have never ever experienced a situation like this to be of any problem for defenders. Regards Sven From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Nov 20 20:56:59 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:56:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] BB Drama (corrected)(corrected) References: <008501c3af94$9b597e60$782f37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <001c01c3afa8$eccadc30$ea4ce150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "'Yvan Calame'" ; Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 6:31 PM Subject: RE: [blml] BB Drama (corrected) > > Subject: [blml] BB Drama (corrected) > > > > > > > > The Italians appealed the ruling, but the > > appeals committee, citing rule 45B from > > the law book, > > +=+ Er, 45C3 actually. +=+ From wayne@ebridgenz.com Thu Nov 20 22:08:35 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:08:35 +1300 Subject: [blml] Misinformation or Misbid In-Reply-To: <000b01c3adb9$076aca60$ae692452@mikeamos> Message-ID: <00e001c3afb2$dd6b92c0$782f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of mamos > Sent: Tuesday, 18 November 2003 9:48 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] Misinformation or Misbid > > > We are all trained to treat such cases as MisInformation un > less there is > direct evidence to the contrary > > Swiss Teams imps > The auction goes > W N E > S > > 1NT (13-15) > > 2C (Hearts + another) 3C and more > ........... > > 3C is explained as natural and forcing > > The hand was KQxx > J10x > KJxxx > x > > NS convention card - in direct contravention of EBU regs had > the single word > Lebensohl with no explanation of the the meaning of bids - > For some reason > when North bid 3C she thought it was some sort of Staymanic > enquiry - now of > course she asserts vehememtly that her partner has given the correct > explanation amd she has misbid (Isn't it amazing how people > who make a bid > that shows the exact opposite of their hand come up smelling > of roses and if > I show 11 points when I've got 12 the roof falls in and I > lose 15 imps) > > Should I regard the single word "Lebensohl" as evidence that this is a > misbid od should I treat it as MI (Thereby reducing NS's gain > on the board > from 12imps to 10) It is evidence. IMO almost convincing evidence since Lebensohl in conjunction with this 'funny' 3C bid would be a very unusual convention. Nevertheless I would investigate further but my first inclination is to rule in favour of the 'misbidders'. Wayne > > Mike > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From blml@blakjak.com Thu Nov 20 23:16:57 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 23:16:57 +0000 Subject: [blml] Misinformation or Misbid In-Reply-To: References: <000b01c3adb9$076aca60$ae692452@mikeamos> Message-ID: Robert E. Harris >Mike wrote: > >>We are all trained to treat such cases as MisInformation un less there is >>direct evidence to the contrary >> >>Swiss Teams imps >>The auction goes >> W N E >>S >> >>1NT (13-15) >> >> 2C (Hearts + another) 3C and more ........... >> >>3C is explained as natural and forcing >> >>The hand was KQxx >> J10x >> KJxxx >> x >> >>NS convention card - in direct contravention of EBU regs had the single word >>Lebensohl with no explanation of the the meaning of bids - For some reason >>when North bid 3C she thought it was some sort of Staymanic enquiry - now of >>course she asserts vehememtly that her partner has given the correct >>explanation amd she has misbid (Isn't it amazing how people who make a bid >>that shows the exact opposite of their hand come up smelling of roses and if >>I show 11 points when I've got 12 the roof falls in and I lose 15 imps) >> >>Should I regard the single word "Lebensohl" as evidence that this is a >>misbid od should I treat it as MI (Thereby reducing NS's gain on the board >>from 12imps to 10) >> > >My understanding of Lebensohl in this position is that 2NT is relay to >clubs, to be followed up later. In my partnerships that use Lebensohl, >cuebid of the natural overcall is a Stayman enquiry. Since 2C is >natural, 3C may be the systematic Stayman enquiry. That would be fine, but .... 2C was hearts and another. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From Ted@merrette.freeserve.co.uk Thu Nov 20 23:18:19 2003 From: Ted@merrette.freeserve.co.uk (Ted Merrette) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 23:18:19 -0000 Subject: [blml] (no subject) Message-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C3AFBC.95FACD20 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_0001_01C3AFBC.95FD1710" ------=_NextPart_001_0001_01C3AFBC.95FD1710 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subscribe "> ------=_NextPart_001_0001_01C3AFBC.95FD1710 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Nachricht
Subscribe
=  BA28506= 3-5BCE-11D4-AF8D-0050DAC67E112.0LetterElegant = PaperStationeryRice = FieldsSU1CTDEsNDEsgUmBSTAkkcGNgZmVTY0wNCxNhYUoiU0k= OMEoTYGBjYEoJDSZnSyFhUksSU1CTDIsMCwsSU1CTDMsMCwsVHlwZVZlcnNpb24sMywxLjAs<= /X-Extensions>208351723@20112003-30AFrepeat#eff3f7lefttopANIM3= D00-NONE-0000-0000-0000000000000ANIM3D00-= NONE-0000-0000-00000000000016486DDE0-3EFD-= 11D4-BA3D-0050DAC6803006486DDE0-3EFD-11D4-BA3= D-0050DAC680301C3C52140-4147-11D4-BA3D-0050DA= C680300X-ASN,X-ASH,X-AN,X-AP,X-AD<= X-CNT>;"> ------=_NextPart_001_0001_01C3AFBC.95FD1710-- ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C3AFBC.95FACD20 Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="BackGrnd.jpg" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: <208351723@20112003-30AF> /9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAgAAZABkAAD/7AARRHVja3kAAQAEAAAAHgAA/+4AIUFkb2JlAGTAAAAAAQMA EAMCAwYAAAHbAAAC1gAABZX/2wCEABALCwsMCxAMDBAXDw0PFxsUEBAUGx8XFxcXFx8eFxoaGhoX Hh4jJSclIx4vLzMzLy9AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEABEQ8PERMRFRISFRQRFBEUGhQWFhQaJhoaHBoa JjAjHh4eHiMwKy4nJycuKzU1MDA1NUBAP0BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQP/CABEIAGUAcwMBIgACEQEDEQH/ xACAAAEBAQEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQIGAQEBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARABAAICAwEAAgMAAAAA AAAAAQARIQIxQRIiQDIQMFARAAICAgIBBAIDAQEAAAAAAAERACExQVFhcYGRobECEsHhMtHxEgEA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABQ/9oADAMBAAIRAxEAAADtRZYE1ASghQFgUZoCkKSwLmhcllAEqkSkqFAl hUomoAS3IoJqFlDNpFEAQFE1AIVYAWIVKAJRNZpYCwVmmshKACA0CBAUCBYGwf/aAAgBAgABBQD8 B/yP/9oACAEDAAEFAPz6/or8H//aAAgBAQABBQC2+ZeHjbD+saX6hwXeDW1Rg4xLLTa+m7ZiIEsI 1MTiHP1dYpvFADiFM1/X6nq9byuwdPPz5oFofWlEMQ9ULKrWq2ppG9Y2J6INQma9lVTRdlUKgHzX XSEECw1SYu5WsGoJPkisZYpx31GvXZQ/JM3VwShzVTsp1EZbBI8LcaUSih86+s2Zl4Wp6+lAZnVs Dkjdku5m+lJTdXDG2SHM9M2wKX1YxsaZTTwmoVrYnqsMrM652yjs01K0mtbGAz6Y5dpfqNz06qpq 5QNjiIjiZtbhtceNuf0jyeqGgu6rXMvI4omPWbPMYzEfMI+axHnFvOP4/9oACAECAgY/AGP/2gAI AQMCBj8AY//aAAgBAQEGPwB72Yucb1BfIhFEaeZ+xRXFQELN+HEUQdjU0Xn4g9gRCQcpw1yajGYs P/kFvUzvjUBWrIMFHI2OJQNEAjiEEFdTmfG/MTHq5RFOnpTV3kzCBx7x4YOD1AV5uYJvnqMA0hep jfwpYCwC4Bx3q55zeZRBCw9TkoIuHw78RdczSNH2mgqcLpRC+RASAkA3B13mcYd5mR84c/yOx4lW tRAZ6mGDhiP9WgXVyhWA+xDgMOWGMsTg/wBTz8SjjXrP8hHIlX1MZ6mDzgc/cIV/iyN1GBR0MQMK jnEzvvMz8mUkErKlfqU63iV+IKNH7mNZBLFQEpEDeDOV32IVn8WR4caoywqI2p695mbZzNUQIcKf k0bo+0NpCqn7CiQiNGXkdQen1DpjGeZ7WNw3pK+I93maCPc16+Zkf6XxMCsFwAkaiIB57vc/IAhZ /HqZBBbB0ZokAEOGxsYqBgPp8agQBu4VSMJdqx6SwDsGBrTmAR93uZGX6KePowEADAIjoX8gw459 CICaW/MLGvodQfkDW71zBxRHtB3j3jC4PMIYoAgKNfPMCQNN7jCzvlzXPopzhQvNZY3CRya9ZrEF fRE0iCB5mscZuVYfKmAi94uE3Q8qfytQ7xD0svmFcmaxNPI8iMjh3pmF2HbzqeUi+YkiD/MrOl5L mbwPuWVfmXpv3hDH8qAjPpiZHXkRnSd6ZhB53mejzKV6US0K9TCCLyCeIhtETX5MsHBGJkD/ANiF kMCE2qGoCdZ8Q8AMGpYFqEhdhRIYH3CF3d1M/Mexma+4CwdQ2Ddcx0exAlmj04QUQd8QWLB/iB5G xmEg5TENVZqPYzFV8eHAy9T/AEc8a4n3Ov6g/VwvE6lpQ4VNysXzhS8esOO8w/rlF/rypjV3B5H1 Knr8T//Z ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C3AFBC.95FACD20-- From blml@blakjak.com Thu Nov 20 23:21:07 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 23:21:07 +0000 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <009601c3af97$f86c3770$782f37d2@Desktop> References: <01e101c3af7f$fde8b6a0$669868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <009601c3af97$f86c3770$782f37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: Wayne wrote >As I see it there is a conflict if a card was named >and a different card was touched. In that case I >would rule the named card (proper procedure) is the >played card. There are two ways of playing a card. The correct way which is to name it, after which dummy plays it. The alternative, which is only done "when necessary", by which declarer plays the cards himself. If he plays the cards himself there is no need to name them. Arguments that you still have to follow the first sentence of the Law, apart form general silliness, mean that having played the card from dummy, declarer has then to wait for dummy to put the card in the played position. If dummy is not there it would be a long wait. I am surprised to find that you allow the wrong way to be used in Norway when it is not necessary. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From svenpran@online.no Fri Nov 21 00:35:45 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 01:35:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3afc7$671de130$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ........... > If he plays the cards himself there is no need to name them. = Arguments > that you still have to follow the first sentence of the Law, apart = form > general silliness, mean that having played the card from dummy, = declarer > has then to wait for dummy to put the card in the played position. If > dummy is not there it would be a long wait. >=20 > I am surprised to find that you allow the wrong way to be used in > Norway when it is not necessary. Maybe it is because nobody so far has ever expressed any inconvenience = from declarer playing dummy's cards himself for whatever reason? (And believe = me we do have many players who would not hesitate a second summoning the Director if they felt inconvenienced!) We do (of course) not encourage declarer to "bypass" the assistance he = is entitled to from dummy and most declarers do indeed use this assistance. = But we are probably not so anxious about following a rule simply because it = is written in some book when we find that rule to be rather redundant. And frankly I have a problem understanding how defenders can be "damaged" by declarer physically playing also the cards from dummy. As I indicated: We do not stress the importance of the condition = "necessary" in Law 45B. Regards Sven=20 From wayne@ebridgenz.com Fri Nov 21 00:38:46 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:38:46 +1300 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002601c3afc7$d83a2db0$782f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of David Stevenson > Sent: Friday, 21 November 2003 11:21 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy play > > > Wayne wrote > > >As I see it there is a conflict if a card was named > >and a different card was touched. In that case I > >would rule the named card (proper procedure) is the > >played card. > > There are two ways of playing a card. > > The correct way which is to name it, after which dummy plays it. > > The alternative, which is only done "when necessary", by which > declarer plays the cards himself. > > If he plays the cards himself there is no need to name > them. Excepting of course the proper procedure given in L45B. That is "Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card..." I am yet to find a retraction of this obligation in the laws. Arguments > that you still have to follow the first sentence of the Law, > apart form > general silliness, mean that having played the card from > dummy, declarer > has then to wait for dummy to put the card in the played > position. If > dummy is not there it would be a long wait. That assertion is general silliness. Wayne > > I am surprised to find that you allow the wrong way to be used in > Norway when it is not necessary. > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on > OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Nov 21 00:14:12 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 00:14:12 -0000 Subject: [blml] Misinformation or Misbid References: <000b01c3adb9$076aca60$ae692452@mikeamos> Message-ID: <000b01c3afff$45d87200$e03be150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "mamos" ; Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 8:03 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Misinformation or Misbid > > Nice to see the list back. I was reduced to sending emails to my family. > > REH > -- +=+ And as usual they wonder why they are suddenly remembered? Me too, although I did have some left overs from Monaco to attend to, and I came away from there with guidance also how to write a whole new law book. About six months redrafting I estimate, if the energy keeps up - and then no doubt we will discuss the accuracy of the notes I took of our meetings ....... ~ G ~ +=+ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Nov 21 09:33:55 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:33:55 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dummy play References: <000001c3afc7$671de130$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001301c3b012$96095600$6d9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> >>> [David Stevenson] >>> If he plays the cards himself there is no >>> need to name them. Arguments that you still >>> have to follow the first sentence of the Law, >>> apart form general silliness, mean that having >>> played the card from dummy, declarer has then >>> to wait for dummy to put the card in the played >>> position. >> [Sven Pran] >> But we are probably not so anxious about >> following a rule simply because it is written >> in some book when we find that rule to be rather >> redundant. And frankly I have a problem >> understanding how defenders can be "damaged" by >> declarer physically playing also the cards from >> dummy. > [Wayne] > "Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the > card" ... I am yet to find a retraction of this > obligation in the laws. There are many ambiguities/mistakes in the Bridge laws and regulations. "Silly" people like Wayne and I think you should interpret the rules of a game rigorously; whereas David maintains that you should use your judgement as to which rules to obey. The WBFLC could publish interim web editions of TFLB to correct such solecisms. That they don't may be a deliberate policy to encourage legal devolution. Ambiguous laws force each local jurisdiction to decide on a local interpretation. Pragmatists like Sven wonder whether such niceties matter. Well, could the Bermuda Bowl decision have gone either way? "A small spade was touched therefore played" L45C OR "Only the nominated SQ is played. Any prior manipulation of dummy was an infringement of L45B, unless for the purposes of arrangement (L45C3)" How would an ordinary law court resolve this? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.542 / Virus Database: 336 - Release Date: 18/11/2003 From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Nov 20 15:51:09 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 15:51:09 +0000 Subject: [blml] Misinformation or Misbid In-Reply-To: <000b01c3adb9$076aca60$ae692452@mikeamos> Message-ID: <5BCC180E-1B71-11D8-A3E8-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> --Apple-Mail-4-841956104 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On Tuesday, November 18, 2003, at 09:47 am, mamos wrote: > Should I regard the single word "Lebensohl" as evidence that this is a > misbid od should I treat it as MI (Thereby reducing NS's gain on the > board > from 12imps to 10) > > Mike It's evidence, though not necessarily sufficient evidence. Perhaps you might ask each of them separately to explain how they play Lebensohl? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK --Apple-Mail-4-841956104 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=US-ASCII On Tuesday, November 18, 2003, at 09:47 am, mamos wrote: Should I regard the single word "Lebensohl" as evidence that this is a misbid od should I treat it as MI (Thereby reducing NS's gain on the board from 12imps to 10) Mike It's evidence, though not necessarily sufficient evidence. Perhaps you might ask each of them separately to explain how they play Lebensohl? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK --Apple-Mail-4-841956104-- From HarrisR@missouri.edu Thu Nov 20 20:50:21 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 14:50:21 -0600 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <00b601c3afa6$58a583e0$782f37d2@Desktop> References: <00b601c3afa6$58a583e0$782f37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: --============_-1142761073==_ma============ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" >Did you intend this just for me. >-----Original Message----- >From: Robert E. Harris [mailto:HarrisR@missouri.edu] >Sent: Friday, 21 November 2003 8:19 a.m. >To: wayne@ebridgenz.com >Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy play > >Wayne wrote: (inreply to Sven): > > >(Sven:) >> > > That is precisely how we apply Law 45B in Norway except that >> we are rather >> lenient about the real necessity for the declarer to play >> cards from dummy >> himself. If he prefers to lean over and do all the playing >> without using the >> assistance of his partner so be it. > >(Wayne:) > > >>I think that practice has disregard for the rights of the >>defenders to have the cards named and played properly. >> >>Having declarer lean over and play the dummy can obscure >>the dummy and distract the defenders. Rarely, but on occasion >>I have called the director and asked that dummy be played >>correctly. When I do that I would expect the director to >>ask that proper procedure be followed and if necessary for >>non-compliance to be accompanied by a procedural penalty. > >It seems to me that Law 7B specifically allows declarer to play >dummy's cards himself. > >"During play each player retains possession of his own cards, not >permitting them to be mixed with those of any other player. No >player shall touch any cards other than his own (but declarer may >play dummy's cards in accordance with Law 45) during or after play >except by permission of the Director. " >Wayne: There is an important caveat in L7B the cards must be played >in accordance with L45. > Sorry, I left off the BLML address. REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 --============_-1142761073==_ma============ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" RE: [blml] Dummy play
Did you intend this just for me.
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert E. Harris [mailto:HarrisR@missouri.edu]
Sent: Friday, 21 November 2003 8:19 a.m.
To: wayne@ebridgenz.com
Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy play
Wayne wrote: (inreply to Sven):


(Sven:)

> That is precisely how we apply Law 45B in Norway except that
> we are rather
> lenient about the real necessity for the declarer to play
> cards from dummy
> himself. If he prefers to lean over and do all the playing
> without using the
> assistance of his partner so be it.

(Wayne:)


I think that practice has disregard for the rights of the
defenders to have the cards named and played properly.

Having declarer lean over and play the dummy can obscure
the dummy and distract the defenders.  Rarely, but on occasion
I have called the director and asked that dummy be played
correctly.  When I do that I would expect the director to
ask that proper procedure be followed and if necessary for
non-compliance to be accompanied by a procedural penalty.

It seems to me that Law 7B specifically allows declarer to play dummy's cards himself.

"During play each player retains possession of his own cards, not permitting them to be mixed with those of any other player. No player shall touch any cards other than his own (but declarer may play dummy's cards in accordance with Law 45) during or after play except by permission of the Director. "
Wayne:  There is an important caveat in L7B the cards must be played in accordance with L45.
 

Sorry, I left off the BLML address.

REH
--
Robert E. Harris  Phone: 573-882-3274.  Fax:  573-882-2754
Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia
Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211
--============_-1142761073==_ma============-- From svenpran@online.no Fri Nov 21 10:25:17 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:25:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <001301c3b012$96095600$6d9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <000001c3b019$c2ad15a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Nigel Guthrie > >>> [David Stevenson] > >>> If he plays the cards himself there is no > >>> need to name them. Arguments that you still > >>> have to follow the first sentence of the Law, > >>> apart form general silliness, mean that having > >>> played the card from dummy, declarer has then > >>> to wait for dummy to put the card in the played > >>> position. >=20 > >> [Sven Pran] > >> But we are probably not so anxious about > >> following a rule simply because it is written > >> in some book when we find that rule to be rather > >> redundant. And frankly I have a problem > >> understanding how defenders can be "damaged" by > >> declarer physically playing also the cards from > >> dummy. >=20 > > [Wayne] > > "Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the > > card" ... I am yet to find a retraction of this > > obligation in the laws. >=20 > There are many ambiguities/mistakes in the Bridge > laws and regulations. "Silly" people like Wayne and > I think you should interpret the rules of a game > rigorously; whereas David maintains that you should > use your judgement as to which rules to obey. >=20 > The WBFLC could publish interim web editions of > TFLB to correct such solecisms. That they don't may > be a deliberate policy to encourage legal devolution. > Ambiguous laws force each local jurisdiction to > decide on a local interpretation. >=20 > Pragmatists like Sven wonder whether such niceties > matter. Well, could the Bermuda Bowl decision have > gone either way? As far as I understand the case Lauria first intended to play a card = from dummy on the assumption (or expectation) that his LHO would play a particular card. Then he was surprised by LHO playing a different card = and wanted to change his decision. That is clearly a "change of mind" caused = by discovering which card had actually been played from LHO. If my understanding of the facts is correct then I claim that no = Director or any AC in Norway would have ruled differently from the BB AC: The card = first indicated was played. (I even have a suspicion that the AC would have = kept the money). =20 > "A small spade was touched therefore played" L45C >=20 > OR >=20 > "Only the nominated SQ is played. Any prior > manipulation of dummy was an infringement of L45B, > unless for the purposes of arrangement (L45C3)" >=20 > How would an ordinary law court resolve this? I hope that most laws of court would concentrate on establishing facts = and then rule accordingly. If they found that Lauria apparently intended (initially) to play a particular card, for instance by touching it = (which is equivalent to naming it - see Law 45C3), the fact that he did not = verbally name that card before touching it had no significance. Sven From wayne@ebridgenz.com Fri Nov 21 18:15:35 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 07:15:35 +1300 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000001c3b019$c2ad15a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <00a001c3b05b$7b020bb0$2ce436d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Friday, 21 November 2003 10:25 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy play > > > > Nigel Guthrie > > >>> [David Stevenson] > > >>> If he plays the cards himself there is no > > >>> need to name them. Arguments that you still > > >>> have to follow the first sentence of the Law, > > >>> apart form general silliness, mean that having > > >>> played the card from dummy, declarer has then > > >>> to wait for dummy to put the card in the played > > >>> position. > > > > >> [Sven Pran] > > >> But we are probably not so anxious about > > >> following a rule simply because it is written > > >> in some book when we find that rule to be rather > > >> redundant. And frankly I have a problem > > >> understanding how defenders can be "damaged" by > > >> declarer physically playing also the cards from > > >> dummy. > > > > > [Wayne] > > > "Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the > > > card" ... I am yet to find a retraction of this > > > obligation in the laws. > > > > There are many ambiguities/mistakes in the Bridge > > laws and regulations. "Silly" people like Wayne and > > I think you should interpret the rules of a game > > rigorously; whereas David maintains that you should > > use your judgement as to which rules to obey. > > > > The WBFLC could publish interim web editions of > > TFLB to correct such solecisms. That they don't may > > be a deliberate policy to encourage legal devolution. > > Ambiguous laws force each local jurisdiction to > > decide on a local interpretation. > > > > Pragmatists like Sven wonder whether such niceties > > matter. Well, could the Bermuda Bowl decision have > > gone either way? > > As far as I understand the case Lauria first intended to play > a card from > dummy on the assumption (or expectation) that his LHO would play a > particular card. Then he was surprised by LHO playing a > different card and > wanted to change his decision. That is clearly a "change of > mind" caused by > discovering which card had actually been played from LHO. > > If my understanding of the facts is correct then I claim that > no Director or > any AC in Norway would have ruled differently from the BB AC: > The card first > indicated was played. (I even have a suspicion that the AC > would have kept > the money). > > > "A small spade was touched therefore played" L45C > > > > OR > > > > "Only the nominated SQ is played. Any prior > > manipulation of dummy was an infringement of L45B, > > unless for the purposes of arrangement (L45C3)" > > > > How would an ordinary law court resolve this? > > I hope that most laws of court would concentrate on > establishing facts and > then rule accordingly. If they found that Lauria apparently intended > (initially) to play a particular card, for instance by > touching it (which is > equivalent to naming it - see Law 45C3), the fact that he did > not verbally > name that card before touching it had no significance. IMO touching a card is not equivalent to naming it. Look at the context: L45A tells us the proper procedure for playing a card as declarer or defender. L45B tells us the proper procedure for playing a card from the dummy. L45C1 tells us what to do if the proper procedure in L45A is not followed for a defender. L45C2 tells us what to do if the proper procedure in L45A is not followed for the declarer. L45C3 tells us what to do if the proper procedure in L45B is not followed for the dummy. Touching a card may have an effect equivalent to naming a card but it is not equivalent. Naming a card remains the proper procedure and touching a card an irregular procedure (even if common). Touching a card is not equivalent to naming a card it just forces the equivalent effect. Usually this happens to be the intended effect and there are no problems. Wayne > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From svenpran@online.no Fri Nov 21 19:48:40 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 20:48:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <00a001c3b05b$7b020bb0$2ce436d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <000001c3b068$76c2a160$6900a8c0@WINXP> > wayne@ebridgenz.com ............. > > > How would an ordinary law court resolve this? > > > > I hope that most laws of court would concentrate on > > establishing facts and then rule accordingly. > > If they found that Lauria apparently intended > > (initially) to play a particular card, for instance > > by touching it (which is equivalent to naming it - > > see Law 45C3), the fact that he did not verbally > > name that card before touching it had no significance. >=20 > IMO touching a card is not equivalent to naming it. ........ (snip lots of law references) > Touching a card may have an effect equivalent to naming > a card but it is not equivalent. Naming a card remains > the proper procedure and touching a card an irregular > procedure (even if common). Please do me (us) the favor and stop this repetition of arguments like = the way kids behave: "No it isn't", "Yes it is", "No it isn't" . . . . . . Some of us consider the second sentence in Law 45B to provide an = alternative to the procedure described in the first sentence; you apparently = consider it an alternative to just dummy physically playing the card named. May I remind you of the following text from the "Interpretation of the Laws":=20 Quote: A simple declaration that a player "does" something ("....dummy spreads = his hand in front of him....") establishes correct procedure without any suggestion that a violation be penalized. Unquote. You maintain that declarer playing a card from dummy without first = naming it is an irregularity, I maintain that it is perfectly proper for declarer = to play dummy's cards that way if he so prefers. =20 > Touching a card is not equivalent to naming a card it > just forces the equivalent effect. Usually this happens > to be the intended effect and there are no problems. At least you admit this so I just cannot understand why you keep on = arguing your own understanding of law 45B, an understanding that may or may not = be correct but which I believe we all agree has absolutely no real effect? And what reaction would you care to have against a player who in your understanding violates the laws by playing the cards from dummy without first naming them? Sven From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Nov 21 09:27:15 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:27:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] Nudge, nudge. Message-ID: <000601c3b086$c678fd30$392ee150@endicott> Grattan Endicott Board No 17 from club pairs evening (MP's) Board: No 17 S: xx Dealer: North H: J10xxx Vuln.: nobody D: Qxxxx C: x S: AQ10xx S: KJ98xx H: AKx H: Qxx D: Kxx D: J C: xx C: QJx S: --- H: xx D: A10xx C: AK10xxxx Bidding went on so: North East South West (int) (adv) (exp) (exp) pass 2S 3C 4S pass(1) pass 5C 5S(2) double pass pass pass (1) long hesitation before pass. (2) West called TD before bidding 5S. TD fixed, that North made long hesitation before passing on 4S. 5S doubled went 1 down: +100 for NS. TD decided to adjust score: 4S played from West, -420 for NS. NS appealed. Appeals Committee restored the score achieved at the table: 5S doubled, +100 for NS. AC said, that they did not find, that South's 5C bidding was affected by North's long hesitation: South had 3 logical alternatives a) pass b) double c) 5C, and his actual bid 5C based on his bridge experience. Who was right, TD or AC? Does something change, if South player is a beginner or intermediate? Does something change, if West player is a beginner or intermediate? Jaak Känd, Pärnu BC, Estonia ----------------------------------------- Hot Mobiil - helinad, logod ja piltsõnumid! http://portal.hot.ee From wayne@ebridgenz.com Sat Nov 22 10:01:05 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 23:01:05 +1300 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000001c3b068$76c2a160$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <010d01c3b0df$90ad06c0$3e0858db@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Saturday, 22 November 2003 7:49 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy play > > > > wayne@ebridgenz.com > ............. > > > > How would an ordinary law court resolve this? > > > > > > I hope that most laws of court would concentrate on > > > establishing facts and then rule accordingly. > > > If they found that Lauria apparently intended > > > (initially) to play a particular card, for instance > > > by touching it (which is equivalent to naming it - > > > see Law 45C3), the fact that he did not verbally > > > name that card before touching it had no significance. > > > > IMO touching a card is not equivalent to naming it. > ........ (snip lots of law references) > > Touching a card may have an effect equivalent to naming > > a card but it is not equivalent. Naming a card remains > > the proper procedure and touching a card an irregular > > procedure (even if common). > > Please do me (us) the favor and stop this repetition of > arguments like the > way kids behave: "No it isn't", "Yes it is", "No it isn't" . . . . . . I don't see that in my arguments in this forum. There are only four posts in this thread and I do not see the repition there. Perhaps rather than snipping my arguments, not merely references as you dismissed them, you argued against the logic there-in I would see your point. But resorting to telling me my behaviour is like kids behaviour is not going to convince me. I did give references and arguments and in my mind it is significant that you do not try to refute those arguments. Instead you seem to have made some effort to insult me. > > Some of us consider the second sentence in Law 45B to provide > an alternative > to the procedure described in the first sentence; you > apparently consider it > an alternative to just dummy physically playing the card named. > > May I remind you of the following text from the "Interpretation of the > Laws": > Quote: > A simple declaration that a player "does" something > ("....dummy spreads his > hand in front of him....") establishes correct procedure without any > suggestion that a violation be penalized. > Unquote. We are apparently talking not of "... a violation ..." but of repeated violations. I would think that repeated violations should normally attract penalties. > > You maintain that declarer playing a card from dummy without > first naming it > is an irregularity, I maintain that it is perfectly proper > for declarer to > play dummy's cards that way if he so prefers. > > > Touching a card is not equivalent to naming a card it > > just forces the equivalent effect. Usually this happens > > to be the intended effect and there are no problems. > > At least you admit this so I just cannot understand why you > keep on arguing > your own understanding of law 45B, an understanding that may > or may not be > correct but which I believe we all agree has absolutely no > real effect? If the law says to do something then I cannot think of any reason to argue for it not to be done. > > And what reaction would you care to have against a player who in your > understanding violates the laws by playing the cards from > dummy without > first naming them? If it causes a problem then I could imagine a procedural penalty being warranted. Wayne > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Sat Nov 22 23:07:02 2003 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:07:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] Who was right TD or AC? In-Reply-To: <20031122054420.EAAAE1658@portal.hot.ee> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20031122175234.01b1fd10@mail.vzavenue.net> At 12:44 AM 11/22/2003, Jaak K=E4nd wrote: >Board No 17 from club pairs evening (MP's) (Please don't use tabs in hand diagrams; they don't quote well.) >Board: No 17 S: xx >Dealer: North H: J10xxx >Vuln.: nobody D: Qxxxx > C: x > S: AQ10xx S: KJ98xx > H: AKx H: Qxx > D: Kxx D: J > C: xx C: QJx > S: --- > H: xx > D: A10xx > C: AK10xxxx > >Bidding went on so: > >North East South West >(int) (adv) (exp) (exp) >pass 2S 3C 4S >pass(1) pass 5C 5S(2) >double pass pass pass > >(1) long hesitation before pass. >(2) West called TD before bidding 5S. TD fixed, that North made long=20 >hesitation before passing on 4S. >5S doubled went 1 down: +100 for NS. >TD decided to adjust score: 4S played from West, -420 for NS. >NS appealed. >Appeals Committee restored the score achieved at the table: 5S doubled,=20 >+100 for NS. >AC said, that they did not find, that South's 5C bidding was affected by=20 >North's long hesitation: South had 3 logical alternatives a) pass b)=20 >double c) 5C, and his actual bid 5C based on his bridge experience. > >Who was right, TD or AC? Does something change, if South player is a=20 >beginner or intermediate? Does something change, if West player is a=20 >beginner or intermediate? I would led the table result stand, but it doesn't look like the AC did its= =20 job in approving the result. The AC seems to have ruled that South made=20 the best choice among the three logical alternatives in the absence of any= =20 hesitation, but that is the wrong standard. The law is that South may not= =20 choose a logical alternative which is demonstrably suggested by the=20 hesitation. So, what does North's hesitation suggest to South? Given South's long=20 clubs and spade void, it is more likely to South that North was considering= =20 a double than a 5C call. If North was considering a double, that makes 5C= =20 less attractive, as South has good defense against 4S, and any spade tricks= =20 North has will be worthless to South in 5C. If North was considering 5C,=20 that makes 5C more attractive. Thus I do not rule that 5C was demonstrably= =20 suggested over pass by the hesitation. In contrast, if South had doubled, that would be an infraction, because=20 this is made more attractive whatever North meant by his hesitation. If=20 North was considering a double, he could leave the double in; if North was= =20 considering 5C, he could bid 5C now that South was marked with extra=20 values. The hesitation demonstrably suggested double over the logical=20 alternatives of pass and 5C. From john@asimere.com Sun Nov 23 02:23:04 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 02:23:04 +0000 Subject: [blml] Who was right TD or AC? In-Reply-To: <20031122054420.EAAAE1658@portal.hot.ee> References: <20031122054420.EAAAE1658@portal.hot.ee> Message-ID: <68uPzLAIoBw$EwRd@asimere.com> In article <20031122054420.EAAAE1658@portal.hot.ee>, Jaak K=E4nd writes >Board No 17 from club pairs evening (MP's) > >Board: No 17 S: xx =20 >Dealer: N H: J10xxx =20 >Vuln.: LA D: Qxxxx =20 > C: x =20 >S: AQ10xx S: KJ98xx >H: AKx H: Qxx >D: Kxx D: J >C: xx C: QJx > S: --- =20 > H: xx =20 > D: A10xx =20 > C: AK10xxxx =20 > >Bidding went on so: >=20 >North East South West >(int) (adv) (exp) (exp) >pass 2S 3C 4S >pass(1) pass 5C 5S(2) >double pass pass pass > >(1) long hesitation before pass. >(2) West called TD before bidding 5S. TD fixed, that North made long hes= itation=20 >before passing on 4S. >5S doubled went 1 down: +100 for NS. >TD decided to adjust score: 4S played from West, -420 for NS. >NS appealed. >Appeals Committee restored the score achieved at the table: 5S doubled, = +100 for=20 >NS. >AC said, that they did not find, that South's 5C bidding was affected by= North's=20 >long hesitation: South had 3 logical alternatives a) pass b) double c) 5= C, and=20 >his actual bid 5C based on his bridge experience. the long hesitation may suggest that north would like to double 4S because West expert may well be taking the p**s out of South expert, and thusly of the 4 calls available (P, x, 4N and 5C), the double may be suggested. If anything this suggests that pass may also be more successful than bidding rather than the other way round. Since it is fairly clear that 4S is either just a make, or one down, the implication that 5C is suggested by the hesitation just doesn't stand up. Hence IMO, South may do anything he likes except double. South expert can't exactly say in front of his partner "Look, my geek is clueless, and his hesitations convey no information at all" can he? fwiw, and from the facts as presented, I'd rule "result stands" > >Who was right, TD or AC? Does something change, if South player is a beg= inner or=20 >intermediate? Does something change, if West player is a beginner or=20 >intermediate?=20 > >Jaak K=E4nd, >P=E4rnu BC, Estonia > >----------------------------------------- >Hot Mobiil - helinad, logod ja pilts=F5numid! >http://portal.hot.ee > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --=20 John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Nov 23 09:04:38 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 09:04:38 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dummy play References: <010d01c3b0df$90ad06c0$3e0858db@Desktop> Message-ID: <000d01c3b1a1$095c49c0$d9e1193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott > > > > If they found that Lauria apparently intended > > > > (initially) to play a particular card, for instance > > > > by touching it (which is equivalent to naming it - > > > > see Law 45C3), the fact that he did not verbally > > > > name that card before touching it had no significance. > +=+ I am seeking to add this appeal report to the Jurisprudence supplemental to the CoP. If this is achieved it will round off perception of the case, and of a small point of law. I am held up briefly by a minor doubt about the auction. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Nov 23 09:44:20 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 09:44:20 -0000 Subject: [blml] Who was right TD or AC? References: <5.1.1.6.0.20031122175234.01b1fd10@mail.vzavenue.net> Message-ID: <001e01c3b1a6$86dfb080$d9e1193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Jaak Känd" ; "blml" Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 11:07 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Who was right TD or AC? At 12:44 AM 11/22/2003, Jaak Känd wrote: >Board No 17 from club pairs evening (MP's) I would led the table result stand, but it doesn't look like the AC did its job in approving the result. The AC seems to have ruled that South made the best choice among the three logical alternatives in the absence of any hesitation, but that is the wrong standard. The law is that South may not choose a logical alternative which is demonstrably suggested by the hesitation. +=+ This should be rephrased to say that the law is that South may not choose a logical alternative action if there is another that is less suggested by the UI. If no such logical alternative exists the action may be taken even though suggested by the UI; such an action is commonly described as an 'evident' action. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From victor@veloblitz.ch Sun Nov 23 10:32:44 2003 From: victor@veloblitz.ch (Victor Badran) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 11:32:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Who was right TD or AC? In-Reply-To: <20031122054420.EAAAE1658@portal.hot.ee> References: <20031122054420.EAAAE1658@portal.hot.ee> Message-ID: Is it of any importance whether West used a "STOP"? Isn't is so, that if EW didn't use Stop, they=20 have no right complaining about any hesitation? Victor >Board No 17 from club pairs evening (MP's) > >Board: No 17 S: xx >Dealer: North H: J10xxx >Vuln.: nobody D: Qxxxx > C: x >S: AQ10xx S: KJ98xx >H: AKx H: Qxx >D: Kxx D: J >C: xx C: QJx > S: --- > H: xx > D: A10xx > C: AK10xxxx > >Bidding went on so: > >North East South West >(int) (adv) (exp) (exp) >pass 2S 3C 4S >pass(1) pass 5C 5S(2) >double pass pass pass > >(1) long hesitation before pass. >(2) West called TD before bidding 5S. TD fixed,=20 >that North made long hesitation before passing=20 >on 4S. >5S doubled went 1 down: +100 for NS. >TD decided to adjust score: 4S played from West, -420 for NS. >NS appealed. >Appeals Committee restored the score achieved at=20 >the table: 5S doubled, +100 for NS. >AC said, that they did not find, that South's 5C=20 >bidding was affected by North's long hesitation:=20 >South had 3 logical alternatives a) pass b)=20 >double c) 5C, and his actual bid 5C based on his=20 >bridge experience. > >Who was right, TD or AC? Does something change,=20 >if South player is a beginner or intermediate?=20 >Does something change, if West player is a=20 >beginner or intermediate? > >Jaak K=E4nd, >P=E4rnu BC, Estonia > >----------------------------------------- >Hot Mobiil - helinad, logod ja pilts=F5numid! >http://portal.hot.ee > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From maribelbridge@netscape.net Sat Nov 22 05:13:37 2003 From: maribelbridge@netscape.net (Club de bridge Costa Calida) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 06:13:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] II TOURNAMENT OF BRIDGE -GOLF 2004 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ESPA=D1A-?= Message-ID: <3FBEF081.1080103@netscape.net> --------------090808020204080900000506 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable II FESTIVAL DE BRIDGE GOLF 2004 Welcome to our II TOURNAMENT OF BRIDGE-GOLF 2004 it will be place between the 7th and 13th of June, 2004 In Almerimar - El Ejido - Almer=EDa - ESPA=D1A VISIT OUR WEB PAGE =20 =20 We would be been charmed to count with your presence and your friends. Please, send this information to all players of bridge and golf that=20 could be interested. Thanks, we are waiting for you. For more information bridgeegolf@netscape.net Tel: 687 40 75 85 - 968 21 86 13 --------------090808020204080900000506 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="------------080704010306070002030702" --------------080704010306070002030702 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
                        II FESTIVAL DE BRIDGE GOLF 2004

Welcome to our II TOURNAMENT OF BRIDGE-GOLF 2004
it will be place between the 7th and 13th of June, 2004
In Almerimar – El  Ejido – Almería – ESPAÑA
VISIT OUR WEB PAGE          
We would be been charmed to count with your presence and your friends.
Please, send this information to all players of bridge and golf  that could be interested.
Thanks, we are waiting for you.
For more information bridgeegolf@netscape.net
Tel: 687 40 75 85   -  968 21 86 13

--------------080704010306070002030702 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: R0lGODlhJgAbAPcAAAcHQoqGiWwEBHhCQjw5VcG/x5pJSQICi7yKimtqazc3o2hotHEnJ6yn rUUDA1VUY9/f4a9tbaYvLxoaZ5aWrZoDA05OotPJycijpHNVVSMjl0oaGnxqcbxQUHp6wgAA ADIHAAAE+G8AxCb3v6whwL8oCeAHZwEAADz3bwACAAAAMAxvAND3bwBAiAAAHPhvAOj37wWi hzyOCAEuBwAAirvvBQAAKQAAAFkCAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP+G8A0PdvABI/978kAAAA90H3 v5CU/L/5zfe/kJT8v5ggwL//928ABQAAAKz3bwAAAAAAAfhvAJggwL/iE/e/ZwEAAMUS979O cW8AFgAAAFxB978c+W8AAAAAAAUAAAAE+W8AxWP3v//3bwAWAAAAHPlvAJggwL8AAAAABQAA AAAAAACoc0gAZghiQzpcV0lORE9XU1xURU1QXHVuaXRlZGtpbmdkb21fZ3MuZ2lmAKT4bwB3 a2KIbwEAAET4bwAmGPe/AAAAAJN5RQAMRPm/uBn3v4KIAAAo/m8AbRj3v3drYogAAAAAYoh/ UyYAAAAAAEYCAADciAAAwPhvALcWAAA3J1cBAAB/UzcnVwHiiHY91xYEAAAA6RADCQAAtxbi iKY9pPhvAAAAAABHAKwMrAwAACwIAAD8////AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAuHNIAGD6bwASP/e/JAAA APdB97+QlPy/+c33v5CU/L+YIMC/AAAAAAUAAADiE/e/ZwEAAMUS97+hcQAAAAAAANxk978A AAAABQAAAAAAAADcTUMAogRvAJggwL8AAAAAIAAAAO4T979nAQAA46L3v/8EAABw+W8A/A8N AOzuTwAcAQAAoKP3vwAATQAI8E8A/A8NAAAAAAAMAE0AAABNAOzuTwBAAAAAAAAAANAFAAD/ BAAAmPlvAFCl978AAE0AZ6X3vwAATQBBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMTARAAR708A+KFO ABXvTwDNc0gA//////DuTwAuwUQAEe9PACH5BAEAAB8ALAAAAAAmABsAQAj/AD8IHEjwgcEH BBMOfEBgwgQFFBR+0HCgYkUNCTYIMFAAAoQCGCqIhDDBoIMNBAwSUKCBIsKBBjrIlGlgwAAG DAbE7CBBZAUJQBlsGEqUgQQDQBMM9Aghws8LCioCAFCRAgKfEChKnUogQYAAPStEGBjgglOx FBJw0FpxQUiRFyZM5fpAgAQMEC4UUDowrE8BgB0I8En4r4PDiAX/JWixooePAQQwCBDVKlaK CdI+2OBgQIIJFjUsNIChAIUABKY2PrCgAIOXHx7M5Yqhw0/YArVqoJBBwAYOARo0oOjhbQWS UycQOByAwoUFFXE3YPqxwVcOBhAgKH11ZIEMKg9m/4igHUMDgn7/ChA8uDDh9YkV+yTIsqV9 BdYj34VgnGmDAQ4QIGBKFiywgAWwaQARUx0IEMECqh3QQHfHsVVSAgkAKAACHmgwwUAJZJAB hgUx1FAACOSUgUQqERCccCtK9EFDVIVGokI0TqVAAQjESFAGInUgXACyreaWTw3INdsECfSE AEgJEaBBaxIIMABwDSyg1ZEjKQmAcidNBwEFC/CVW2MWZMBZBgVckFVxWMlV0kkYUhBVdAQZ aMGeChgUYgAdedQfbwEK+IBXHT1nAXpANSoUe+0Vpl0GAwyVWKQDoOdeYIC5R1h8h0VaAUGe cirqpqCKSlCgTBWQHwUNBGlKoX8BJOBnZmJCEMBAbFWEX1oaNddAfzsWEACADjBUY0UEDBRa oBEAFgBoB1DQn24YPsCAA5PdKZpAuV5gQAUIBDBXVbOyxZWtHAzWwQURCVRABD11UIAFFi1r 2Uj1aZDaurFeJYFAAQEAOw== --------------080704010306070002030702 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: R0lGODlhJgAbAPcAAEcDA5OQCVVTAppMCJADA87OAmdlA9ecAkQoAn9JBa2pCI4rJmpqaW8D A5ZiAnpyAu7uAr69BG8tKK8oAsNsAndQUKyHCGJMS6wEBL5RAkoVDFczIah5B9+6At/cAgAA ADIHAAAE+G8AxCb3v6whwL8oCeAHckL3vwTbAQACAAAAMAxvAND3bwBAiAAAHPhvAOj37wWi hzyOCAEuBwAAirvvBQAAKQAAAFkCAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP+G8A0PdvABI/978cAAAA90H3 v5CU/L/5zfe/kJT8v5ggwL//928ABQAAAKz3bwAAAAAAAfhvAJggwL/iE/e/ZwEAAMUS979O cW8AFgAAAFxB978c+W8AAAAAAAUAAAAE+W8AxWP3v//3bwAWAAAAHPlvAJggwL8AAAAABQAA AAAAAACoc0gAZghiQzpcV0lORE9XU1xURU1QXHNwYWluX2dzLmdpZgBHAAAAAAAAAKT4bwCH amKIbwEAAET4bwAmGPe/AAAAAJN5RQAMRPm/uBn3v4KIAAAo/m8AbRj3v4dqYogAAAAAYoh/ UyYAAAAAAEYCAADciAAAwPhvALcWAAA3J1cBAAB/UzcnVwHiiHY91xYEAAAA6RADCQAAtxbi iKY9pPhvAAAAAABHAKwJrAkAADQJAAD8////AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAuHNIAGD6bwASP/e/HAAA APdB97+QlPy/+c33v5CU/L+YIMC/AAAAAAUAAADiE/e/ZwEAAMUS97+hcQAAAAAAANxk978A AAAABQAAAAAAAADcTUMAAARvAJggwL8AAAAAIAAAAO4T979nAQAA46L3v/8EAABw+W8A/A8N AOzuTwAcAQAAoKP3vwAATQAI8E8A/A8NAAAAAAAMAE0AAABNAOzuTwBAAAAAAAAAANAFAAD/ BAAAmPlvAFCl978AAE0AZ6X3vwAATQBBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMTARAAJ708A+KFO AA3vTwDFc0gA//////DuTwAuwUQACe9PACH5BAEAAB8ALAAAAAAmABsAQAj/AD8IHEjwQoWD BBMOrLBBAoEJFRR+iAChoocICgI8CKCgQMWPHQ5w4JBAgEkBBh50tBiAoIePFQsoyMjRI8yP HhQ8MGDSgAEFFCF4YDAQg9GjBJI2WNogKQYCR5E2AEAVwNKkUBdKnXoV6VOjBKZWpdoULIaI A4N+jBBAI9CbMHXy7Pkggk0FBCdEfRqW6YIJevc+FUtVg4a/ehcsBLxgwVKrZY9CRPvhwlir UJ9SFrgAaVjITsFmfnrZ6oIBeglsVgtBpsaacC0qmGtyY9CcBFlfpAk7tkzaAlS+FOry5u62 b2NDYDs3ZYAIw1sKFKyUadPR2D+PxYpBscAKF8In1wR/QYKExgvASwTfUAJgiBIFlr9uNP3m gRc0kM18/0MF0UxhFlVmEzhWGn1PjQegWAh6pd1lZSW1GWqimZeAcB6ElMFXpBW2gQCweQDf QArg5BpyNsFVQAC0+fRcTNIJVOJHBbCFHGs3yXWSARxZFEFuMB2nEnTKrbhjSgoMV0BxMJ3Y m4o69eRcikzSyFtHw8GVkU8o2fZRjB6E2cGYM7XVFpEWhXSASA5w6VySFcUY2IDWRcYhWISR FaF3H9y54FWj7fUgaEZNUBR11TVYaGPm5YmgQAEBADs= --------------080704010306070002030702-- --------------090808020204080900000506-- From blml@blakjak.com Sun Nov 23 21:05:57 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 21:05:57 +0000 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <010d01c3b0df$90ad06c0$3e0858db@Desktop> References: <000001c3b068$76c2a160$6900a8c0@WINXP> <010d01c3b0df$90ad06c0$3e0858db@Desktop> Message-ID: Wayne wrote >> Behalf Of Sven Pran >> Please do me (us) the favor and stop this repetition of >> arguments like the >> way kids behave: "No it isn't", "Yes it is", "No it isn't" . . . . . . > >I don't see that in my arguments in this forum. There are >only four posts in this thread and I do not see the repition there. Perhaps Sven is referring to your arguments in RGB, which are certainly repetitious. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From svenpran@online.no Sun Nov 23 21:23:31 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 22:23:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001901c3b208$0b4c2d10$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson >> Wayne wrote > >> Behalf Of Sven Pran > > >> Please do me (us) the favor and stop this repetition of > >> arguments like the > >> way kids behave: "No it isn't", "Yes it is", "No it isn't" . . . . . . > > > >I don't see that in my arguments in this forum. There are > >only four posts in this thread and I do not see the repition there. > > Perhaps Sven is referring to your arguments in RGB, which are > certainly repetitious. Thanks David, yes that is quite possible. When the same discussion occurs both on RGB and here I do not always succeed ascertaining in which of the threads an author bores me beyond my patience. Regards Sven From wayne@ebridgenz.com Sun Nov 23 22:29:47 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 11:29:47 +1300 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <001901c3b208$0b4c2d10$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000101c3b211$52dfc250$942e56d2@Desktop> Sven, Reread the posts in chronological order you will find that it was David Stevenson and not I that engaged in a "No it isn't" argument. As well as making what I consider to be inappropriate personal attacks and gross inaccurate generalizations "You always go for the least workable...". IMO all of my posts gave clear arguments for what I believe to be the meaning of what is written in the laws. Which is more than the "No, it is not." I got in reply. I also acknowledged that the meaning given in the laws could be unintentional but I do not believe that it is my place as a player nor as a TD to assume that the meaning in the Law is unintentional. If that is the case then the Law needs to be changed. As a minimum I expect the laws to be ruled on as they are written not as any TD thinks they should be written. Wayne > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Monday, 24 November 2003 9:24 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy play > > > > David Stevenson > >> Wayne wrote > > >> Behalf Of Sven Pran > > > > >> Please do me (us) the favor and stop this repetition of > > >> arguments like the > > >> way kids behave: "No it isn't", "Yes it is", "No it > isn't" . . . . . . > > > > > >I don't see that in my arguments in this forum. There are > > >only four posts in this thread and I do not see the repition there. > > > > Perhaps Sven is referring to your arguments in RGB, which are > > certainly repetitious. > > Thanks David, yes that is quite possible. When the same > discussion occurs > both on RGB and here I do not always succeed ascertaining in > which of the > threads an author bores me beyond my patience. > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From dhh@inter.net.il Mon Nov 24 00:20:06 2003 From: dhh@inter.net.il (Dany Haimovici) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 02:20:06 +0200 Subject: [blml] Active membership again Message-ID: <3FC14EB5.40B5C45D@inter.net.il> Cheers all - old friends and new contributors. I hope I"ll find again the minimum time to try to contribute (or disturb ???) to this list again. I read almost all of the messages during the last two years (hmmmmm it deems two centuries....) , but will take time to be back in this business..... The dogs' list will be reactivated soon....... Meanwhile I"ll bark here ......... Thank you for your attention and friendship. Dany From dhh@inter.net.il Mon Nov 24 00:36:59 2003 From: dhh@inter.net.il (Dany Haimovici) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 02:36:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] Who was right TD or AC? References: <20031122054420.EAAAE1658@portal.hot.ee> Message-ID: <3FC152AB.4312FB55@inter.net.il> Hello All My first message after almost 2 years of silence. But let go back to business : The case presented by Mr. Kastan is a well-known situation which minimizes the number of bridge players in clubs during the last years. IMHO north's hesitation is a 101% UI , telling South "~... I do not know for sure if your 3Cl is a strong hand or a "shape" hand , if West's 4Sp was to make or to preempt, therefore : a. if it's a strong hand -> double b. if it's shape -> bid ...~" As I was taught during the former millenium that the "hesitation"'s partner is not allowed to choose a LA strongly or evidently or etc.. suggested by the hesitation, both a. & b. LA are not allowed ; only the 3rd LA , i.e. PASS is acceptable . I can't totaly deny the players' level influence , but I suggest - thinking about the club game's faith - to act this way after an hesitation ( even if South would bid {not call - neither double nor pass}in the absence of the hesitation , according to his level and experience . It will improve the joy for this game in clubs. Again - IMHO the CoP was a great advance for the joy of the duplicate game , when people understood that the ACs have some written rules (90+% of people do not know that the CoP is meanwhile only "recomandation") and not only an arena for fights between the bridge gladiators (experts ?? ). Maybe there can exist a way to include these ideas - if accepted - in this "recomandation"..? Dany Jaak Känd wrote: > Board No 17 from club pairs evening (MP's) > > Board: No 17 S: xx > Dealer: North H: J10xxx > Vuln.: nobody D: Qxxxx > C: x > S: AQ10xx S: KJ98xx > H: AKx H: Qxx > D: Kxx D: J > C: xx C: QJx > S: --- > H: xx > D: A10xx > C: AK10xxxx > > Bidding went on so: > > North East South West > (int) (adv) (exp) (exp) > pass 2S 3C 4S > pass(1) pass 5C 5S(2) > double pass pass pass > > (1) long hesitation before pass. > (2) West called TD before bidding 5S. TD fixed, that North made long hesitation before passing on 4S. > 5S doubled went 1 down: +100 for NS. > TD decided to adjust score: 4S played from West, -420 for NS. > NS appealed. > Appeals Committee restored the score achieved at the table: 5S doubled, +100 for NS. > AC said, that they did not find, that South's 5C bidding was affected by North's long hesitation: South had 3 logical alternatives a) pass b) double c) 5C, and his actual bid 5C based on his bridge experience. > > Who was right, TD or AC? Does something change, if South player is a beginner or intermediate? Does something change, if West player is a beginner or intermediate? > > Jaak Känd, > Pärnu BC, Estonia > > ----------------------------------------- > Hot Mobiil - helinad, logod ja piltsõnumid! > http://portal.hot.ee > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Nov 23 20:38:16 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 20:38:16 -0000 Subject: [blml] ACBLLC minutes - 2005 Law 16 References: Message-ID: <000901c3b221$1f221ca0$aada193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws List" Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 7:01 PM Subject: Re: [blml] ACBLLC minutes - 2005 Law 16 But I'd like to take the opportunity to mention (not for the first time) that I would like the laws to say that any information that is legally available to a player just for the asking (opponents' system, vulnerability, the bidding so far, etc.) is always authorized, even if is it actually received through an infraction. If it is received through an infraction, then that infraction could be subject to penalty under L90 and/or L72B1, but the information should still be AI. -- +=+ Hi Jesper, Let me be clear what you are saying. It looks at first sight as though all the information you cite is information available to the player before the irregularity occurs. How do you say he might 'receive' that information from an infraction? Can you give me an example of what you fear? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Nov 24 00:50:32 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 00:50:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dummy play References: <000101c3b211$52dfc250$942e56d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <001901c3b225$3a9e68e0$aada193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "'blml'" Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 10:29 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy play > > IMO all of my posts gave clear arguments for what I believe > to be the meaning of what is written in the laws. Which is more > than the "No, it is not." I got in reply. > > I also acknowledged that the meaning given in the laws could > be unintentional but I do not believe that it is my place as > a player nor as a TD to assume that the meaning in the Law is > unintentional. If that is the case then the Law needs to be > changed. As a minimum I expect the laws to be ruled on as they > are written not as any TD thinks they should be written. > > Wayne > +=+ You are a director? Then presumably your NBO instructs you how to deal with this law. As to the present law I merely note that 45B establishes correct procedure without any suggestion that a violation be penalized. I had already noted the need for clarity when redrafting this area, among others, of the laws. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From jimfox00@cox.net Mon Nov 24 01:48:51 2003 From: jimfox00@cox.net (jimfox00@cox.net) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 20:48:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000101c3b211$52dfc250$942e56d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <003501c3b22d$1c6b1c80$65ed6944@DellDimension> > Sven, > > Reread the posts in chronological order you will find that > it was David Stevenson and not I that engaged in a "No it > isn't" argument. As well as making what I consider to be > inappropriate personal attacks and gross inaccurate > generalizations "You always go for > the least workable...". > > IMO all of my posts gave clear arguments for what I believe > to be the meaning of what is written in the laws. Which is more > than the "No, it is not." I got in reply. > > I also acknowledged that the meaning given in the laws could > be unintentional but I do not believe that it is my place as > a player nor as a TD to assume that the meaning in the Law is > unintentional. If that is the case then the Law needs to be > changed. As a minimum I expect the laws to be ruled on as they > are written not as any TD thinks they should be written. > > Wayne > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > Behalf Of Sven Pran > > Sent: Monday, 24 November 2003 9:24 a.m. > > To: blml > > Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy play > > > > > > > David Stevenson > > >> Wayne wrote > > > >> Behalf Of Sven Pran > > > > > > >> Please do me (us) the favor and stop this repetition > of arguments > > > >> like the way kids behave: "No it isn't", "Yes it is", "No it > > isn't" . . . . . . > > > > > > > >I don't see that in my arguments in this forum. There are only > > > >four posts in this thread and I do not see the repition there. > > > > > > Perhaps Sven is referring to your arguments in RGB, which are > > > certainly repetitious. > > > > Thanks David, yes that is quite possible. When the same > > discussion occurs > > both on RGB and here I do not always succeed ascertaining in > > which of the > > threads an author bores me beyond my patience. > > > > Regards Sven Wayne, you need to let these illogicians go in their ignorance. In plain language, the laws state a two-step process, both of which are required, to play a card from dummy: 1. Name a card to be played. Only declarer does this. 2. **SOMEBODY** physically picks up the card (to remove it from the dummy's hand and place it above the dummy (from declarer's viewpoint). Typically, dummy will do this. ****If necessary, declarer can do this****. Mmbridge From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Nov 24 01:59:24 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 14:59:24 +1300 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <001901c3b225$3a9e68e0$aada193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <002101c3b22e$9b9a0d30$13e436d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: grandeval [mailto:grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > Sent: Monday, 24 November 2003 12:51 p.m. > To: wayne@ebridgenz.com > Cc: 'blml' > Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy play > > > > Grattan Endicott [alternatively cyaxares@lineone.net > or gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ============================== > "In the long run failure was the only > thing that worked predictably." > [Joseph Heller] > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: "'blml'" > Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 10:29 PM > Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy play > > > > > > IMO all of my posts gave clear arguments for what I believe > > to be the meaning of what is written in the laws. Which is more > > than the "No, it is not." I got in reply. > > > > I also acknowledged that the meaning given in the laws could > > be unintentional but I do not believe that it is my place as > > a player nor as a TD to assume that the meaning in the Law is > > unintentional. If that is the case then the Law needs to be > > changed. As a minimum I expect the laws to be ruled on as they > > are written not as any TD thinks they should be written. > > > > Wayne > > > +=+ You are a director? Then presumably your NBO > instructs you how to deal with this law. No it does not. I note the EBU white book at least the copy I could find does not address this issue either. I wonder if any NBO has a specific instruction on this law. > As to the present law I merely note that 45B establishes > correct procedure without any suggestion that a violation be > penalized. I had already noted the need for clarity when > redrafting this area, among others, of the laws. That is great. In the mean time do we observe the law as it is written or at the whim of a particular TD or a group of TDs? Wayne > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Nov 24 07:33:06 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 07:33:06 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dummy play References: <002101c3b22e$9b9a0d30$13e436d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <000d01c3b25d$58154f00$34bd193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "'grandeval'" Cc: "'blml'" Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 1:59 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy play > > > As to the present law I merely note that 45B establishes > > correct procedure without any suggestion that a violation be > > penalized. I had already noted the need for clarity when > > redrafting this area, among others, of the laws. > > That is great. > > In the mean time do we observe the law as it is written or at the > whim of a particular TD or a group of TDs? > > Wayne > +=+ You ask your NBO for guidance. +=+ From vitold@elnet.msk.ru Mon Nov 24 08:08:53 2003 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru (vitold) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 11:08:53 +0300 Subject: [blml] Active membership again In-Reply-To: <3FC14EB5.40B5C45D@inter.net.il> References: <3FC14EB5.40B5C45D@inter.net.il> Message-ID: <3FC1BC95.802@elnet.msk.ru> Hi Dany:) Nice to read your message Regards Vitold Dany Haimovici wrote: >Cheers all - old friends and new contributors. > >I hope I"ll find again the minimum time to try to contribute (or disturb >???) to this list again. I read almost all of the messages during the >last two years (hmmmmm it deems two centuries....) , but will take time >to be back in this business..... > >The dogs' list will be reactivated soon....... >Meanwhile I"ll bark here ......... > >Thank you for your attention and friendship. > >Dany____________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Nov 24 08:17:17 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 09:17:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Who was right TD or AC? In-Reply-To: <3FC152AB.4312FB55@inter.net.il> References: <20031122054420.EAAAE1658@portal.hot.ee> <3FC152AB.4312FB55@inter.net.il> Message-ID: <3FC1BE8D.6030008@hdw.be> Hello Dany, long time no see! Dany Haimovici wrote: > Hello All > > My first message after almost 2 years of silence. But let go back to > business : welcome back! > > The case presented by Mr. Kastan is a well-known situation which > minimizes the number of bridge players in clubs during the last years. > Only because the Directors don't do their jobs. > IMHO north's hesitation is a 101% UI , telling South "~... I do not > know for sure if your 3Cl is a strong hand or a "shape" hand , if > West's 4Sp was to make or to preempt, therefore : > a. if it's a strong hand -> double > b. if it's shape -> bid ...~" > I don't want to argue with this conclusion. I have not analysed the problem fully. So I'll follow Dany's reasoning - which continues: > As I was taught during the former millenium that the "hesitation"'s > partner is not allowed to choose a LA strongly or evidently or etc.. > suggested by the hesitation, > both a. & b. LA are not allowed ; only the 3rd LA , i.e. PASS is > acceptable . And conclusion this is wrong. If the hesitation indicates that partner is uncertain about the meaning of the original call, then such hesitation carries no suggestion to the player. HE knows what he intended with his first call, and he therefore knows what partner's call should signify. The hesitation adds no suggestion to the call. It merely adds an indication of uncertainty. Mind you, that is just my conclusion from Dany's original presumption. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Nov 24 10:25:41 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 23:25:41 +1300 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000d01c3b25d$58154f00$34bd193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <003701c3b275$55da8d50$de9637d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of grandeval > Sent: Monday, 24 November 2003 7:33 p.m. > To: wayne@ebridgenz.com > Cc: 'blml' > Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy play > > > > Grattan Endicott [alternatively cyaxares@lineone.net > or gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ============================== > "In the long run failure was the only > thing that worked predictably." > [Joseph Heller] > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: "'grandeval'" > Cc: "'blml'" > Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 1:59 AM > Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy play > > > > > > > As to the present law I merely note that 45B establishes > > > correct procedure without any suggestion that a violation be > > > penalized. I had already noted the need for clarity when > > > redrafting this area, among others, of the laws. > > > > That is great. > > > > In the mean time do we observe the law as it is written or at the > > whim of a particular TD or a group of TDs? > > > > Wayne > > > +=+ You ask your NBO for guidance. +=+ Why? Do NBOs have the power to guide contrary to the written law? Wayne > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Nov 24 12:45:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 12:45 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <003701c3b275$55da8d50$de9637d2@Desktop> Message-ID: Wayne wrote: > Why? Do NBOs have the power to guide contrary to the written law? Of course they do. It has been made clear many times that the WBF does not control NBOs and that they may act in any manner they please without fear of sanction. Tim From jaapvdn@zonnet.nl Mon Nov 24 12:53:30 2003 From: jaapvdn@zonnet.nl (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:53:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play References: <003701c3b275$55da8d50$de9637d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <000c01c3b28a$063874a0$f7deaf52@vaio> Dear All, Wayne can be a repetitous bore (I have had my share), but an interesting and useful one at that. He does have a point. Not that I side with him when it comes to interpretation of the law. I agree with Sven. Declarer names cards and dummy plays them. But sometimes declarer plays the dummy himself for whatever reason (normally a dummy that went to the bar or the loo). This is so common (at club level, it is ridiculous in a BB final) that it is acceptable procedure until we introduce a law that explicitly forbids it (a very bad idea). But Wayne is right that the law sucks. It is a shame that all Grattan comes up with is 'ask your NCBO'. With maybe two or three exceptions NCBO's don't do anything of the sort and cannot be expected to do so. This is akin to Grattan sending WBFLC stuff to zones who have to send it to NCBO's who have to send it to ...... This is a perfect sink. I will reach nobody but still the WBFLC can maintain they followed correct (by their own standards) communication procedures (which achieve no communication whatsoever). By the way, Grattan don't take this personal, I know and understand the difficulties involved, and I know you try to make the best out of a 'bad' situation. And Wayne is right that this kind of things should not be up to the NCBO's. Whether or not a card is played (and how to play a card) is such a basic rule that it should be a core rule (as opposed to say convention regulation) set by the WBF that applies to everyone. So although I often disagree with you Wayne, keep up the good work. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "'grandeval'" Cc: "'blml'" Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 11:25 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy play > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > Behalf Of grandeval > > Sent: Monday, 24 November 2003 7:33 p.m. > > To: wayne@ebridgenz.com > > Cc: 'blml' > > Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy play > > > > > > > > Grattan Endicott > [alternatively cyaxares@lineone.net > > or gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > > ============================== > > "In the long run failure was the only > > thing that worked predictably." > > [Joseph Heller] > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: > > To: "'grandeval'" > > Cc: "'blml'" > > Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 1:59 AM > > Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy play > > > > > > > > > > > As to the present law I merely note that 45B establishes > > > > correct procedure without any suggestion that a violation be > > > > penalized. I had already noted the need for clarity when > > > > redrafting this area, among others, of the laws. > > > > > > That is great. > > > > > > In the mean time do we observe the law as it is written or at the > > > whim of a particular TD or a group of TDs? > > > > > > Wayne > > > > > +=+ You ask your NBO for guidance. +=+ > > Why? Do NBOs have the power to guide contrary to the written law? > > Wayne > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Nov 24 13:10:38 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 08:10:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] Who was right TD or AC? In-Reply-To: <20031122054420.EAAAE1658@portal.hot.ee> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031124080522.00a02330@pop.starpower.net> At 12:44 AM 11/22/03, Jack wrote: >Board: No 17 S: xx >Dealer: North H: J10xxx >Vuln.: nobody D: Qxxxx > C: x >S: AQ10xx S: KJ98xx >H: AKx H: Qxx >D: Kxx D: J >C: xx C: QJx > S: --- > H: xx > D: A10xx > C: AK10xxxx > >Bidding went on so: > >North East South West >(int) (adv) (exp) (exp) >pass 2S 3C 4S >pass(1) pass 5C 5S(2) >double pass pass pass > >(1) long hesitation before pass. >(2) West called TD before bidding 5S. TD fixed, that North made long >hesitation before passing on 4S. >5S doubled went 1 down: +100 for NS. >TD decided to adjust score: 4S played from West, -420 for NS. >NS appealed. >Appeals Committee restored the score achieved at the table: 5S >doubled, +100 for NS. >AC said, that they did not find, that South's 5C bidding was affected >by North's long hesitation: South had 3 logical alternatives a) pass >b) double c) 5C, and his actual bid 5C based on his bridge experience. > >Who was right, TD or AC? Does something change, if South player is a >beginner or intermediate? Does something change, if West player is a >beginner or intermediate? The AC decision was the right one, although their rationale is somewhat fuzzy. North's hesitation in no way "demonstrably suggests" South's 5C bid. Indeed, the most likely explanation is that North was considering doubling 4S, which counter-suggests the 5C bid. 5C looks to me like the appropriate choice of call for a player who is trying to "bend over backwards" *not* to take advantage of partner's huddle, the information from which, if anything, makes it look *more* likely that 4S will go down than it would have if North had passed in tempo. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From toddz@att.net Mon Nov 24 16:59:15 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 11:59:15 -0500 Subject: [blml] ACBLLC minutes - 2005 Law 16 In-Reply-To: <000901c3b221$1f221ca0$aada193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: grandeval > Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 3:38 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] ACBLLC minutes - 2005 Law 16 > > +=+ Hi Jesper, > Let me be clear what you are saying. > It looks at first sight as though all the > information you cite > is information available to the player before the irregularity > occurs. How do you say he might 'receive' that information from > an infraction? Can you give me an example of what you fear? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ The Pro Question is a good example of this. The information is freely available to the client for the asking, but it has actually been received via an infraction. Such problems should be corrected via disciplinary measures and not via L16. I'm not certain this solution needs to be made explicit in the Laws and I'm not creative enough to envision a situation where it would hurt. -Todd From adam@irvine.com Mon Nov 24 17:57:08 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 09:57:08 -0800 Subject: [blml] Who was right TD or AC? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 23 Nov 2003 11:32:44 +0100." Message-ID: <200311241757.JAA10440@mailhub.irvine.com> Victor Barden wrote: > Is it of any importance whether West used a "STOP"? > Isn't is so, that if EW didn't use Stop, they > have no right complaining about any hesitation? > > Victor I don't think so. There's a certain amount of time that players are expected to hesitate when a Stop card is used (or, in some places, when there's a skip bid and a Stop card isn't used), but when a hesitation extends well past that time, it is still UI. When a Stop card isn't used, the players who fail to use the Stop card may lose protection when their opponent *doesn't* hesitate. Thus, suppose North deals and opens 2S without using the Stop card. In the ACBL, if West then passes quickly, N/S cannot argue that the quick pass transmitted UI, because they failed to use the Stop card; and if West hesitates for the expected 10 seconds or so and then passes, N/S also cannot complain, because players are still expected to hesitate after a skip bid whether the Stop card is used or not. (The foregoing is based on ACBL regulations; I don't know what the corresponding Estonian rules are.) But none of this applies if, say, West pauses for one minute and then passes. That is considered to be UI just like any other long hesitation, whether or not the Stop card was used. -- Adam From john@asimere.com Mon Nov 24 18:44:23 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:44:23 +0000 Subject: [blml] Active membership again In-Reply-To: <3FC14EB5.40B5C45D@inter.net.il> References: <3FC14EB5.40B5C45D@inter.net.il> Message-ID: In article <3FC14EB5.40B5C45D@inter.net.il>, Dany Haimovici writes >Cheers all - old friends and new contributors. > >I hope I"ll find again the minimum time to try to contribute (or disturb >???) to this list again. I read almost all of the messages during the >last two years (hmmmmm it deems two centuries....) , but will take time >to be back in this business..... > >The dogs' list will be reactivated soon....... >Meanwhile I"ll bark here ......... > >Thank you for your attention and friendship. > >Dany welcome back dany, look forward to your zany contributions again > > >_______________________________________________ >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 micvhael@homestuffing.net Mon Nov 24 21:18:38 2003 From: micvhael@homestuffing.net (micvhael@homestuffing.net) Date: 24 Nov 2003 23:18:38 +0200 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) Confirmation Message-ID: Are you trying to figure out how to get in profit while working from home

Top Marketers 

This is the HOTTEST Topic on the Internet...
AND Tripling In Growth Every 30 Days !

Want Genuine Instant Signups?
How about an INSTANT Income Stream?

Lock in your FREE Position - THEN Decide !

Why are thousands joining daily?
We have what EVERYONE WANTS !

GET FREE MOVIES - MUSIC CD's - SOFTWARE -
VIDEO GAMES - COMPUTER AND CELLULAR
PRODUCTS - MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTIONS $ MORE!

 EARN A HUGE INCOME BY SHARING
THIS WITH OTHERS !


  

CLICK HERE AND GET MORE INFORMATION.

Here is your chance to learn how to
earn a realistic Monthly Income!

Own a simple, FUN and easy-to-do automated
business that you and your family can do together.

 

 

 

 

 

 

JERIFVLUGPHIMDWL From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Nov 24 20:45:43 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:45:43 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dummy play References: <003701c3b275$55da8d50$de9637d2@Desktop> <000c01c3b28a$063874a0$f7deaf52@vaio> Message-ID: <004b01c3b2d1$85605da0$73e5193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: ; "'grandeval'" Cc: "'blml'" Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 12:53 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy play > > But Wayne is right that the law sucks. It is a shame > that all Grattan comes up with is 'ask your NCBO'. > With maybe two or three exceptions NCBO's don't > do anything of the sort and cannot be expected to > do so. +=+ "Interim interpretations of law are made by Zonal Organisations".(WBFLC minute of 24 Aug 98) > > This is akin to Grattan sending WBFLC stuff > to zones who have to send it to NCBO's who have > to send it to ...... > +=+ I do not send minutes to Zones. I submit them for ratification to the WBF Executive. Distribution is from there and I have no responsibility for it. I do pass minutes when approved to three web sites as an aid to access. ~ G ~ +=+ From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Nov 24 22:27:36 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:27:36 +1300 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <004b01c3b2d1$85605da0$73e5193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <008401c3b2da$30339f50$352037d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of grandeval > Sent: Tuesday, 25 November 2003 8:46 a.m. > To: 'blml' > Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy play > > > > Grattan Endicott [alternatively cyaxares@lineone.net > or gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ============================== > "In the long run failure was the only > thing that worked predictably." > [Joseph Heller] > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > To: ; > "'grandeval'" > Cc: "'blml'" > Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 12:53 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy play > > > > > > But Wayne is right that the law sucks. It is a shame > > that all Grattan comes up with is 'ask your NCBO'. > > With maybe two or three exceptions NCBO's don't > > do anything of the sort and cannot be expected to > > do so. > +=+ "Interim interpretations of law are made by > Zonal Organisations".(WBFLC minute of 24 Aug 98) Ok so when the Zone has not made an interpretation and we are at the table ... Do we rely on what is written or on the whim of the TD? There is nothing on this matter in the interpretations that I have available and I have seen nothing in my admitedly limited readings of interpretations in other zones. Second Question: What happens when the zonal authority makes a blatantly wrong interpretation? Wayne From blml@dybdal.dk Tue Nov 25 00:09:24 2003 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 01:09:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBLLC minutes - 2005 Law 16 In-Reply-To: <000901c3b221$1f221ca0$aada193e@4nrw70j> References: <000901c3b221$1f221ca0$aada193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <0065svkmf56m6pijet6oisb17dciq8d180@nuser.dybdal.dk> Hi Grattan, On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 20:38:16 -0000, "grandeval" wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Jesper Dybdal" >To: "Bridge Laws List" >Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 7:01 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] ACBLLC minutes - 2005 Law 16 > >But I'd like to take the opportunity to mention (not for the first >time) that I would like the laws to say that any information that is >legally available to a player just for the asking (opponents' system, >vulnerability, the bidding so far, etc.) is always authorized, even if >is it actually received through an infraction. If it is received >through an infraction, then that infraction could be subject to >penalty under L90 and/or L72B1, but the information should still be >AI. >-- >+=3D+ Hi Jesper, > Let me be clear what you are saying. > It looks at first sight as though all the information you cite >is information available to the player before the irregularity >occurs. How do you say he might 'receive' that information from >an infraction? Can you give me an example of what you fear? > ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ Yes, it is information available to the player before the irregularity occurs that I am concerned about. If you overlook, or do not ask about, such information, but then receive it through an action of your partner, then IMO it should still be AI. If the action from partner is an irregularity, L72B1 could apply; if the action from partner is legal, then there is nothing to penalize. Here are some examples - the first one is real, the others are completely or to a large extent made up: Example 1 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D The example I primarily remember as a problem, and which made me want to have something about this in the laws, was appeal 00-LK-1 to the Danish National Authority. The appeal is described in detail (in Danish) at http://www.bridge.dk/lov/ak/sager/00/lk-1.htm. The problem was a player who responded 2S to his partner's 1H opening. It was established by the TD and AC, and accepted by the NA, that: * The jump in spades was artificial, showing shortness in spades; * A non-jump in spades would have been natural; * The player had a spade suit, did not intend to jump, and did not use the stop card - either he thought he had bid 1S, or he thought at the time of bidding that 2S was not a jump; * There was no suggestion of the player not knowing his system: the only thing he did not know was either what bidding card he had actually used, or that 2S was a jump; * The player realized that something was wrong when his 2S call was alerted by partner; * The player did not attempt to correct his call at any time, but he did, in the rest of the auction, use his knowledge that he had misrepresented his hand by bidding 2S. He managed to steer the auction to a winning 5C contract instead of a failing 4H contract. It seems to me that all the information the player received from his partner's alert was information that was available to him: (a) If his 2S bid was a slip of the hand, then the only information he has received is knowledge of the legal auction, which seems to me to be clearly AI (L16). (b) If he had somehow got it into his head that 2S was not a jump, then that is information that was also available to him (from the laws). It is not quite as clear from L16 that this is AI. On the other hand, all it would have taken to wake him up was a look at the table. The NA did not distinguish between the (a) and (b) cases; they implied that it made no difference, since the player had not attempted to change his call. They did adjust, saying that the alert was UI, and that the player had a duty to avoid taking advantage of it, and would have had that duty even if he had discovered his mistake on his own before receiving the UI. I disagreed quite strongly with this, and I still do. In the (a) case, it seems obvious to me that the information is AI: L16 says that the legal auction is AI. In both of the (a) and (b) cases, I think we will get into a mess if we accept that available information can be UI. Example 2 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D I have a nice long spade suit, and I open 4S. LHO asks partner what 4S shows. Partner says "About 8 playing tricks", and I now realize that the vulnerability I had in mind when opening was that of the previous board, where we were non-vulnerable against vulnerable, but now we are vulnerable against non-vulnerable. Partner makes a slam invitation. Is it UI for me that I have shown 8 tricks rather than the 6 I thought I showed at the time of bidding? IMO, this should be AI. It is information freely available: it is even visible on the table. (Of course, if I had forgotten my system rather than the vulnerability, then it would be UI: information about my system from partner.) Example 3 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D My RHO opens 2D, alerted. Stupidly assuming it is Multi, which about 80% of our club plays, I bid 2H, alerted. At his turn, my partner asks what 2D meant, and is told that it shows a strong hand with diamonds or a weak hand with hearts. Oops. Do I now have an obligation to continue bidding as if opponents' 2D was a Multi and my 2H bid showed my actual hand? IMO, this should be AI. Opponents' system is information freely available. Example 4 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D As example 3, but as I bid 2H, my partner tells me "Remember, they're not playing multi". IMO this should be AI to me, and I should have the opportunity to make a L25B change of call. And afterwards the TD should hit partner with L72B1. Example 5 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D As example 3, but my 2H happens to be alertable against one meaning of 2D, but not against the other, and I wake up because of partner's alert. This should IMO still be AI: it is information about opponents' system. The fact that it happened to be partner who gave me that information is irrelevant: the information is available to me. The alert is not an irregularity, so L72B1 is of course not relevant. Conclusion =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D As I wrote that time long ago, I believe all of these situations could be resolved in a reasonable way by making it explicit that information that you are automatically entitled to is AI, even if you get it from partner, and even if you get it through an infraction of partner's. But in the latter case, L72B1 and L90 can be used afterwards. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From svenpran@online.no Tue Nov 25 00:43:54 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 01:43:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBLLC minutes - 2005 Law 16 In-Reply-To: <0065svkmf56m6pijet6oisb17dciq8d180@nuser.dybdal.dk> Message-ID: <000001c3b2ed$35061450$6900a8c0@WINXP> Hello Jesper, May I cast my vote here: I have a strong feeling that in all the = examples you have provided below we would rule UI in Norway, at least that is my personal opinion. (I am not speaking on behalf of the Norwegian LC!) In short we use the following principle as far as I know: If a player = has made a mistake in any of his calls, not so that the call is illegal but = so it deviates from the partnership agreements then he shall not be = permitted to discover this mistake from any action by partner other than his = calls. That means that if partner's alert, missing alert, stop, missing stop or response to questions from opponents etc. is the action that (probably) alerts the player of his mistake then such action by partner is UI to = him. A similar principle is applied when a player gives misinformation = believing that he gives the correct information. He shall be bound by his understanding even when partner's action other than calls alerts him of = his mistake. As for the information being freely available, it is your fault if you = in spite of this have not secured the correct information when you need it. Like when you believe opponents play multi 2D and base your auction on = that. If opponents somehow alerts you that they do not then that information = is AI to you, but if your partner says something to that effect or calls your attention to opponents CC (in order to alert you) then his action is = clearly extraneous and UI to you. And I believe this is the correct understanding of Law 16. Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Jesper Dybdal > Sent: 25. november 2003 01:09 > To: grandeval > Cc: Bridge Laws List > Subject: Re: [blml] ACBLLC minutes - 2005 Law 16 >=20 > Hi Grattan, >=20 > On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 20:38:16 -0000, "grandeval" > wrote: >=20 > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Jesper Dybdal" > >To: "Bridge Laws List" > >Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 7:01 PM > >Subject: Re: [blml] ACBLLC minutes - 2005 Law 16 > > > >But I'd like to take the opportunity to mention (not for the first > >time) that I would like the laws to say that any information that is > >legally available to a player just for the asking (opponents' system, > >vulnerability, the bidding so far, etc.) is always authorized, even = if > >is it actually received through an infraction. If it is received > >through an infraction, then that infraction could be subject to > >penalty under L90 and/or L72B1, but the information should still be > >AI. > >-- > >+=3D+ Hi Jesper, > > Let me be clear what you are saying. > > It looks at first sight as though all the information you = cite > >is information available to the player before the irregularity > >occurs. How do you say he might 'receive' that information from > >an infraction? Can you give me an example of what you fear? > > ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ >=20 > Yes, it is information available to the player before the irregularity > occurs that I am concerned about. If you overlook, or do not ask = about, > such information, but then receive it through an action of your = partner, > then IMO it should still be AI. If the action from partner is an > irregularity, L72B1 could apply; if the action from partner is legal, > then there is nothing to penalize. >=20 > Here are some examples - the first one is real, the others are > completely or to a large extent made up: >=20 >=20 > Example 1 > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >=20 > The example I primarily remember as a problem, and which made me want = to > have something about this in the laws, was appeal 00-LK-1 to the = Danish > National Authority. The appeal is described in detail (in Danish) at > http://www.bridge.dk/lov/ak/sager/00/lk-1.htm. >=20 > The problem was a player who responded 2S to his partner's 1H opening. >=20 > It was established by the TD and AC, and accepted by the NA, that: > * The jump in spades was artificial, showing shortness in spades; > * A non-jump in spades would have been natural; > * The player had a spade suit, did not intend to jump, and did not use > the stop card - either he thought he had bid 1S, or he thought at the > time of bidding that 2S was not a jump; > * There was no suggestion of the player not knowing his system: the = only > thing he did not know was either what bidding card he had actually = used, > or that 2S was a jump; > * The player realized that something was wrong when his 2S call was > alerted by partner; > * The player did not attempt to correct his call at any time, but he > did, in the rest of the auction, use his knowledge that he had > misrepresented his hand by bidding 2S. He managed to steer the = auction > to a winning 5C contract instead of a failing 4H contract. >=20 > It seems to me that all the information the player received from his > partner's alert was information that was available to him: > (a) If his 2S bid was a slip of the hand, then the only information he > has received is knowledge of the legal auction, which seems to me to = be > clearly AI (L16). > (b) If he had somehow got it into his head that 2S was not a jump, = then > that is information that was also available to him (from the laws). = It > is not quite as clear from L16 that this is AI. On the other hand, = all > it would have taken to wake him up was a look at the table. >=20 > The NA did not distinguish between the (a) and (b) cases; they implied > that it made no difference, since the player had not attempted to = change > his call. They did adjust, saying that the alert was UI, and that the > player had a duty to avoid taking advantage of it, and would have had > that duty even if he had discovered his mistake on his own before > receiving the UI. >=20 > I disagreed quite strongly with this, and I still do. In the (a) = case, > it seems obvious to me that the information is AI: L16 says that the > legal auction is AI. In both of the (a) and (b) cases, I think we = will > get into a mess if we accept that available information can be UI. >=20 >=20 > Example 2 > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >=20 > I have a nice long spade suit, and I open 4S. LHO asks partner what = 4S > shows. >=20 > Partner says "About 8 playing tricks", and I now realize that the > vulnerability I had in mind when opening was that of the previous = board, > where we were non-vulnerable against vulnerable, but now we are > vulnerable against non-vulnerable. >=20 > Partner makes a slam invitation. >=20 > Is it UI for me that I have shown 8 tricks rather than the 6 I thought = I > showed at the time of bidding? >=20 > IMO, this should be AI. It is information freely available: it is = even > visible on the table. (Of course, if I had forgotten my system rather > than the vulnerability, then it would be UI: information about my = system > from partner.) >=20 >=20 > Example 3 > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >=20 > My RHO opens 2D, alerted. Stupidly assuming it is Multi, which about > 80% of our club plays, I bid 2H, alerted. At his turn, my partner = asks > what 2D meant, and is told that it shows a strong hand with diamonds = or > a weak hand with hearts. >=20 > Oops. Do I now have an obligation to continue bidding as if = opponents' > 2D was a Multi and my 2H bid showed my actual hand? >=20 > IMO, this should be AI. Opponents' system is information freely > available. >=20 >=20 > Example 4 > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >=20 > As example 3, but as I bid 2H, my partner tells me "Remember, they're > not playing multi". >=20 > IMO this should be AI to me, and I should have the opportunity to make = a > L25B change of call. And afterwards the TD should hit partner with > L72B1. >=20 >=20 > Example 5 > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >=20 > As example 3, but my 2H happens to be alertable against one meaning of > 2D, but not against the other, and I wake up because of partner's = alert. >=20 > This should IMO still be AI: it is information about opponents' = system. > The fact that it happened to be partner who gave me that information = is > irrelevant: the information is available to me. The alert is not an > irregularity, so L72B1 is of course not relevant. >=20 >=20 > Conclusion > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >=20 > As I wrote that time long ago, I believe all of these situations could > be resolved in a reasonable way by making it explicit that information > that you are automatically entitled to is AI, even if you get it from > partner, and even if you get it through an infraction of partner's. = But > in the latter case, L72B1 and L90 can be used afterwards. > -- > Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. > http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Nov 25 01:57:44 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:57:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000d01c3b25d$58154f00$34bd193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: On Monday, Nov 24, 2003, at 02:33 US/Eastern, grandeval wrote: > +=+ You ask your NBO for guidance. +=+ In the United States, that would be the US Bridge Federation, right? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Nov 25 02:08:39 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 21:08:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000c01c3b28a$063874a0$f7deaf52@vaio> Message-ID: <4927DBB8-1EEC-11D8-9E8D-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Nov 24, 2003, at 07:53 US/Eastern, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Not that I side with him when it comes to interpretation of the law. I > agree > with Sven. Declarer names cards and dummy plays them. But sometimes > declarer > plays the dummy himself for whatever reason (normally a dummy that > went to > the bar or the loo). This is so common (at club level, it is > ridiculous in a > BB final) that it is acceptable procedure until we introduce a law that > explicitly forbids it (a very bad idea). Perhaps it's just pedantry, but declarer plays dummy's cards. Dummy then (usually) puts the card in the played position. That's what the law says. It seems perfectly clear to me. The law also says that declarer may, "when necessary" place dummy's cards in the played position himself. In the latter case, it seems irrelevant to me whether he names the card he moves or not - only when he names a *different* card is there a problem, and then I would take the named card to be the one played. That last seems only common sense. Or is this a case of "common sense.... isn't"? From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Nov 25 07:36:06 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 07:36:06 -0000 Subject: [blml] ACBLLC minutes - 2005 Law 16 References: <000901c3b221$1f221ca0$aada193e@4nrw70j> <0065svkmf56m6pijet6oisb17dciq8d180@nuser.dybdal.dk> Message-ID: <001e01c3b326$e661bcc0$0de1193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "grandeval" Cc: "Bridge Laws List" Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 12:09 AM Subject: Re: [blml] ACBLLC minutes - 2005 Law 16 Yes, it is information available to the player before the irregularity occurs that I am concerned about. If you overlook, or do not ask about, such information, but then receive it through an action of your partner, then IMO it should still be AI. If the action from partner is an irregularity, L72B1 could apply; if the action from partner is legal, then there is nothing to penalize. ----------------- \x/ -------------------- I have a nice long spade suit, and I open 4S. LHO asks partner what 4S shows. Partner says "About 8 playing tricks", and I now realize that the vulnerability I had in mind when opening was that of the previous board, where we were non-vulnerable against vulnerable, but now we are vulnerable against non-vulnerable. -------------------- \x/ --------------------------------- +=+ It seems to me that the real UI in the kind of examples you are quoting is the information that you have misbid, or the information that you have made a mistake - not the information that is already available to you but rather information drawing your attention to your own frailty. It is not your partner's prerogative to wet-nurse you, and I cannot say if the drafting subcommittee might be persuaded to change the current position on this. However, it will be looked at. (We have already made decisions on Law 16 but my implementation of them will be reviewed before the concrete sets. Meanwhile it is not for me to breach confidentiality and discuss the work publicly.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Nov 25 07:44:45 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 02:44:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] Who was right TD or AC? In-Reply-To: <200311250224.SAA24618@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <3D456686-1F1B-11D8-ABF8-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Nov 24, 2003, at 21:24 US/Eastern, Adam Beneschan wrote: > It could be that the regulations (and ACBL policy) have changed since > then. So we have no idea, really, what the current situation is. Hm. From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Nov 25 07:49:59 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 07:49:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dummy play References: Message-ID: <003601c3b328$d6972800$0de1193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 1:57 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy play > > On Monday, Nov 24, 2003, at 02:33 US/Eastern, grandeval wrote: > > > +=+ You ask your NBO for guidance. +=+ > > In the United States, that would be the US Bridge Federation, right? > +=+ Don't ask me for guidance on the facts of life in the United States! The individuals and the bodies that are lacking information are adult and should not wait to be spoon fed. If they lack knowledge they should open their mouths and ask for it - the TD should ask his mentors at the NBO, and the NBO should ask the Zonal Org for any information or guidance it needs. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Nov 25 09:29:27 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 04:29:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <003601c3b328$d6972800$0de1193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: On Tuesday, Nov 25, 2003, at 02:49 US/Eastern, grandeval wrote: > Don't ask me for guidance on the facts of life in the United States! You miss the point. De jure, the NBO for the United States is the USBF. De facto, it's the ACBL, which is *not*, according to the WBF charter, an NBO. From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Nov 25 09:30:45 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:30:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBLLC minutes - 2005 Law 16 In-Reply-To: <0065svkmf56m6pijet6oisb17dciq8d180@nuser.dybdal.dk> References: <000901c3b221$1f221ca0$aada193e@4nrw70j> <0065svkmf56m6pijet6oisb17dciq8d180@nuser.dybdal.dk> Message-ID: <3FC32145.9070607@hdw.be> Hello Jesper, quite an interesting collection you have here: Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > Yes, it is information available to the player before the irregularity > occurs that I am concerned about. If you overlook, or do not ask about, > such information, but then receive it through an action of your partner, > then IMO it should still be AI. If the action from partner is an > irregularity, L72B1 could apply; if the action from partner is legal, > then there is nothing to penalize. > let me return to this at some later stage. > Here are some examples - the first one is real, the others are > completely or to a large extent made up: > > > Example 1 > ========= > > The example I primarily remember as a problem, and which made me want to > have something about this in the laws, was appeal 00-LK-1 to the Danish > National Authority. The appeal is described in detail (in Danish) at > http://www.bridge.dk/lov/ak/sager/00/lk-1.htm. > > The problem was a player who responded 2S to his partner's 1H opening. > > It was established by the TD and AC, and accepted by the NA, that: > * The jump in spades was artificial, showing shortness in spades; > * A non-jump in spades would have been natural; > * The player had a spade suit, did not intend to jump, and did not use > the stop card - either he thought he had bid 1S, or he thought at the > time of bidding that 2S was not a jump; > * There was no suggestion of the player not knowing his system: the only > thing he did not know was either what bidding card he had actually used, > or that 2S was a jump; > * The player realized that something was wrong when his 2S call was > alerted by partner; > * The player did not attempt to correct his call at any time, but he > did, in the rest of the auction, use his knowledge that he had > misrepresented his hand by bidding 2S. He managed to steer the auction > to a winning 5C contract instead of a failing 4H contract. > > It seems to me that all the information the player received from his > partner's alert was information that was available to him: > (a) If his 2S bid was a slip of the hand, then the only information he > has received is knowledge of the legal auction, which seems to me to be > clearly AI (L16). quite clear IMO as well. > (b) If he had somehow got it into his head that 2S was not a jump, then > that is information that was also available to him (from the laws). It > is not quite as clear from L16 that this is AI. On the other hand, all > it would have taken to wake him up was a look at the table. > indeed not as clear, but since I fail to see this as a real possibility, I don't care. > The NA did not distinguish between the (a) and (b) cases; they implied > that it made no difference, since the player had not attempted to change > his call. They did adjust, saying that the alert was UI, and that the > player had a duty to avoid taking advantage of it, and would have had > that duty even if he had discovered his mistake on his own before > receiving the UI. > > I disagreed quite strongly with this, and I still do. In the (a) case, > it seems obvious to me that the information is AI: L16 says that the > legal auction is AI. In both of the (a) and (b) cases, I think we will > get into a mess if we accept that available information can be UI. > I agree with your disagreement. So far, so good. > > Example 2 > ========= > > I have a nice long spade suit, and I open 4S. LHO asks partner what 4S > shows. > > Partner says "About 8 playing tricks", and I now realize that the > vulnerability I had in mind when opening was that of the previous board, > where we were non-vulnerable against vulnerable, but now we are > vulnerable against non-vulnerable. > > Partner makes a slam invitation. > > Is it UI for me that I have shown 8 tricks rather than the 6 I thought I > showed at the time of bidding? > > IMO, this should be AI. It is information freely available: it is even > visible on the table. (Of course, if I had forgotten my system rather > than the vulnerability, then it would be UI: information about my system > from partner.) > Here I don't agree. Without the explanation, you have no reason to start looking for the reason why the explanation is not correct. You have no reason whatsoever to start looking for the vulnerability after you have failed to do so (or done incorrectly) the first time around. Asking for a repeat of the auction (which equates to looking at the bidding cards on the table) is a routine action, done almost every time one needs to make a further call. Asking about the vulnerability is normally done only when making a call that is dependent on that info. Once you have described your hand (IYO) as a 6-trick one, an asking bid by partner must be answered as a maximum when actually holding seven tricks. > > Example 3 > ========= > > My RHO opens 2D, alerted. Stupidly assuming it is Multi, which about > 80% of our club plays, I bid 2H, alerted. At his turn, my partner asks > what 2D meant, and is told that it shows a strong hand with diamonds or > a weak hand with hearts. > > Oops. Do I now have an obligation to continue bidding as if opponents' > 2D was a Multi and my 2H bid showed my actual hand? > > IMO, this should be AI. Opponents' system is information freely > available. > This one is more difficult. If the auction continues casually, I might rule UI. But if the auction now goes all over the place, I would rule that it would be normal for you to check some fact of opponent's system, thereby turning your UI into AI. For example, if your LHO bids 3He over your 2He, and this is passed around to you, you would probably want to inquire what 3He means, and the meaning of 2Di would now become AI to you as well. > > Example 4 > ========= > > As example 3, but as I bid 2H, my partner tells me "Remember, they're > not playing multi". > > IMO this should be AI to me, and I should have the opportunity to make a > L25B change of call. And afterwards the TD should hit partner with > L72B1. > I would rule the same as above, with a PP to your partner. > > Example 5 > ========= > > As example 3, but my 2H happens to be alertable against one meaning of > 2D, but not against the other, and I wake up because of partner's alert. > > This should IMO still be AI: it is information about opponents' system. > The fact that it happened to be partner who gave me that information is > irrelevant: the information is available to me. The alert is not an > irregularity, so L72B1 is of course not relevant. > Again, same answer. > > Conclusion > ========== > > As I wrote that time long ago, I believe all of these situations could > be resolved in a reasonable way by making it explicit that information > that you are automatically entitled to is AI, even if you get it from > partner, and even if you get it through an infraction of partner's. But > in the latter case, L72B1 and L90 can be used afterwards. I don't agree. Information that you have not enquired about, and receive through actions of your partner must be UI to you, unless it would be unreasonable to assume that you would not enquire about it at the moment it matters. Information that you have not yet had a chance to enquire about, and receive through actions of your partner, are of course AI. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From dhh@inter.net.il Tue Nov 25 21:56:18 2003 From: dhh@inter.net.il (Dany Haimovici) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 23:56:18 +0200 Subject: [blml] Who was right TD or AC? References: <20031122054420.EAAAE1658@portal.hot.ee> <3FC152AB.4312FB55@inter.net.il> <3FC1BE8D.6030008@hdw.be> Message-ID: <3FC3D002.D859D76E@inter.net.il> Dear Herman, I tried to explain and ESTABLISH that in this case North's hesitation "hunts" TWO Logical Alternatives - in spite of the uncertainety - just BECAUSE of the uncertainty. A player can be of the intermediate level or less , just with a small amount of experience , to understand that he can "hunt" both possibilities , hesitating. Can you explain us why this conclusion is totally wrong ??? (Exclude the possibility North did it on purpose - if he did , IMHO kick him out from the club). Dany Herman De Wael wrote: > Hello Dany, long time no see! > > Dany Haimovici wrote: > > Hello All > > > > My first message after almost 2 years of silence. But let go back to > > business : > > welcome back! > > > > > The case presented by Mr. Kastan is a well-known situation which > > minimizes the number of bridge players in clubs during the last years. > > > > Only because the Directors don't do their jobs. > > > IMHO north's hesitation is a 101% UI , telling South "~... I do not > > know for sure if your 3Cl is a strong hand or a "shape" hand , if > > West's 4Sp was to make or to preempt, therefore : > > a. if it's a strong hand -> double > > b. if it's shape -> bid ...~" > > > > I don't want to argue with this conclusion. I have not analysed the > problem fully. So I'll follow Dany's reasoning - which continues: > > > As I was taught during the former millenium that the "hesitation"'s > > partner is not allowed to choose a LA strongly or evidently or etc.. > > suggested by the hesitation, > > both a. & b. LA are not allowed ; only the 3rd LA , i.e. PASS is > > acceptable . > > And conclusion this is wrong. > > If the hesitation indicates that partner is uncertain about the > meaning of the original call, then such hesitation carries no > suggestion to the player. HE knows what he intended with his first > call, and he therefore knows what partner's call should signify. > > The hesitation adds no suggestion to the call. It merely adds an > indication of uncertainty. > > Mind you, that is just my conclusion from Dany's original presumption. > > > > > -- > 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 blml@dybdal.dk Tue Nov 25 23:30:07 2003 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 00:30:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBLLC minutes - 2005 Law 16 In-Reply-To: <001e01c3b326$e661bcc0$0de1193e@4nrw70j> References: <000901c3b221$1f221ca0$aada193e@4nrw70j> <0065svkmf56m6pijet6oisb17dciq8d180@nuser.dybdal.dk> <001e01c3b326$e661bcc0$0de1193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 07:36:06 -0000, "grandeval" wrote: >----- Original Message -----=20 >From: "Jesper Dybdal" >Subject: Re: [blml] ACBLLC minutes - 2005 Law 16 >... > >I have a nice long spade suit, and I open 4S. LHO asks partner what 4S >shows. > >Partner says "About 8 playing tricks", and I now realize that the >vulnerability I had in mind when opening was that of the previous board, >where we were non-vulnerable against vulnerable, but now we are >vulnerable against non-vulnerable. > >-------------------- \x/ --------------------------------- > >+=3D+ It seems to me that the real UI in the kind of examples you >are quoting is the information that you have misbid, or the >information that you have made a mistake - not the information >that is already available to you but rather information drawing=20 >your attention to your own frailty. My point is that there is no difference. The information that we are vulnerable is, in the context of other information I also have, the same as the information that I have made a mistake. If someone tells me "you are vulnerable", I'll know I've made a mistake; if someone tells me "you've made a mistake", I'll very quickly know that I am vulnerable. An aspect that I don't think was covered by my examples is the fact that it is quite often that a player is woken from such inattention before he happens to have taken action where it makes a difference. I'll try one more example: I play Multi, and I open 2D on a hand that I, believing we are non-vulnerable, have decided to show as a maximum weak spade hand. Now my partner answers a question from an opponent in a way that wakes me to the fact that we are actually vulnerable. On the second round of bidding I need to show my hand. Am I now obliged to still show it as a maximum hand, even though I know that being vulnerable, it is closer to a minimum hand? If it is UI that I am vulnerable in the 4S example quoted above, then surely it is also UI here; the only difference is that I am the only who knows that I have UI. But if I had happened to notice the vulnerability myself before partner answered the question, then it would surely be AI. The point about this kind of information is that you can get it from partner, but you can also get it by just looking at the table (or, in the case of opponents' system, by asking or looking at the CC). And nobody else knows whether and when you got it by looking at the table. And even if you didn't get it first by looking at the table, it is typically extremely likely that you would actually have got it by yourself if partner hadn't happened to tell you first - in which case, there is no damage anyway. My suggestion of ruling all such information as AI by definition is aimed at removing those irritating situations where nobody knows what the player knew when, but everybody knows that he had a basic right to the knowledge. It would make certains situations simpler, and it would IMO not be less fair - provided L72B1 and L90 are still in effect to handle the situation where information is passed illegally. >However, it will be looked at. Thanks. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From blml@dybdal.dk Tue Nov 25 23:30:07 2003 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 00:30:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBLLC minutes - 2005 Law 16 In-Reply-To: <000001c3b2ed$35061450$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <0065svkmf56m6pijet6oisb17dciq8d180@nuser.dybdal.dk> <000001c3b2ed$35061450$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 01:43:54 +0100, "Sven Pran" wrote: >That means that if partner's alert, missing alert, stop, missing stop or >response to questions from opponents etc. is the action that (probably) >alerts the player of his mistake then such action by partner is UI to = him. But I assume that if it seems extremely likely that he would have discovered it in time on his own, then you rule no damage and do not adjust? =46or instance, I find it almost unbelievable that a player who has inadvertently misbid, should not discover what he has actually bid at the latest just before his next turn. So in many cases I think it makes no difference whether it is UI or not. My suggestion would make things simpler by not adjusting in the other cases either. >As for the information being freely available, it is your fault if you = in >spite of this have not secured the correct information when you need it. >Like when you believe opponents play multi 2D and base your auction on = that. >If opponents somehow alerts you that they do not then that information = is AI >to you, but if your partner says something to that effect or calls your >attention to opponents CC (in order to alert you) then his action is = clearly >extraneous and UI to you. In that case, I just happen to believe that bridge is a better game if everybody knows their opponents' system - regardless of how they got to know it. Of course, that does not mean that I would not use L90 and L72B1 if the partner gave that information as an irregularity, especially if he was deliberately waking up his partner. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From blml@dybdal.dk Tue Nov 25 23:30:09 2003 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 00:30:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBLLC minutes - 2005 Law 16 In-Reply-To: <3FC32145.9070607@hdw.be> References: <000901c3b221$1f221ca0$aada193e@4nrw70j> <0065svkmf56m6pijet6oisb17dciq8d180@nuser.dybdal.dk> <3FC32145.9070607@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:30:45 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: > >> Example 2 >> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >>=20 >> I have a nice long spade suit, and I open 4S. LHO asks partner what = 4S >> shows. >>=20 >> Partner says "About 8 playing tricks", and I now realize that the >> vulnerability I had in mind when opening was that of the previous = board, >> where we were non-vulnerable against vulnerable, but now we are >> vulnerable against non-vulnerable. > >Here I don't agree. Without the explanation, you have no reason to=20 >start looking for the reason why the explanation is not correct. You=20 >have no reason whatsoever to start looking for the vulnerability after=20 > you have failed to do so (or done incorrectly) the first time around. >Asking for a repeat of the auction (which equates to looking at the=20 >bidding cards on the table) is a routine action, done almost every=20 >time one needs to make a further call. Asking about the vulnerability=20 >is normally done only when making a call that is dependent on that=20 >info. You don't need to ask about the vulnerability: it is shown on the board. I don't think I could watch a whole round of bidding without happening to notice the vulnerability, but that may be different for others. But try to look at it separately from the "would he discover it" angle, and consider: will bridge be a better or worse game if everybody is allowed to use their knowledge of the vulnerability, regardless of how they got it? (Still with L72B1/L90 in force to handle cases of irregularities in the passing of information.) I think certain cases will be simpler, and since I don't really see any disadvantage (it is different, but IMO not less fair), my answer is "better". I could comment identically on your comments to the other examples. >Information that you have not enquired about, and=20 >receive through actions of your partner must be UI to you, unless it=20 >would be unreasonable to assume that you would not enquire about it at=20 >the moment it matters. I have no great objection to your opinions of my examples. I would prefer a different interpretation, and I would even more prefer a law that required it, but I can't say that yours is in any way wrong. I am pleased to see that you agree with me in example 1 and that you agree that sometimes (quite often, IMO) it is obvious that the player would have found the information by himself anyway. >Information that you have not yet had a chance to enquire about, and=20 >receive through actions of your partner, are of course AI. Yes. I assume that you agree that information (of this "available" type) that you have not yet needed as the basis for an action, and receive through actions of your partner, are also AI? If partner somehow mentions or implies that we are vulnerable before it has become my turn to choose my preempt level, nobody - not even I - can ever know whether I might otherwise have neglected to check the vulnerability. It is this "slippery" aspect of this type of information I don't like: we only very rarely know when and if a player had such information before his partner gave it to him. Some situations would be made simpler if we just said that it is AI, and I don't think bridge would become a less fair game because of that. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Nov 26 00:27:01 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:27:01 +1000 Subject: [blml] Dummy play Message-ID: >Why? Do NBOs have the power to guide contrary to the written law? > >Wayne RJH replies: If the law is an ass, yes. A similar consensus was reached in the thread "100%", when an exceptional situation under current Law mandated a pair getting 100%, while the sensible but unLawful solution was to refund the entry fee with apologies. Of course, when the wording of the Law is contrary to the normal practice and nature of bridge, NBOs giving guidance contrary to Law should only be a stopgap measure. As soon as practicably possible, the dead-letter Law should be amended to correspond to the normal practice and nature of bridge. For example, below is my version of a sensible Law 45B in 2005: "Declarer usually plays a card from dummy's hand by naming the card, after which dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table. In the absence of dummy, or for some other necessary reason, declarer may play a card from dummy's hand by picking up the desired 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 gesta@tiscali.co.uk Tue Nov 25 23:46:27 2003 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 23:46:27 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dummy play References: Message-ID: <002601c3b3ae$738c93e0$13182850@multivisionoem> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 9:29 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy play > > On Tuesday, Nov 25, 2003, at 02:49 US/Eastern, grandeval wrote: > > > Don't ask me for guidance on the facts of life in the United States! > > You miss the point. +=+ Oh, I think not. What you say in the remainder of the message is not my cross to bear. The ACBL constitutes Zone 2 of the WBF so I reckon it is entitled to answer the question if put. +=+ < > De jure, the NBO for the United States is the USBF. > De facto, it's the ACBL, which is *not*, according to > the WBF charter, an NBO. > From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Nov 26 00:42:20 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:42:20 +1000 Subject: [blml] Who was right TD or AC? Message-ID: Dany Haimovici: >I tried to explain and ESTABLISH that in this case >North's hesitation "hunts" TWO Logical Alternatives - >in spite of the uncertainty - just BECAUSE of the >uncertainty. Richard James Hills: I agree with Dany. Suppose this hypothetical case -> South West North East 3S 4H Pass(1) Pass ? (1) Break in tempo South has AI that their 3S opening was an underbid, due to the extra playing strength of a heart void. South has UI that North's break in tempo would demonstrably suggest one of two diametrically opposite reasons: (a) Considering a penalty double (b) Considering a 4S bid Some would argue that because the break in tempo suggests two opposite reasons, South may freely guess to rebid Double or rebid 4S. I strongly argue that only a rebid of Pass is permitted by Law 16 in this hypothetical case. 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 Tue Nov 25 23:52:44 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 00:52:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBLLC minutes - 2005 Law 16 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3b3af$388d7830$6900a8c0@WINXP> It all becomes a matter of judgment. Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Jesper Dybdal > Sent: 26. november 2003 00:30 > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] ACBLLC minutes - 2005 Law 16 >=20 > On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 01:43:54 +0100, "Sven Pran" > wrote: >=20 > >That means that if partner's alert, missing alert, stop, missing stop = or > >response to questions from opponents etc. is the action that = (probably) > >alerts the player of his mistake then such action by partner is UI to > him. >=20 > But I assume that if it seems extremely likely that he would have > discovered it in time on his own, then you rule no damage and do not > adjust? >=20 > For instance, I find it almost unbelievable that a player who has > inadvertently misbid, should not discover what he has actually bid at > the latest just before his next turn. >=20 > So in many cases I think it makes no difference whether it is UI or = not. > My suggestion would make things simpler by not adjusting in the other > cases either. >=20 > >As for the information being freely available, it is your fault if = you in > >spite of this have not secured the correct information when you need = it. > >Like when you believe opponents play multi 2D and base your auction = on > that. > >If opponents somehow alerts you that they do not then that = information is > AI > >to you, but if your partner says something to that effect or calls = your > >attention to opponents CC (in order to alert you) then his action is > clearly > >extraneous and UI to you. >=20 > In that case, I just happen to believe that bridge is a better game if > everybody knows their opponents' system - regardless of how they got = to > know it. Of course, that does not mean that I would not use L90 and > L72B1 if the partner gave that information as an irregularity, > especially if he was deliberately waking up his partner. >=20 > -- > Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. > http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Wed Nov 26 00:09:33 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 01:09:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3b3b1$91f6cdc0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au ............... > For example, below is my version of a sensible Law 45B in 2005: >=20 > "Declarer usually plays a card from dummy's hand by naming the > card, after which dummy picks up the card and faces it on the > table. >=20 > In the absence of dummy, or for some other necessary reason, > declarer may play a card from dummy's hand by picking up the > desired card." Yes this seems a sensible amendment of Law 45B - and you would create = five years (until the revision in 2010) of endless discussions what reasons qualify as "necessary"? (The word "necessary" in laws and regulations describes a rather strong condition). Do you accept that declarer performs all activities in playing cards = from dummy if he feels for it? Do you accept that anybody present may take the seat in dummy's absence = and assist declarer in handling dummy's cards as directed by declarer? Do you accept that either defender in dummy's absence may assist = declarer in handling dummy's cards (if they offer) - again as directed by declarer? Determine exactly what you want to allow and what you want to prevent or forbid, and only then you should try suggesting a text for the law. Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Nov 26 01:23:37 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:23:37 +1000 Subject: [blml] ACBLLC minutes - 2005 Law 16 Message-ID: Jesper Dybdal: [snip] >I play Multi, and I open 2D on a hand that I, >believing we are non-vulnerable, have decided to show >as a maximum weak spade hand. Now my partner answers >a question from an opponent in a way that wakes me to >the fact that we are actually vulnerable. On the >second round of bidding I need to show my hand. Am I >now obliged to still show it as a maximum hand, even >though I know that being vulnerable, it is closer to >a minimum hand? Richard James Hills: In my opinion, yes. In my opinion, it is not Law 16 which is the most relevant Law, but rather Law 73A1: "Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of the calls and plays themselves." It is unLawful to be reminded about the vulnerability by a verbal communication from partner. Jesper Dybdal: >If it is UI that I am vulnerable in the 4S example >quoted above, then surely it is also UI here; the >only difference is that I am the only who knows that >I have UI. Richard James Hills: I have often acted Lawfully in situations where my alternative unLawful behaviour would undetectable. Jesper Dybdal: >But if I had happened to notice the vulnerability >myself before partner answered the question, then it >would surely be AI. [snip] Richard James Hills: I sort of disagree, depending on whether Jesper is advocating new Law or interpreting current Law. My interpretation of current Law is that prior "noticing" of your error does not convert UI from pard into AI. Rather, it is prior *action* erasing your error which is relevant. In Jesper's multi-2D example, an *actual* rebid describing his hand as a minimum *before* pard's UI is necessary to make pard's UI a nullity. 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 Wed Nov 26 01:23:30 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 02:23:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBLLC minutes - 2005 Law 16 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3b3bb$e74438d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Jesper Dybdal: >=20 > [snip] >=20 > >I play Multi, and I open 2D on a hand that I, > >believing we are non-vulnerable, have decided to show > >as a maximum weak spade hand. Now my partner answers > >a question from an opponent in a way that wakes me to > >the fact that we are actually vulnerable. On the > >second round of bidding I need to show my hand. Am I > >now obliged to still show it as a maximum hand, even > >though I know that being vulnerable, it is closer to > >a minimum hand? >=20 > Richard James Hills: >=20 > In my opinion, yes. In my opinion, it is not Law 16 > which is the most relevant Law, but rather Law 73A1: >=20 > "Communication between partners during the auction and > play shall be effected only by means of the calls and > plays themselves." >=20 > It is unLawful to be reminded about the vulnerability > by a verbal communication from partner. Principally I agree with Richard. However, in this particular case such a restriction shall obviously not = work because Jesper does not need to show any indication that he has changed = his mind BEFORE making his second call. (And to Richard: Law 73A1 is relevant in that it draws the line between available and extraneous information. Law 16 is relevant because it = imposes the restrictions applicable to a player receiving extraneous = information). Regards Sven From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Nov 26 04:31:41 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 23:31:41 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <002601c3b3ae$738c93e0$13182850@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <6E825205-1FC9-11D8-9E29-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Nov 25, 2003, at 18:46 US/Eastern, Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ Oh, I think not. What you say in the remainder of the message > is not my cross to bear. I suppose it's that of we USians. :-) > The ACBL constitutes Zone 2 of the WBF > so I reckon it is entitled to answer the question if put. If, as you say, the "trickle down" is from WBF to ZA to NBO, then yes. From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Nov 26 08:45:25 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:45:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBLLC minutes - 2005 Law 16 In-Reply-To: References: <000901c3b221$1f221ca0$aada193e@4nrw70j> <0065svkmf56m6pijet6oisb17dciq8d180@nuser.dybdal.dk> <001e01c3b326$e661bcc0$0de1193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <3FC46825.1080501@hdw.be> Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > I'll try one more example: > > I play Multi, and I open 2D on a hand that I, believing we are > non-vulnerable, have decided to show as a maximum weak spade hand. Now > my partner answers a question from an opponent in a way that wakes me to > the fact that we are actually vulnerable. On the second round of > bidding I need to show my hand. Am I now obliged to still show it as a > maximum hand, even though I know that being vulnerable, it is closer to > a minimum hand? If it is UI that I am vulnerable in the 4S example > quoted above, then surely it is also UI here; the only difference is > that I am the only who knows that I have UI. > There is no real difference in this example and the previous one, except for the fact that your hand now fits both stories: a maximum hand when non-vulnerable, and a minimum one when vulnerable. Which results in the fact that you are able to cover up your mistake, and not have to show that you have used UI to change your original meaning for the call. That simply means that you are cheating and that the laws don't cover all the cases where people might cheat. > But if I had happened to notice the vulnerability myself before partner > answered the question, then it would surely be AI. > Indeed, but we have that in all cases. If I make a bidding error, and I hear about it from partner's explanation, then also I could have "happened to notice it myself". You do not advocate changing the UI laws that much, do you? > The point about this kind of information is that you can get it from > partner, but you can also get it by just looking at the table (or, in > the case of opponents' system, by asking or looking at the CC). And > nobody else knows whether and when you got it by looking at the table. > And even if you didn't get it first by looking at the table, it is > typically extremely likely that you would actually have got it by > yourself if partner hadn't happened to tell you first - in which case, > there is no damage anyway. > > My suggestion of ruling all such information as AI by definition is > aimed at removing those irritating situations where nobody knows what > the player knew when, but everybody knows that he had a basic right to > the knowledge. It would make certains situations simpler, and it would > IMO not be less fair - provided L72B1 and L90 are still in effect to > handle the situation where information is passed illegally. > So you want to do away with a particular (hard) decision of the TD, by making legal something which has been illegal. I don't think the laws would be better for that. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Nov 26 08:52:15 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:52:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBLLC minutes - 2005 Law 16 In-Reply-To: References: <000901c3b221$1f221ca0$aada193e@4nrw70j> <0065svkmf56m6pijet6oisb17dciq8d180@nuser.dybdal.dk> <3FC32145.9070607@hdw.be> Message-ID: <3FC469BF.9050109@hdw.be> Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > You don't need to ask about the vulnerability: it is shown on the board. > I don't think I could watch a whole round of bidding without happening > to notice the vulnerability, but that may be different for others. > You may not, I have to make grave effort in looking at the vulnerability. > But try to look at it separately from the "would he discover it" angle, > and consider: will bridge be a better or worse game if everybody is > allowed to use their knowledge of the vulnerability, regardless of how > they got it? (Still with L72B1/L90 in force to handle cases of > irregularities in the passing of information.) > A worse game, IMO. Which should put an end to the discussion. > I think certain cases will be simpler, and since I don't really see any > disadvantage (it is different, but IMO not less fair), my answer is > "better". > > I could comment identically on your comments to the other examples. > > >>Information that you have not enquired about, and >>receive through actions of your partner must be UI to you, unless it >>would be unreasonable to assume that you would not enquire about it at >>the moment it matters. > > > I have no great objection to your opinions of my examples. I would > prefer a different interpretation, and I would even more prefer a law > that required it, but I can't say that yours is in any way wrong. I am > pleased to see that you agree with me in example 1 and that you agree > that sometimes (quite often, IMO) it is obvious that the player would > have found the information by himself anyway. > > >>Information that you have not yet had a chance to enquire about, and >>receive through actions of your partner, are of course AI. > > > Yes. I assume that you agree that information (of this "available" > type) that you have not yet needed as the basis for an action, and > receive through actions of your partner, are also AI? If partner > somehow mentions or implies that we are vulnerable before it has become > my turn to choose my preempt level, nobody - not even I - can ever know > whether I might otherwise have neglected to check the vulnerability. > Indeed. But if I have chosen my pre-empt level, I have no reason to check for the vulnerability level again. So if I now learn from my partner that the vulnerability is not the one I thought it was, that information is UI. > It is this "slippery" aspect of this type of information I don't like: > we only very rarely know when and if a player had such information > before his partner gave it to him. Some situations would be made > simpler if we just said that it is AI, and I don't think bridge would > become a less fair game because of that. The problem is, Jesper, that this "slippery" aspect of information exists for all sorts of information. You are only talking about "entitled" information here, where you might be able to remove the slippiness by changing the UI law in such a manner that actually changes the game. You can do nothing about the slippiness of other types of UI. So while you are trying to make life easier on TD's, you are actually creating yet another dichotomy: you create yet another decision for the TD to make: is this information "entitled" or not? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Nov 26 08:57:21 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:57:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Who was right TD or AC? In-Reply-To: <3FC3D002.D859D76E@inter.net.il> References: <20031122054420.EAAAE1658@portal.hot.ee> <3FC152AB.4312FB55@inter.net.il> <3FC1BE8D.6030008@hdw.be> <3FC3D002.D859D76E@inter.net.il> Message-ID: <3FC46AF1.2040406@hdw.be> Hello Dany, Dany Haimovici wrote: > Dear Herman, > > I tried to explain and ESTABLISH that in this case North's hesitation > "hunts" TWO Logical Alternatives - in spite of the uncertainety - just > BECAUSE of the uncertainty. > > A player can be of the intermediate level or less , just with a small amount > of experience , to understand that he can "hunt" both possibilities , > hesitating. > Can you explain us why this conclusion is totally wrong ??? > (Exclude the possibility North did it on purpose - if he did , IMHO kick > him out from the club). > I don't understand this. I don't know what you mean by "hunt". I think you misunderstood my point. You say that you interpret the hesitation as "not knowing what the previous auction means". In that case, the hesitation gives no information about the own hand. So it "suggests" no alternative. So partner is not barred from selecting any action. > Dany > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > >>Hello Dany, long time no see! >> >>Dany Haimovici wrote: >> >>>Hello All >>> >>>My first message after almost 2 years of silence. But let go back to >>>business : >> >>welcome back! >> >> >>>The case presented by Mr. Kastan is a well-known situation which >>>minimizes the number of bridge players in clubs during the last years. >>> >> >>Only because the Directors don't do their jobs. >> >> >>>IMHO north's hesitation is a 101% UI , telling South "~... I do not >>>know for sure if your 3Cl is a strong hand or a "shape" hand , if >>>West's 4Sp was to make or to preempt, therefore : >>>a. if it's a strong hand -> double >>>b. if it's shape -> bid ...~" >>> >> >>I don't want to argue with this conclusion. I have not analysed the >>problem fully. So I'll follow Dany's reasoning - which continues: >> >> >>>As I was taught during the former millenium that the "hesitation"'s >>>partner is not allowed to choose a LA strongly or evidently or etc.. >>>suggested by the hesitation, >>>both a. & b. LA are not allowed ; only the 3rd LA , i.e. PASS is >>>acceptable . >> >>And conclusion this is wrong. >> >>If the hesitation indicates that partner is uncertain about the >>meaning of the original call, then such hesitation carries no >>suggestion to the player. HE knows what he intended with his first >>call, and he therefore knows what partner's call should signify. >> >>The hesitation adds no suggestion to the call. It merely adds an >>indication of uncertainty. >> >>Mind you, that is just my conclusion from Dany's original presumption. >> >> >>-- >>Herman DE WAEL >>Antwerpen Belgium >>http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml@rtflb.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Nov 26 09:20:17 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:20:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Who was right TD or AC? In-Reply-To: <3FC3D002.D859D76E@inter.net.il> References: <20031122054420.EAAAE1658@portal.hot.ee> <3FC152AB.4312FB55@inter.net.il> <3FC1BE8D.6030008@hdw.be> <3FC3D002.D859D76E@inter.net.il> Message-ID: <3FC47051.2070001@hdw.be> Thinking about it some more, I have found an illustration of the point I was trying to make. Imagine the following story with two possible versions: N: 1NT - E: 2He version one: W alerts, explains as transfer spades. S passes. W thinks for 1 minute and bids 2Sp. version two: W indicates doubt, thinks for 1 minute. W alerts, explains as transfer spades. S passes, W bids 2Sp. both versions : N:pass, E:3Sp, W:4Sp. In both versions there is UI. But in version one the UI means "I don't know if I should bid 2Sp or more", so the action which is suggested (and thus perhaps illegal) is 3Sp. While in version two the UI means "I don't know if 2He is natural or transfer". Now no action is suggested and E can raise to 3Sp. OK Dany? Dany Haimovici wrote: > Dear Herman, > > I tried to explain and ESTABLISH that in this case North's hesitation > "hunts" TWO Logical Alternatives - in spite of the uncertainety - just > BECAUSE of the uncertainty. > > A player can be of the intermediate level or less , just with a small amount > of experience , to understand that he can "hunt" both possibilities , > hesitating. > Can you explain us why this conclusion is totally wrong ??? > (Exclude the possibility North did it on purpose - if he did , IMHO kick > him out from the club). > > Dany > > Herman De Wael wrote: > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Nov 26 09:26:27 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:26:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Who was right TD or AC? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3FC471C3.4080506@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Dany Haimovici: > > >>I tried to explain and ESTABLISH that in this case >>North's hesitation "hunts" TWO Logical Alternatives - >>in spite of the uncertainty - just BECAUSE of the >>uncertainty. > > > Richard James Hills: > > I agree with Dany. Suppose this hypothetical case -> > > South West North East > 3S 4H Pass(1) Pass > ? > > (1) Break in tempo > > South has AI that their 3S opening was an underbid, > due to the extra playing strength of a heart void. > > South has UI that North's break in tempo would > demonstrably suggest one of two diametrically > opposite reasons: > > (a) Considering a penalty double > (b) Considering a 4S bid > > Some would argue that because the break in tempo > suggests two opposite reasons, South may freely > guess to rebid Double or rebid 4S. I strongly > argue that only a rebid of Pass is permitted by > Law 16 in this hypothetical case. > Yes Richard, you are right. But by removing some of the cluttering auction, you have also removed my point. In your case, it is clear that North is considering whether to pass or not. So whatever he thinks the auction means (and in your simplified example there can be no doubt), he was considering bidding something else. In Dany's example (or at least the way I understood it), the transferred North was thinking of something else: he was trying to figure out what the previous auction meant. He was not in doubt about what to bid once he figured out what was going on. If that is the truth, then there is no additional meaning to attribute to the hesitation, no UI suggesting any action, no bar on partner. > Best wishes > Only one month to go to the holidays, so I'll also start sending best wishes. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Nov 26 14:13:17 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:13:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Information gained through partner's action - AI or UI? Message-ID: <3FC4B4FD.90608@hdw.be> I'm trying to recap some of the things said in some threads. The question is whether or not information which he receives through actions of his partner, is AI or UI. Jesper started this ball rolling by stating that he thinks the laws should be changed so that this information is always AI, if the player is entitled to it. However, I believe such a change would not be beneficial to the game. In one sense Jesper is right. It is very difficult to prove that a player would not enquire about things he is entitled to. However, I believe that we must do this, and that we can. First of all, let us see the full grasp of the problem, after which we shall see that if Jesper has his way, much more would change than currently Jesper wants. First of all, let us make a list of all the things we consider "entitled" information. "Entitled" is a word I have been using on this list for some time now, probably even contrary to correct English grammatical use, and without any reference to any Law or Regulation. Entitled information is that information which a player must necessarily possess. If he does not, he may well be due some redress. Examples of entitled information are : - the board number, dealer, and vulnerability; - during the bidding, the bidding so far; - during the play, the final contract; - the cards played to the current trick, and the last one until one's own card is turned; - the opponents' bidding and play conventions. The opposite of entitled information is non-entitled information. It is information which a player may or may not have, but for which there can be no redress if he does not have it. Examples of non-entitled information are : - one's own conventions; - during the play, the bidding; - the cards played before the current trick; - the number of tricks already made and conceded; - anything that happens or has happened at another table; Both types of information can come from one of two sources: authorized sources and non-authorized ones. The opponents are always authorized sources; Your partner is always an unauthorized source; External facts may be authorized or not, in general, when they are not, the penalty for the use of UI is weaker than if the information comes from partner. Information is either authorized (AI) or unauthorized (UI). Information from Authorized sources is always AI; Information from Unauthorized sources is not always UI (see below); With me so far? Let us concentrate on just one unauthorized source: partner. Of course we include in this the answers that opponents give to questions asked by partner. First of all, let me say that not all information we receive from partner is UI. If partner is seated in second position, and he askes the meaning of first hand's bid, surely this is not UI to us. And that is not simply because such information should be entitled information. Even non-entitled information, received from partner, need not be UI. After all, whenever partner correctly explains our own bids, this is not UI. So the difference needs to lie elsewhere, and we see at once that Jesper's solution is not as simple as it seems. Even if he makes that all EI is always AI, there still remains the problem of NEI which comes from US, and need not be UI. In order to make the necessary distinctions, I need to make three more definitions: 1) Previously Held Information. Previously Held Information is information that the holder already knows before he is told the same thing by his partner. PHI is always AI. Information from US which confirms the PHI is AI. In order to determine whether some piece of information is PHI, we follow a few simple rules: - if a player has enquired about something, it is PHI; - if he hasn't, but it is something he can be expected to know (his own system, the basic system of opponents, the vulnerability), it is presumed to be PHI; - this presumption can be countered if his actions are not consistent with his presumed knowledge (bidding errors) 2) A more difficult concept is Subsequently Enquirable Information. SEI is non-PHI, information which the recipient does not yet know at the moment he receives it from US, but which he could enquire about at some later stage. 3) This leaves a third class, information which the recipient would not have a chance to enquire about - an example being answers to questions asked by your partner before you are making the opening lead. To coin another acronym, let's call this NEI Non-Enquirable Information. NEI is always UI. Let's return to SEI: SEI is either UI or AI, and I would presume that the difference would come from one particular reason: - if the recipient did not yet have a chance to enquire about the information, SEI is AI; - if the recipient had a chance to enquire, but did not take it because he did not feel the need, the SEI can still be AI; - if the recipient had a chance and a reason to enquire, but he did not take it, the SEI is UI. To summarize: At the moment of reception of some piece of information from partner, the information is either: - PHI Previously Held Information : AI; or - non-PHI, which can be: - NEI Non Enquirable Information : UI; or - SEI Subsequently Enquirable Information, which can be: - not previously enquirable : AI - previously enquirable, not enquired because no reason : (AI) - previously enquirable, not enquired : UI To take Jesper's example of the mistaken vulnerability and the pre-empt: The vulnerability is presumed PHI, but from the evidence it becomes clear that opener had not noticed, so it is deemed non-PHI; It is SEI, which was not enquired about. So I deem the information about the vulnerability : UI. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From john@asimere.com Wed Nov 26 18:57:33 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:57:33 +0000 Subject: [blml] purposeful change of call? Message-ID: playing on line with Tim, but it could happen f2f. mps, white. Me LHO Tim RHO 1N 2C x 3H slow alert by RHO (x is pens) 1N is 10.5-13 now becomes: 1N 2C 2D 4H whilst RHO has no UI, he has remembered *after* bidding 3H that 2C means both majors and has implied this before you call, and confirms it after the hand. (I've no intent to seek an adjustment, but found the legal position extremely complex). As a side issue, holding KQx Jx JTxx KTxx, what do you call? This is a minimum 1NT opener in our agreed methods, and it took me several minutes to construct Tim's hand (which I got more or less right). -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Nov 26 19:38:35 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:38:35 -0000 Subject: [blml] Quote of the day References: Message-ID: <002001c3b454$f5ff2ee0$3930e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > I'll try one more example: > > I play Multi, and I open 2D on a hand that I, believing we are > non-vulnerable, have decided to show as a maximum weak spade hand. Now > my partner answers a question from an opponent in a way that wakes me to > the fact that we are actually vulnerable. On the second round of > bidding I need to show my hand. Am I now obliged to still show it as a > maximum hand, even though I know that being vulnerable, it is closer to > a minimum hand? If it is UI that I am vulnerable in the 4S example > quoted above, then surely it is also UI here; the only difference is > that I am the only who knows that I have UI. > This is certainly UI; but like Jesper Dybdal I am troubled by the implication that the ethical player must ignore the information, for this would put the ethical player at too great a disadvantage to the unethical one. In general, legislators should try to avoid creating unenforceable laws: lawbreakers will get away with violating them (since they are unenforceable), while the law-abiding will put themselves at a disadvantage by obeying them--not at all a desirable result. The Law that says not to take advantage of UI (Law 73C) is really unenforceable, and bridge authorities have already in practice moved away from attempting to enforce it: instead of trying to determine whether a recipient of UI took advantage--acted differently, and more to his benefit, than he would have without the UI--the authorities apply a complex rule concerning what the recipient's peers would have done in his situation absent the UI. This, at least, is enforceable (one can poll a player's peers to find out what they would have done in a given situation), while it is usually quite futile to try to get inside the head of the recipient himself. Some of Jesper's cases show another respect in which Law 73C is unenforceable: there will sometimes be no external evidence that UI is present, hence no possibility of external enforcement. So as to avoid having a totally unenforceable law I agree with Jesper that in such a case--where there is no external evidence of UI--it should not be illegal to take advantage of UI. I think Law 73C should be replaced by something better enforceable. In view of current practice, the Law should be explicitly tied to what a player's peers would likely have done in his place without the UI, not at all to what the player himself would have done. Since the notion of "taking advantage" of UI involves a comparison between what the player did and what he himself would have done without the UI, it should not be against the law to take advantage of UI. The legal standard should be completely external to the mind of the UI recipient: he should be forbidden to take an action that, from the point of view of his peers, (a) was "demonstrably suggested" by the UI, (b) had a "logical alternative," and (c) worked to his advantage. Besides its other good features, such a law would handle Jesper's cases, since the "place" of the UI recipient, into which we are to imagine his peers as being inserted, will contain all the information to which he is entitled. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Nov 26 22:03:53 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 08:03:53 +1000 Subject: [blml] Information gained through partner's action - AI or UI? Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote: [big snip] >After all, whenever partner correctly explains our own >bids, this is not UI. [big snip] Richard James Hills replied: I disagree. Partner has given UI that partner has correctly remembered our partnership agreement. In most cases this UI will have trivial effect, but in cases where we play an agreement prone to forgetfulness - for example, the Ghestem convention - then partner's UI that pard is on the same wavelength may assist us to confidently bid to the par contract. 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 blml@dybdal.dk Wed Nov 26 23:27:49 2003 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 00:27:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBLLC minutes - 2005 Law 16 In-Reply-To: <3FC46825.1080501@hdw.be> References: <000901c3b221$1f221ca0$aada193e@4nrw70j> <0065svkmf56m6pijet6oisb17dciq8d180@nuser.dybdal.dk> <001e01c3b326$e661bcc0$0de1193e@4nrw70j> <3FC46825.1080501@hdw.be> Message-ID: <0ldasv0ggh5bgigm1ucgdddts4iuqtjbcl@nuser.dybdal.dk> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:45:25 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >>=20 >> I play Multi, and I open 2D on a hand that I, believing we are >> non-vulnerable, have decided to show as a maximum weak spade hand. = Now >> my partner answers a question from an opponent in a way that wakes me = to >> the fact that we are actually vulnerable. On the second round of >> bidding I need to show my hand. Am I now obliged to still show it as = a >> maximum hand, even though I know that being vulnerable, it is closer = to >> a minimum hand? If it is UI that I am vulnerable in the 4S example >> quoted above, then surely it is also UI here; the only difference is >> that I am the only who knows that I have UI. >>=20 >There is no real difference in this example and the previous one,=20 >except for the fact that your hand now fits both stories: a maximum=20 >hand when non-vulnerable, and a minimum one when vulnerable. >Which results in the fact that you are able to cover up your mistake,=20 >and not have to show that you have used UI to change your original=20 >meaning for the call. That simply means that you are cheating and that=20 >the laws don't cover all the cases where people might cheat. There is of course a variant of this example where I have bid 2D and is not going to worry about minimum or maximum until it turns out that I need to. When I then get to the point where I need to, I have somehow become aware of the vulnerability. Quite a few players would find it difficult to determine whether what they had just done is the one or the other. And very many players would be able to convince themselves that they had not worried about the vulnerability at all until after partner's explanation. As James Hudson has also pointed out, this is an undesirable situation to put players in. It requires not only very strong ethics, but also a lot of law knowledge and awareness of the legal aspects of the situation to do the right thing. Just about nobody will do the right thing in practice, and we are thus penalizing only the ethical and knowledgeable players. This does not mean that I am in principle against unenforceable laws: in many situations, particularly those where it is much easier for the ordinary player to realize that he has committed an infraction, unenforceable laws can be very much better than nothing. But when there is an alternative that does not seem to have any serious problems, then I would prefer the alternative. >> But if I had happened to notice the vulnerability myself before = partner >> answered the question, then it would surely be AI. >>=20 > >Indeed, but we have that in all cases. If I make a bidding error, and=20 >I hear about it from partner's explanation, then also I could have=20 >"happened to notice it myself". You do not advocate changing the UI=20 >laws that much, do you? No, certainly not. But there is some difference of degree: your bidding error (of the "forget the system" type) is typically not something that you will realize because you happen to look at the board. The probability of realizing a bidding error unaided is IMO typically much smaller than the probability of, for instance, happening to see the auction or the vulnerability. >So you want to do away with a particular (hard) decision of the TD, by=20 >making legal something which has been illegal. Exactly. Getting rid of hard decisions by specifying clearly in the laws what the decisions should be, is surely an important goal for every law revision - not out of consideration for the TD, but because it increases the chances that the same situations will be ruled in the same way by different directors. >I don't think the laws would be better for that. IMO it would increase simplicity, not decrease fairness, and not change any important aspect of the game. Thus making the laws better. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From blml@dybdal.dk Wed Nov 26 23:27:50 2003 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 00:27:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBLLC minutes - 2005 Law 16 In-Reply-To: <3FC469BF.9050109@hdw.be> References: <000901c3b221$1f221ca0$aada193e@4nrw70j> <0065svkmf56m6pijet6oisb17dciq8d180@nuser.dybdal.dk> <3FC32145.9070607@hdw.be> <3FC469BF.9050109@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:52:15 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: > >> It is this "slippery" aspect of this type of information I don't like: >> we only very rarely know when and if a player had such information >> before his partner gave it to him. Some situations would be made >> simpler if we just said that it is AI, and I don't think bridge would >> become a less fair game because of that. > >The problem is, Jesper, that this "slippery" aspect of information=20 >exists for all sorts of information. You are only talking about=20 >"entitled" information here, where you might be able to remove the=20 >slippiness by changing the UI law in such a manner that actually=20 >changes the game. You can do nothing about the slippiness of other=20 >types of UI. Two comments on that: * Other information is also "slippery", yes. But this type of information is usually more so, because it typically is information that you can receive without anybody else noticing. For "entitled information", it is even more difficult for others to judge/guess whether you have or have not received it in a legal way. * The fact that I can do nothing about something is not in itself a reason not to do something about things that I can do something about. > So while you are trying to make life easier on TD's, That I certainly am: the easier the TD's decisions are, the better is the chance that two TDs make the same decision - and the more fair is the game. > you=20 >are actually creating yet another dichotomy: you create yet another=20 >decision for the TD to make: is this information "entitled" or not? Yes, but I think that will usually be a very easy decision. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From blml@dybdal.dk Wed Nov 26 23:27:52 2003 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 00:27:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBLLC minutes - 2005 Law 16 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:23:37 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Jesper Dybdal: >>But if I had happened to notice the vulnerability >>myself before partner answered the question, then it >>would surely be AI. >Richard James Hills: > >I sort of disagree, depending on whether Jesper is >advocating new Law or interpreting current Law. > >My interpretation of current Law is that prior >"noticing" of your error does not convert UI from >pard into AI. This is the case when it is possible for an external observer (and thus the TD) to determine that there was UI. But I am sure that it is only the case because it is a practical need: it would otherwise be impossible to rule "UI" against players who said "I had realized that myself before partner's explanation" without calling them liars. In the case of a possible irregularity that only the offender himself can detect, we do not need to make practical considerations of the situations where the player is unethical - because those situations never reach a TD. So when, as here, we are concerned with about a situation where we can enjoy the luxury of only worrying about what is right, and not with what is practical, there is no reason at all to judge something as UI if it was there as AI first. >Rather, it is prior *action* erasing >your error which is relevant. As I said above, the reason for that is that only *action* can be externally determined. A consideration that is not relevant here. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From blml@dybdal.dk Wed Nov 26 23:27:54 2003 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 00:27:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Information gained through partner's action - AI or UI? In-Reply-To: <3FC4B4FD.90608@hdw.be> References: <3FC4B4FD.90608@hdw.be> Message-ID: <4obasv8g96b1mkgkpmnr3e9m2ehtngc9p6@nuser.dybdal.dk> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:13:17 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >The question is whether or not information which he receives through=20 >actions of his partner, is AI or UI. I am sure that we do not disagree here, but there ought to be something in this statement limiting it to information to which the player is entitled. I.e., information which he could legally obtain, for instance by checking the board or the opponents' CC, or by asking. >Jesper started this ball rolling by stating that he thinks the laws=20 >should be changed so that this information is always AI, if the player=20 >is entitled to it. Yes. >Entitled information is that information which a player must=20 >necessarily possess. If he does not, he may well be due some redress. I'd say information which a player has a right to: information which he can obtain legally if he wants to. >Examples of entitled information are : >- the board number, dealer, and vulnerability; >- during the bidding, the bidding so far; Strictly speaking, only the *legal* calls (L16). >- during the play, the final contract; >- the cards played to the current trick, and the last one until one's=20 >own card is turned; >- the opponents' bidding and play conventions. I would add "Most of the laws" to this list. At least those parts of the laws that specify what is legal and what is not. But probably not all of the laws: I don't think you are entitled to be told during the bidding what 7 redoubled undertricks cost (any other opinions about that, by the way?). >The opposite of entitled information is non-entitled information. It=20 >is information which a player may or may not have, but for which there=20 >can be no redress if he does not have it. It is first of all information that he cannot legally obtain by asking or by checking available material. >... >So the difference needs to lie elsewhere, and we=20 >see at once that Jesper's solution is not as simple as it seems. Even=20 >if he makes that all EI is always AI, there still remains the problem=20 >of NEI which comes from US, and need not be UI. Yes: my solution is not a solution to all UI problems in the world, only to some of them. >1) Previously Held Information. >Previously Held Information is information that the holder already=20 >knows before he is told the same thing by his partner. >PHI is always AI. Information from US which confirms the PHI is AI. Ok. >2) A more difficult concept is Subsequently Enquirable Information. > >SEI is non-PHI, information which the recipient does not yet know at=20 >the moment he receives it from US, but which he could enquire about at=20 >some later stage. Ok. >3) This leaves a third class, information which the recipient would=20 >not have a chance to enquire about - an example being answers to=20 >questions asked by your partner before you are making the opening lead. I am sure I understand what you mean here. Those answers are information about the opponents' system, and he could have enquired about it just as much as he liked. >To coin another acronym, let's call this NEI Non-Enquirable Information. >NEI is always UI. What? I think I must have misunderstood your NEI concept completely. Opponents bid a slam in a complicated auction. I believe that I do not need the auction explained in order to choose my opening lead, so I lead face down. Partner now asks about the auction (or he asked earlier, during the auction). You are surely not telling me that the information about opponents' system that I gain from the answer is UI for me? Apart from that, I think I understand your overview. I still see advantages and no real disadvantages to making SEI consistently AI. The advantages are: * Simplicity - thus the same rulings from different directors; * Fewer difficult judgements of own motives and knowledge for ethical players; * Fewer situations where unethical or law-ignorant players have an advantage over ethical players. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Nov 27 01:01:22 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 11:01:22 +1000 Subject: [blml] Enforcable ethics (was AI or UI?) Message-ID: James Hudson wrote: [snip] >this would put the ethical player at too great a >disadvantage to the unethical one. In general, >legislators should try to avoid creating >unenforceable laws: lawbreakers will get away >with violating them (since they are unenforceable), >while the law-abiding will put themselves at a >disadvantage by obeying them--not at all a >desirable result. [big snip] Richard Hills replies: I both agree and disagree with James. In my opinion, Law 73C states what a player should do, and Law 16 describes the corresponding enforcement of Law 73C. Similarly, Law 72B2 states what a player should do, and Laws 23 and 72B1 describe the corresponding enforcement of Law 72B2. However..... There are still some other Laws in the Proprieties which have not yet received similar enforcability updates. Law 74C5 still requires determining the "purpose" of the putative offender, and Law 72A2 still requires determining whether the putative offender acted "knowingly". But..... I do *not* believe that the solution to ethical players having a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis unethical players, is to change the Laws to legalise peeking and to legalise attempts to score unearned tricks. Unenforcable Laws still have merit as aspirational statements - Excelsior! I do *not* believe that a Gresham's Law of "Bad ethics drives out good ethics" necessarily applies in competitive bridge. Rather, in my experience, a reverse Gresham's Law often applies. Peekers find partners hard to get, as ethical players are unavailable. 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 Nov 27 01:13:20 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 11:13:20 +1000 Subject: [blml] Information gained through partner's action - AI or UI? Message-ID: Jesper Dybdal asked: >I would add "Most of the laws" to this list. At least >those parts of the laws that specify what is legal and >what is not. But probably not all of the laws: I don't >think you are entitled to be told during the bidding >what 7 redoubled undertricks cost (any other opinions >about that, by the way?). Footnote to Law 40E2: "A player is not entitled, during the auction and play periods, to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique....." Richard James Hills quibbles: Therefore, I would argue that it would UI to be reminded of *any* Law through partner's action. 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 Nov 27 06:37:30 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 16:37:30 +1000 Subject: [blml] purposeful change of call? Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst: >playing on line with Tim, but it could happen f2f. mps, white. > >Me LHO Tim RHO > >1N 2C x 3H slow alert by RHO (x is pens) 1N is 10.5-13 > >now becomes: > >1N 2C 2D 4H > >whilst RHO has no UI, he has remembered *after* bidding 3H that 2C mea= ns >both majors and has implied this before you call, and confirms it afte= r >the hand. (I've no intent to seek an adjustment, but found the legal >position extremely complex). Richard James Hills: Under Law 75D1, RHO does not have an option to further delay or avoid alerting - the Law uses the word "immediately". 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 hermandw@hdw.be Thu Nov 27 08:32:44 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 09:32:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBLLC minutes - 2005 Law 16 In-Reply-To: <0ldasv0ggh5bgigm1ucgdddts4iuqtjbcl@nuser.dybdal.dk> References: <000901c3b221$1f221ca0$aada193e@4nrw70j> <0065svkmf56m6pijet6oisb17dciq8d180@nuser.dybdal.dk> <001e01c3b326$e661bcc0$0de1193e@4nrw70j> <3FC46825.1080501@hdw.be> <0ldasv0ggh5bgigm1ucgdddts4iuqtjbcl@nuser.dybdal.dk> Message-ID: <3FC5B6AC.7010000@hdw.be> Hello Jesper, your arguments are valid, but I believe misguided. Jesper Dybdal wrote: > On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:45:25 +0100, Herman De Wael > wrote: > > >>Jesper Dybdal wrote: >> >>>I play Multi, and I open 2D on a hand that I, believing we are >>>non-vulnerable, have decided to show as a maximum weak spade hand. Now >>>my partner answers a question from an opponent in a way that wakes me to >>>the fact that we are actually vulnerable. On the second round of >>>bidding I need to show my hand. Am I now obliged to still show it as a >>>maximum hand, even though I know that being vulnerable, it is closer to >>>a minimum hand? If it is UI that I am vulnerable in the 4S example >>>quoted above, then surely it is also UI here; the only difference is >>>that I am the only who knows that I have UI. >>> >> >>There is no real difference in this example and the previous one, >>except for the fact that your hand now fits both stories: a maximum >>hand when non-vulnerable, and a minimum one when vulnerable. >>Which results in the fact that you are able to cover up your mistake, >>and not have to show that you have used UI to change your original >>meaning for the call. That simply means that you are cheating and that >>the laws don't cover all the cases where people might cheat. > > > There is of course a variant of this example where I have bid 2D and is > not going to worry about minimum or maximum until it turns out that I > need to. When I then get to the point where I need to, I have somehow > become aware of the vulnerability. Quite a few players would find it > difficult to determine whether what they had just done is the one or the > other. And very many players would be able to convince themselves that > they had not worried about the vulnerability at all until after > partner's explanation. > You are of course correct, Jesper. But I don't see the usefulness of your argument. We agree that there are three cases: A- those in which the player failed to notice the vulnerability, and did something which he can no longer cover up; B- those in which the player can cover up (by treating his hand as minimum rather than maximum); C- those in which he truely didn't need to bother about the vulnerability, and is right in enquiring about it at some later stage; Under the current laws, a player that lets his partner's remark influence his action acts illegally in cases A and B, and legally in case C. The TD will discover this illegality in case A, but not in B. Under your proposal, all three cases will become legal. So you have done nothing really in case B. You've just cleared up someone's conscience. Of course you have changed the law for the honest player, but how many of those will realize what you have changed. How many of them will realize that some things their partner tells them can be used, while some other things cannot? And at the same time you have made legal something we both agree is illegal now, and I don't hear you argueing that it should be legal, only that the laws are easier to apply if it is. > As James Hudson has also pointed out, this is an undesirable situation > to put players in. It requires not only very strong ethics, but also a > lot of law knowledge and awareness of the legal aspects of the situation > to do the right thing. Just about nobody will do the right thing in > practice, and we are thus penalizing only the ethical and knowledgeable > players. > But your situation puts the players in an even more undesirable situation. If the partner says, "we are vulnerable, so he must have 8 tricks", that is useable; but if he says "we are playing sound pre-empts, he must have 8 tricks", that is not useable. > This does not mean that I am in principle against unenforceable laws: in > many situations, particularly those where it is much easier for the > ordinary player to realize that he has committed an infraction, > unenforceable laws can be very much better than nothing. But when there > is an alternative that does not seem to have any serious problems, then > I would prefer the alternative. > I would also prefer enforceable laws to unenforceable ones. But the mere fact that sopme players might get away with borderline issues should not lead us to change laws that are mostly enforceable. > >>>But if I had happened to notice the vulnerability myself before partner >>>answered the question, then it would surely be AI. >>> >> >>Indeed, but we have that in all cases. If I make a bidding error, and >>I hear about it from partner's explanation, then also I could have >>"happened to notice it myself". You do not advocate changing the UI >>laws that much, do you? > > > No, certainly not. But there is some difference of degree: your bidding > error (of the "forget the system" type) is typically not something that > you will realize because you happen to look at the board. The > probability of realizing a bidding error unaided is IMO typically much > smaller than the probability of, for instance, happening to see the > auction or the vulnerability. > But they are so close together. I fear that you are trying to cover up a bidding error with the excuse of not noticing the vulnerability. If you law change would arrive, and this case would come up, I would need very convincing arguments to convince me that the precise error this player made was the one of forgetting to check the vulnerability of the hand. I would easily argue that he probably forgot that the vulnerability was important (because of his system) and rule that partner's remark was telling him something about his system, not about the vulnerability of the board. Even under your proposed law change, I would rule against this man. So did you make the law easier or harder? > >>So you want to do away with a particular (hard) decision of the TD, by >>making legal something which has been illegal. > > > Exactly. > > Getting rid of hard decisions by specifying clearly in the laws what the > decisions should be, is surely an important goal for every law revision > - not out of consideration for the TD, but because it increases the > chances that the same situations will be ruled in the same way by > different directors. > Well, I think I have shown above that this is simply not true. The decision remains, and by making some part of information AI, while some other part remains UI, the decision becomes more difficult, not less so. > >>I don't think the laws would be better for that. > > > IMO it would increase simplicity, not decrease fairness, and not change > any important aspect of the game. Thus making the laws better. We disagree. And I hope I have been able to convince you of the error of your ways. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Nov 27 08:40:40 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 09:40:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Information gained through partner's action - AI or UI? In-Reply-To: <4obasv8g96b1mkgkpmnr3e9m2ehtngc9p6@nuser.dybdal.dk> References: <3FC4B4FD.90608@hdw.be> <4obasv8g96b1mkgkpmnr3e9m2ehtngc9p6@nuser.dybdal.dk> Message-ID: <3FC5B888.1040806@hdw.be> Hello Jesper, nice to see that you take so much interest in my long post: Jesper Dybdal wrote: > On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:13:17 +0100, Herman De Wael > wrote: > > >>The question is whether or not information which he receives through >>actions of his partner, is AI or UI. > > > I am sure that we do not disagree here, but there ought to be something > in this statement limiting it to information to which the player is > entitled. I.e., information which he could legally obtain, for instance > by checking the board or the opponents' CC, or by asking. > Indeed Jesper, and I originally titled my post "entitled information ...". The I wrote it and noticed that no-where in my arguments did I need to make the distinction between information which was entitled and information which was not. So I scrapped about one quarter of my post, and left it still far to long. > >>Jesper started this ball rolling by stating that he thinks the laws >>should be changed so that this information is always AI, if the player >>is entitled to it. > > > Yes. > > >>Entitled information is that information which a player must >>necessarily possess. If he does not, he may well be due some redress. > > > I'd say information which a player has a right to: information which he > can obtain legally if he wants to. > > >>Examples of entitled information are : >>- the board number, dealer, and vulnerability; >>- during the bidding, the bidding so far; > > > Strictly speaking, only the *legal* calls (L16). > > >>- during the play, the final contract; >>- the cards played to the current trick, and the last one until one's >>own card is turned; >>- the opponents' bidding and play conventions. > > > I would add "Most of the laws" to this list. At least those parts of > the laws that specify what is legal and what is not. But probably not > all of the laws: I don't think you are entitled to be told during the > bidding what 7 redoubled undertricks cost (any other opinions about > that, by the way?). > My list started with "examples". I was not trying to be inclusive. > >>The opposite of entitled information is non-entitled information. It >>is information which a player may or may not have, but for which there >>can be no redress if he does not have it. > > > It is first of all information that he cannot legally obtain by asking > or by checking available material. > > >>... > > >>So the difference needs to lie elsewhere, and we >>see at once that Jesper's solution is not as simple as it seems. Even >>if he makes that all EI is always AI, there still remains the problem >>of NEI which comes from US, and need not be UI. > > > Yes: my solution is not a solution to all UI problems in the world, only > to some of them. > > >>1) Previously Held Information. >>Previously Held Information is information that the holder already >>knows before he is told the same thing by his partner. >>PHI is always AI. Information from US which confirms the PHI is AI. > > > Ok. > > >>2) A more difficult concept is Subsequently Enquirable Information. >> >>SEI is non-PHI, information which the recipient does not yet know at >>the moment he receives it from US, but which he could enquire about at >>some later stage. > > > Ok. > > >>3) This leaves a third class, information which the recipient would >>not have a chance to enquire about - an example being answers to >>questions asked by your partner before you are making the opening lead. > > > I am sure I understand what you mean here. Those answers are > information about the opponents' system, and he could have enquired > about it just as much as he liked. > > >>To coin another acronym, let's call this NEI Non-Enquirable Information. >>NEI is always UI. > > > What? I think I must have misunderstood your NEI concept completely. > Opponents bid a slam in a complicated auction. I believe that I do not > need the auction explained in order to choose my opening lead, so I lead > face down. Partner now asks about the auction (or he asked earlier, > during the auction). You are surely not telling me that the information > about opponents' system that I gain from the answer is UI for me? > The example I was using was about questions asked after the final pass and *before* the opening lead (face down or otherwise). At this moment, if opening leader choses not to ask questions, the information becomes NEI, and he is not allowed to use the information in order to select his opening lead. > Apart from that, I think I understand your overview. > > I still see advantages and no real disadvantages to making SEI > consistently AI. > > The advantages are: > * Simplicity - thus the same rulings from different directors; > * Fewer difficult judgements of own motives and knowledge for ethical > players; > * Fewer situations where unethical or law-ignorant players have an > advantage over ethical players. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Nov 27 11:03:48 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 11:03:48 +0000 Subject: [blml] purposeful change of call? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <60A33D9C-20C9-11D8-BD8A-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Wednesday, November 26, 2003, at 06:57 pm, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > playing on line with Tim, but it could happen f2f. mps, white. > > Me LHO Tim RHO > > 1N 2C x 3H slow alert by RHO (x is pens) 1N is 10.5-13 > > now becomes: > > 1N 2C 2D 4H > > whilst RHO has no UI, he has remembered *after* bidding 3H that 2C > means > both majors and has implied this before you call, and confirms it after > the hand. (I've no intent to seek an adjustment, but found the legal > position extremely complex). Maybe I've misunderstood what you've written above, John, but it doesn't look complex to me. If you're saying that RHO alerted the 2C bid late (after having bid 3H), then Tim is entitled to change his double to 2D, and RHO is then entitled to change his bid as he did. All contained in L21B(1)&(2), and the modified footnote mentioned in the Online Laws doesn't seem relevant here. Everything is AI to you two, both changes of call are UI to your opponents. WTP? Mind you, I didn't really understand what you meant by "has implied this before you call, and confirms it after the hand". -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From john@asimere.com Thu Nov 27 14:53:33 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 14:53:33 +0000 Subject: [blml] purposeful change of call? In-Reply-To: <60A33D9C-20C9-11D8-BD8A-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <60A33D9C-20C9-11D8-BD8A-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: In article <60A33D9C-20C9-11D8-BD8A-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk>, Gordon Rainsford writes > >On Wednesday, November 26, 2003, at 06:57 pm, John (MadDog) Probst >wrote: > >> playing on line with Tim, but it could happen f2f. mps, white. >> >> Me LHO Tim RHO >> >> 1N 2C x 3H slow alert by RHO (x is pens) 1N is 10.5-13 >> >> now becomes: >> >> 1N 2C 2D 4H >> >> whilst RHO has no UI, he has remembered *after* bidding 3H that 2C >> means >> both majors and has implied this before you call, and confirms it after >> the hand. (I've no intent to seek an adjustment, but found the legal >> position extremely complex). > >Maybe I've misunderstood what you've written above, John, but it >doesn't look complex to me. If you're saying that RHO alerted the 2C >bid late (after having bid 3H), then Tim is entitled to change his >double to 2D, and RHO is then entitled to change his bid as he did. > >All contained in L21B(1)&(2), and the modified footnote mentioned in >the Online Laws doesn't seem relevant here. Everything is AI to you >two, both changes of call are UI to your opponents. WTP? > >Mind you, I didn't really understand what you meant by "has implied >this before you call, and confirms it after the hand". He had forgotten the meaning of 2C until after he had bid 3Hm and when the auction got wound back changed his call to 4H. I was aware of this before I made my call over 4H (from something he said). > >-- >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 gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Nov 27 15:58:09 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 15:58:09 +0000 Subject: [blml] purposeful change of call? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <7F30D32E-20F2-11D8-8D68-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Thursday, November 27, 2003, at 02:53 pm, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > In article > <60A33D9C-20C9-11D8-BD8A-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk>, > Gordon Rainsford writes >> >> On Wednesday, November 26, 2003, at 06:57 pm, John (MadDog) Probst >> wrote: >> >>> playing on line with Tim, but it could happen f2f. mps, white. >>> >>> Me LHO Tim RHO >>> >>> 1N 2C x 3H slow alert by RHO (x is pens) 1N is 10.5-13 >>> >>> now becomes: >>> >>> 1N 2C 2D 4H >>> >>> whilst RHO has no UI, he has remembered *after* bidding 3H that 2C >>> means >>> both majors and has implied this before you call, and confirms it >>> after >>> the hand. (I've no intent to seek an adjustment, but found the legal >>> position extremely complex). >> >> Maybe I've misunderstood what you've written above, John, but it >> doesn't look complex to me. If you're saying that RHO alerted the 2C >> bid late (after having bid 3H), then Tim is entitled to change his >> double to 2D, and RHO is then entitled to change his bid as he did. >> >> All contained in L21B(1)&(2), and the modified footnote mentioned in >> the Online Laws doesn't seem relevant here. Everything is AI to you >> two, both changes of call are UI to your opponents. WTP? >> >> Mind you, I didn't really understand what you meant by "has implied >> this before you call, and confirms it after the hand". > > He had forgotten the meaning of 2C until after he had bid 3Hm and when > the auction got wound back changed his call to 4H. I was aware of this > before I made my call over 4H (from something he said). So, what's the problem? He's allowed to do that by L21B(2): "When a player elects to change a call because of misinformation (as in 1., preceding), his LHO may then in turn change any subsequent call he may have made, without penalty (unless his withdrawn call conveyed such information as to damage the non-offending side, in which case the Director may assign an adjusted score)". Are you contending that you may have been damaged by the information contained in the 3H call? Of course none of this would have arisen if self-alerts had been in use. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Nov 27 18:48:20 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 18:48:20 -0000 Subject: [blml] Systems Policy Message-ID: <001801c3b517$70b1ed90$501fe150@endicott> Grattan Endicott> Apart from that maybe of interest are the suggestions to curtail Brown Sticker usage considerably. There was talk of more events placed in Category 3, limitation of BS conventions to KO stages, and proposals for a maximum of two allowed to a partnership where they are permitted. I believe the ideas are in circulation and we will probably hear more. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Nov 27 18:50:43 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 18:50:43 -0000 Subject: [blml] Last gasp in Monaco. Message-ID: <001901c3b517$71a04530$501fe150@endicott> Grattan Endicott References: <001901c3b517$71a04530$501fe150@endicott> Message-ID: At 6:50 PM +0000 11/27/03, Grattan Endicott wrote: >+=+ The report of the appeal has now been added >to the CoP Jurisprudence on Anna Gudge's web site >(ecatsbridge.com) > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >P.S. I think the Monaco WBFLC minutes are there too. I can't open these documents. Either the site is broken or I'm clicking in all the wrong places. Happy Thanksgiving! -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From bbickford@charter.net Thu Nov 27 19:22:19 2003 From: bbickford@charter.net (Bill Bickford) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 14:22:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] Last gasp in Monaco. References: <001901c3b517$71a04530$501fe150@endicott> Message-ID: <048701c3b51b$c7d62330$92147244@D2GX7R11> I had the same problem. Cheers...................../Bill Bickford ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Wildavsky" To: "Grattan Endicott" Cc: "bridge laws mailing list" ; "Anna Gudge" Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 2:11 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Last gasp in Monaco. > At 6:50 PM +0000 11/27/03, Grattan Endicott wrote: > >+=+ The report of the appeal has now been added > >to the CoP Jurisprudence on Anna Gudge's web site > >(ecatsbridge.com) > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > >P.S. I think the Monaco WBFLC minutes are there too. > > I can't open these documents. Either the site is broken or I'm > clicking in all the wrong places. > > Happy Thanksgiving! > > -- > Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC > adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From nwp@math.auc.dk Thu Nov 27 21:34:04 2003 From: nwp@math.auc.dk (Niels Wendell Pedersen) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 22:34:04 +0100 (MET) Subject: [blml] Re: Last gasp in Monaco. Message-ID: <200311272134.WAA01024@borsuk.math.auc.dk> Adam Wildavsky wrote: >I can't open these documents. Either the site is broken or I'm >clicking in all the wrong places. The correct URLs are: The Monaco 2003 Minutes: http://www.ecatsbridge.com/BiB/b7/lawscommittee2000/lawscommitteeindex.asp Appeals examples: http://www.ecatsbridge.com/BiB/static/files/Appeals%20Material/Appeals%20examples.pdf The updated Code of Practice: http://www.ecatsbridge.com/BiB/static/files/Appeals%20Material/WBF%20Code%20of%20Practice%20complete.pdf Niels From svenpran@online.no Thu Nov 27 22:03:47 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 23:03:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Last gasp in Monaco. In-Reply-To: <200311272134.WAA01024@borsuk.math.auc.dk> Message-ID: <000101c3b532$558a11d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> The site is broken. I have emailed them an alert. Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Niels Wendell Pedersen > Sent: 27. november 2003 22:34 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] Re: Last gasp in Monaco. >=20 > Adam Wildavsky wrote: >=20 > >I can't open these documents. Either the site is broken or I'm > >clicking in all the wrong places. >=20 > The correct URLs are: >=20 > The Monaco 2003 Minutes: >=20 > = http://www.ecatsbridge.com/BiB/b7/lawscommittee2000/lawscommitteeindex.as= p >=20 > Appeals examples: >=20 > = http://www.ecatsbridge.com/BiB/static/files/Appeals%20Material/Appeals%20= e > xamples.pdf >=20 > The updated Code of Practice: >=20 > = http://www.ecatsbridge.com/BiB/static/files/Appeals%20Material/WBF%20Code= % > 20of%20Practice%20complete.pdf >=20 > Niels >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From moranl@netvision.net.il Thu Nov 27 22:12:22 2003 From: moranl@netvision.net.il (Eitan Levy) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 00:12:22 +0200 Subject: [blml] Last gasp in Monaco. In-Reply-To: <048701c3b51b$c7d62330$92147244@D2GX7R11> References: <001901c3b517$71a04530$501fe150@endicott> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.1.20031128001003.00a78440@mail.netvision.net.il> Try http://www.ecatsbridge.com/BiB/b7/lawscommittee2000/lawscommitteeindex.asp for the minutes page and http://www.ecatsbridge.com/bib/static/files/Appeals%20Material/WBF%20Code%20of%20Practice%20complete.pdf for the COP. Eitan At 02:22 PM 27-11-03 -0500, you wrote: >I had the same problem. > >Cheers...................../Bill Bickford > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Adam Wildavsky" >To: "Grattan Endicott" >Cc: "bridge laws mailing list" ; "Anna Gudge" > >Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 2:11 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] Last gasp in Monaco. > > > > At 6:50 PM +0000 11/27/03, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > >+=+ The report of the appeal has now been added > > >to the CoP Jurisprudence on Anna Gudge's web site > > >(ecatsbridge.com) > > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > >P.S. I think the Monaco WBFLC minutes are there too. > > > > I can't open these documents. Either the site is broken or I'm > > clicking in all the wrong places. > > > > Happy Thanksgiving! > > > > -- > > Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC > > adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Nov 27 23:43:56 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 23:43:56 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dummy play References: <000001c3b3b1$91f6cdc0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <016e01c3b540$53319a80$659868d5@tinyhrieuyik> The minutes of the Bermuda Bowl Appeal state that Lauria touched the spade seven and the Viewgraph caller announced it as such. The Committee enquired of Lauria whether he had nominated the spade queen and he said he had not. It might have been more controversial had he nominated the S:Q but picked up the S:7 at nearly the same time. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.544 / Virus Database: 338 - Release Date: 25/11/2003 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Nov 28 06:06:05 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 16:06:05 +1000 Subject: [blml] Dummy play Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >The minutes of the Bermuda Bowl Appeal state >that Lauria touched the spade seven and the >Viewgraph caller announced it as such. > >The Committee enquired of Lauria whether he >had nominated the spade queen and he said >he had not. > >It might have been more controversial had he >nominated the S:Q but picked up the S:7 at >nearly the same time. Law 45F: ".....dummy may not touch or indicate any card (except for purpose of arrangement)....." Richard James Hills: Therefore, if dummy is absent from the table, it would seem to be legal for declarer to touch one of dummy's cards - such as the S:7 - for the purpose of arrangement. 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 Nov 28 06:32:09 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 16:32:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] EBU appeals 2001 number 26 Message-ID: Imps, dealer West, vul NS Both sides play English-style Acol + the 2D Multi WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass 1C 1S Pass 2S Pass Pass ? You, South, hold: 64 KQ82 T96432 9 Question 1 - What call do you make? Question 2 - What other call do you consider making? Question 3 - In the modern expert bridge world, is Law 16 equivalent to the Law of Total Tricks? 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 TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Fri Nov 28 06:57:24 2003 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 00:57:24 -0600 Subject: [blml] Enforcable ethics (was AI or UI?) Message-ID: Richard Hills wrote: "In my opinion, Law 73C states what a player should do, and Law 16 describes the corresponding enforcement of Law 73C. "Similarly, Law 72B2 states what a player should do, and Laws 23 and 72B1 describe the corresponding enforcement of Law 72B2." I don't understand the reference to Law 72B, since as I see it 72B1 makes 72B2 vacuous: By 72B1 the director is to see to it that an infraction of the law never benefits the offending side; accordingly the prospective penalty would always suffice to deter a potential offender, assuming his aim was simply to score as well as possible. As for Laws 16 and 73C, it is hardly accurate to say that the one specifies the enforcement of the other. 16A forbids something quite different from "taking advantage of UI"; as standardly interpreted it forbids taking an action the attractiveness of which the UI has heightened relative to some alternative that a signficant fraction of one's peers would have taken absent the UI. {Well, let's see you put that in one sentence!} Admittedly most cases of "taking advantage" will be ruled out by 16A--but not all. And many actions forbidden by 16A are not covered at all by 73C. The reason players who suffer an adverse ruling under 16A are so often outraged is that they think they are being judged to have violated 73C--"taking advantage of UI"--when they may be quite innocent of such a charge. The laws would be clearer and more enforceable if 73C were dropped. (And it is unfortunate that 73F1, in repeating the 16A prohibition, mislabels its topic as "Player Acts on Unauthorized Information.") Of course, no law is perfectly enforceable; we are dealing here with a matter of degree. My claim is that 73C goes too far--so far that the authorities make no real effort to enforce it, and fall back on 16A/73F1 instead. So let's keep the latter, and scrap the former. From john@asimere.com Fri Nov 28 07:18:18 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 07:18:18 +0000 Subject: [blml] EBU appeals 2001 number 26 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes >Imps, dealer West, vul NS > >Both sides play English-style Acol + the 2D Multi > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >Pass 1C 1S Pass >2S Pass Pass ? > >You, South, hold: > >64 >KQ82 >T96432 >9 > >Question 1 - What call do you make? 3D, every day of the week. >Question 2 - What other call do you consider > making? Pass >Question 3 - In the modern expert bridge world, > is Law 16 equivalent to the Law of > Total Tricks? for experts, pretty much so IMO > >Best wishes > >Richard James Hills -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Nov 28 07:46:13 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 07:46:13 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dummy play References: Message-ID: <001a01c3b583$cb433b30$d41de150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 6:06 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy play Nigel Guthrie: >The minutes of the Bermuda Bowl Appeal state >that Lauria touched the spade seven and the >Viewgraph caller announced it as such. > >The Committee enquired of Lauria whether he >had nominated the spade queen and he said >he had not. > >It might have been more controversial had he >nominated the S:Q but picked up the S:7 at >nearly the same time. Law 45F: ".....dummy may not touch or indicate any card (except for purpose of arrangement)....." Richard James Hills: Therefore, if dummy is absent from the table, it would seem to be legal for declarer to touch one of dummy's cards - such as the S:7 - for the purpose of arrangement. Best wishes RJH +=+ Nigel covered only those elements in the report that drew his attention. I hope those who are trying have now found their way in to the appeal. Incidentally I must thank Anna for her help. She tells me she is sending to every NBO a note to say where the WBFLC minutes can be found on her web site. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Fri Nov 28 09:12:29 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 10:12:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Enforcable ethics (was AI or UI?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c3b58f$bfda9570$6900a8c0@WINXP> > James Hudson .............. > I don't understand the reference to Law 72B, since as I see it 72B1 > makes 72B2 vacuous: By 72B1 the director is to see to it that an > infraction of the law never benefits the offending side; accordingly the > prospective penalty would always suffice to deter a potential offender, > assuming his aim was simply to score as well as possible. As I see it, and very much simplified: Law 72B1 instructs the Director to award an adjusted score for redress when an irregularity has in his opinion damaged opponents. Law 72B2 establishes that an intentional infraction is absolutely forbidden which means that the Director in such cases is to penalize further and with an additional procedural penalty. Regards Sven From fox@appl.sci-nnov.ru Fri Nov 28 15:53:29 2003 From: fox@appl.sci-nnov.ru (Litvak Sergey) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 18:53:29 +0300 Subject: [blml] Systems Policy References: <001801c3b517$70b1ed90$501fe150@endicott> Message-ID: <001101c3b5c7$c5c44700$88f07ac3@oemcomputer> We also have a problem with one system: 1C = 12+ w/o 5+card suits (can be 4441) 1D = 10-15, 5+ in minor and 4= in Major 1H/S = 8-15, 5+ 1NT = 16+, 5+ any suit is it HUM or not. By the way. Definition of HUM is now different a little from the previous one. Best regards, Sergey Litvak. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Nov 28 16:11:04 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 16:11:04 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dummy play References: <001a01c3b583$cb433b30$d41de150@endicott> Message-ID: <00b301c3b5ca$563c00a0$0f9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> >> [Richard James Hills] >> Therefore, if dummy is absent from the table, >> it would seem to be legal for declarer to touch >> one of dummy's cards - such as the S:7 - for >> the purpose of arrangement. > [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ Nigel covered only those elements in the > report that drew his attention. [Nigel] I agree with Richard that, according to the law, it was a toss-up whether the AC should rule that Lauria (1) (Legally) arranged dummy's cards or (2) (Illegally) attempted to play a card without first naming it (Even in the absence of dummy, he could still nominate it) The coin landed unluckily for poor Lauria. Perhaps in 2006 or 2011 the wording of some of these laws should be tightened up -- as long as it does not get in the way of remedying the gross omissions and more urgent legal reforms. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.544 / Virus Database: 338 - Release Date: 25/11/2003 From svenpran@online.no Fri Nov 28 16:14:38 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:14:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Systems Policy In-Reply-To: <001101c3b5c7$c5c44700$88f07ac3@oemcomputer> Message-ID: <000001c3b5ca$b92fba80$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Litvak Sergey > We also have a problem with one system: > > 1C = 12+ w/o 5+card suits (can be 4441) > 1D = 10-15, 5+ in minor and 4= in Major > 1H/S = 8-15, 5+ > 1NT = 16+, 5+ any suit > > is it HUM or not. It seems to that this in Norway would be a "Red" system (like for instance Vienna, strong club, precision and relay systems) and not a "Yellow" system (HUM). Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Fri Nov 28 16:22:43 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:22:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <00b301c3b5ca$563c00a0$0f9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <000101c3b5cb$da044f90$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Nigel Guthrie > Sent: 28. november 2003 17:11 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy play >=20 > >> [Richard James Hills] > >> Therefore, if dummy is absent from the table, > >> it would seem to be legal for declarer to touch > >> one of dummy's cards - such as the S:7 - for > >> the purpose of arrangement. > > [Grattan Endicott] > > +=3D+ Nigel covered only those elements in the > > report that drew his attention. >=20 > [Nigel] >=20 > I agree with Richard that, according to the law, > it was a toss-up whether the AC should rule that > Lauria >=20 > (1) (Legally) arranged dummy's cards or >=20 > (2) (Illegally) attempted to play a card without > first naming it (Even in the absence of dummy, > he could still nominate it) >=20 > The coin landed unluckily for poor Lauria. I would be very surprised if any Director or AC in Norway would have = allowed Lauria to play anything else than the S:7 unless it was obvious from the situation that he had absolutely no intention of playing that card when = he initially touched it. My impression from what I have read so far is that Lauria changed his = mind when he discovered that LHO played a (to Lauria) completely unexpected = card, but that he at that time already had touched the S:7 anticipating (in = error) what would come. And if my impression is correct I would expect any Norwegian AC to keep = the appeal deposit.=20 Regards Sven From dhh@inter.net.il Fri Nov 28 19:58:23 2003 From: dhh@inter.net.il (Dany Haimovici) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 21:58:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] Who was right TD or AC? References: <3FC471C3.4080506@hdw.be> Message-ID: <3FC7A8DF.13B8F90B@inter.net.il> Well......... I try to explain myself again - don't know why was so difficult to understand (no need to agree) : North knows for 100% what South's bid was - one of the two possibilities : either strong hand or "shape" hand . He transmits now 200% UI - because he indicates for South TWO logical alternatives . According to North's call , South MUST choose one of them , according to his hand !!!!! This is why I think that both these TWO LA must be barred and South's only allowed call is PASS. Dany. Herman De Wael wrote: > richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > Dany Haimovici: > > > > > >>I tried to explain and ESTABLISH that in this case > >>North's hesitation "hunts" TWO Logical Alternatives - > >>in spite of the uncertainty - just BECAUSE of the > >>uncertainty. > > > > > > Richard James Hills: > > > > I agree with Dany. Suppose this hypothetical case -> > > > > South West North East > > 3S 4H Pass(1) Pass > > ? > > > > (1) Break in tempo > > > > South has AI that their 3S opening was an underbid, > > due to the extra playing strength of a heart void. > > > > South has UI that North's break in tempo would > > demonstrably suggest one of two diametrically > > opposite reasons: > > > > (a) Considering a penalty double > > (b) Considering a 4S bid > > > > Some would argue that because the break in tempo > > suggests two opposite reasons, South may freely > > guess to rebid Double or rebid 4S. I strongly > > argue that only a rebid of Pass is permitted by > > Law 16 in this hypothetical case. > > > > Yes Richard, you are right. But by removing some of the cluttering > auction, you have also removed my point. > In your case, it is clear that North is considering whether to pass or > not. So whatever he thinks the auction means (and in your simplified > example there can be no doubt), he was considering bidding something else. > In Dany's example (or at least the way I understood it), the > transferred North was thinking of something else: he was trying to > figure out what the previous auction meant. He was not in doubt about > what to bid once he figured out what was going on. If that is the > truth, then there is no additional meaning to attribute to the > hesitation, no UI suggesting any action, no bar on partner. > > > Best wishes > > > > Only one month to go to the holidays, so I'll also start sending best > wishes. > > -- > 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 jerrycoleman60ntpsl@hotmail.com Sat Nov 29 00:59:16 2003 From: jerrycoleman60ntpsl@hotmail.com (Toy) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 22:59:16 -0200 Subject: [blml] Meet Real Women In Your Area! Message-ID: Enjoy today's special offer, This week we bring you XXXDate, the biggest adult personals network, with over 80,000 of real active female members! Real women all over the world who want sex! Meet real kinky girls in your area looking for a date and some sex after! Are you looking to fulfil your fantasy? Now you can! There are lots of sexy girls who share the same fantasy. ** THIS IS A SPECIAL OFFER ** -- Check Out XXXDate -- http://www.xxxdate.2nm.net/ Thank you! jerrycoleman60@hotmail.com From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Nov 28 23:59:02 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 23:59:02 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dummy play References: <000101c3b5cb$da044f90$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002c01c3b60b$ac39caf0$290fe150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 4:22 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy play > > [Nigel] > > I agree with Richard that, according to the law, > it was a toss-up whether the AC should rule that > Lauria > > (1) (Legally) arranged dummy's cards or > > (2) (Illegally) attempted to play a card without > first naming it (Even in the absence of dummy, > he could still nominate it) > > The coin landed unluckily for poor Lauria. > +=+ The only information is that contained in the appeal report, but I think it deals with this assertion clearly enough. As a member of the committee I cannot add appropriately to the report. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Nov 29 00:03:41 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 19:03:41 -0500 Subject: [blml] Information gained through partner's action - AI or UI? In-Reply-To: <4obasv8g96b1mkgkpmnr3e9m2ehtngc9p6@nuser.dybdal.dk> Message-ID: <7D677FF4-21FF-11D8-85E4-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Nov 26, 2003, at 18:27 US/Eastern, Jesper Dybdal wrote: > But probably not > all of the laws: I don't think you are entitled to be told during the > bidding what 7 redoubled undertricks cost (any other opinions about > that, by the way?). Seems to me that would be an "aid to memory or calculation". From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Nov 29 00:37:47 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 19:37:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] Who was right TD or AC? In-Reply-To: <3FC7A8DF.13B8F90B@inter.net.il> Message-ID: <414E3E23-2204-11D8-85E4-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Nov 28, 2003, at 14:58 US/Eastern, Dany Haimovici wrote: > This is why I think that both these TWO LA must be barred and South's > only > allowed call is PASS. It seems to me the question boils down to whether pass is a logical alternative. If it is, then I think Dany is right, since either bidding or doubling seems to be "demonstrably suggested" by the UI. If it is not, then we are reduced to two LAs, neither of which is demonstrably suggested over the other. So, is pass a LA for a player who is aware that LHO's bidding his void makes his had considerably stronger than it had been? From hermandw@hdw.be Sat Nov 29 09:07:03 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:07:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Who was right TD or AC? In-Reply-To: <3FC7A8DF.13B8F90B@inter.net.il> References: <3FC471C3.4080506@hdw.be> <3FC7A8DF.13B8F90B@inter.net.il> Message-ID: <3FC861B7.6040701@hdw.be> Dany, I have understood what you are saying, have you understood me? Dany Haimovici wrote: > Well......... > > I try to explain myself again - don't know why was so difficult to understand > (no need to agree) : > North knows for 100% what South's bid was - one of the two possibilities : > either strong hand or "shape" hand . I find your use of the 100% rather amusing. North knows that South has either a strong hand or a shape hand, but not a nothing hand. I agree with that. > He transmits now 200% UI - because he indicates for South TWO logical > alternatives . According to North's call , South MUST choose one of them , > according to his hand !!!!! You cannot transmit two logical alternatives. You can only transmit UI. > This is why I think that both these TWO LA must be barred and South's only > allowed call is PASS. > Let's assume that there are indeed 3 LA's. But the UI is one of two things. If the UI means "strong hand" then the suggested LA is "double". If the UI means "shape hand" then the suggested LA is "4He" (I don't really remember the strain - it may have been 4Sp too). Now you are syaing that the UI actually given suggests both LA's, and so the third option must be chosen. You are saying "if the UI means strong, then double is suggested, so partner must choose between 4He and pass - if the UI means shape, the 4He is suggested, so the partner must choose between double and pass, taken together, he can only pass". I don't agree. You must consider the information as a whole. I'm sure you cannot say that "double" is suggested over "4He" by that whole information. If you don't know what it means, how can you tell us what it "demonstrably" suggests? But similarly I can't see how "double" is suggested over "pass" by that whole information. If partner has a "shape" hand then double can turn out wrongly. And by the same reasoning, "4He" is not suggested over "pass". So if none of the LAs are demonstrably suggested over any other, by the UI, there is no bar on partner. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From wayne@ebridgenz.com Sat Nov 29 12:00:46 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:00:46 +1300 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <001a01c3b583$cb433b30$d41de150@endicott> Message-ID: <000501c3b670$720e7b90$b8b337d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Grattan Endicott > Sent: Friday, 28 November 2003 7:46 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy play > > > > Grattan Endicott (also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > and gesta@tiscali.co.uk) > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "And curst (be) the hand that fired the shot ...." > ['Helen of Kirkconnell'] > ================================== > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 6:06 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy play > > > > Nigel Guthrie: > > >The minutes of the Bermuda Bowl Appeal state > >that Lauria touched the spade seven and the > >Viewgraph caller announced it as such. > > > >The Committee enquired of Lauria whether he > >had nominated the spade queen and he said > >he had not. > > > >It might have been more controversial had he > >nominated the S:Q but picked up the S:7 at > >nearly the same time. > > Law 45F: > > ".....dummy may not touch or indicate any card > (except for purpose of arrangement)....." > > Richard James Hills: > > Therefore, if dummy is absent from the table, > it would seem to be legal for declarer to touch > one of dummy's cards - such as the S:7 - for > the purpose of arrangement. > > Best wishes > > RJH > > +=+ Nigel covered only those elements in the > report that drew his attention. I hope those > who are trying have now found their way in > to the appeal. > Incidentally I must thank Anna for her help. > She tells me she is sending to every NBO a note > to say where the WBFLC minutes can be found > on her web site. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I am amazed at what I read in the appeal report. It is reported as fact that Lauria said that he was covering up the King with the seven that sure sounds like arranging the dummy to me. And yet the committee state that it was not evident that Lauria was adjusting dummy's cards. We had a long thread on here about playing to subsequent tricks while the previous trick was face up on the table. >From memory many contributers here said that that was not proper procedure. And yet here we have Soloway leading while the sK from the previous trick was face up on the table - this is stated in the facts. While I don't believe Soloway did anything wrong it certainly would have added to the confusion of the situation. There seems also to be significant testimony that the card was considered played by the defenders because the vugraph operator called the card. This does not make a card played. If declarer's testimony was that he was arranging dummy I would be inclined to believe him without significant evidence to the contrary. I don't see that evidence in the appeal report. Wayne > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From henk@ripe.net Sat Nov 29 13:36:18 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:36:18 +0100 (CET) Subject: [blml] Board 32, from Grattan Endicott (fwd) Message-ID: (Thanks to Grattan for providing this write-up). Appeal No. 9 Approved for addition to the jurisprudence (C.o,P) Event: Bermuda Bowl Round: Final Teams: USA I versus Italy Appeals Committee: J. Auken (Chair), J Damiani, G Endicott, A. Maas, J-P Meyer. Board 32 . Dealer West EW Vul. S 2 H A J 9 3 D K Q 10 9 8 6 5 C 5 S J 10 S A 6 5 4 3 H 5 4 2 H K Q 10 8 6 D A 7 D 4 2 C K 10 7 6 4 2 C A S K Q 9 8 7 H 7 D J 3 C Q J 9 8 3 West North East South Hamman Lauria Soloway Versace P 1D 2D dbl 2H 3D P P 3H 5D dbl all pass The first five tricks are won by Club Ace, Heart Ace, ruff with Diamond 3, ruff with Diamond 8, ruff with Diamond J. Declarer then leads Spade K to the Ace. The position is as follows: S - H J D K Q 10 9 6 5 C - S 10 S 6 5 4 H - H Q 10 D A 6 D 4 2 C K 10 7 6 C - S Q 9 8 7 H - D - C Q J 9 The Facts: At this point North is two down if East cashes Heart Q. But East leads a low Spade. Dummy has left the table and declarer is playing dummy himself. He touches the Spade 7, the vu-graph caller says '7 of Spades' and West plays the 10. Declarer says he was playing the Queen. The Director is called. The Director: The Director enquired of declarer as to his actions and he said that he was covering up the King with the seven.. (The King had been played to the previous trick and, because dummy was absent, was still face-up on the table.) The director considered the Spade 7 played. Ruling: 5Dx - 2. NS -300. Appellants: NS appealed. Present: All four players and both Captains. The Players: North said that he had picked up the small Spade to "cover the King" and demonstrated his meaning. His intention was to play the Queen. East said he had heard the seven named and both East and West had seen declarer touch the seven of Spades, West playing the ten. Declarer had protested that he was playing the Queen. The Committee: Enquired of declarer whether he had named the card he was playing and he said he had not. Indeed it seems unlikely he would be instructing dummy who is not at the table and it is reasonable to believe the naming of the card was by the vu-graph caller. Requested the Chief Director to explain the law to them, which he did by reading from the law book.. The relevant law says: " 45C3 A card in the dummy must be played if it has been deliberately touched by declarer except for the purpose of arranging dummy's cards, or of reaching a card above or below the card or cards touched." The Committee's Decision: Declarer had touched the seven and it was not evident to the committee that declarer had touched the card for the purpose either of adjusting dummy's cards or of reaching for the Queen. (By the above law picking up the card in order to place it on top of a played card commits North to playing the card.) The Committee had not heard anything in the evidence that persuaded it the Director's ruling was incorrect. Accordingly the director's ruling was upheld. Deposit: returned. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Sat Nov 29 14:44:57 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 15:44:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000501c3b670$720e7b90$b8b337d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <000001c3b687$5bf37d30$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Wayne ......... > I am amazed at what I read in the appeal report. I am not. > It is reported as fact that Lauria said that he was > covering up the King with the seven that sure sounds > like arranging the dummy to me. Now, why would a player "arrange" dummy's cards by placing one of them = (S:7) on top of the card played to the previous trick (S:K), a card that still remains face up on the table, in such a way as to cover that previously played card? The only sensible explanation for me is that he really intended to play = the S:7 and marked this by covering the previously played S:K leaving only = one card visible as played cards from dummy to avoid any misunderstanding. Even if he had not covered the S:K with his S:7 I would still have ruled = the S:7 played once he removed it from among the other spades and placed it = in an "isolated" position on the table. >=20 > And yet the committee state that it was not evident > that Lauria was adjusting dummy's cards. "And yet ..."?=20 To me it is evident that you do not "arrange" dummy's cards by covering = an already played card with a card not yet played without intending to play that card. If you want to arrange them you first turn played card(s) = face down together with the other cards already played and then you shift the remaining cards in dummy to end up with an orderly faced hand. = (Preferably but not compulsory you also announce that you are just arranging the = cards). >=20 > We had a long thread on here about playing to subsequent > tricks while the previous trick was face up on the table. Can you find any bridge law that prevents a defender on lead from = playing to the next trick while a card played to the previous trick (by dummy) = still lies face up on the table? Let me quote from:=20 Law 44B: .... and the four cards so played constitutes a trick Law 44G: The player who has won the trick leads to the next trick Law 45G: No player should turn his card face down until all four players have played to the trick. Law 65A: ....... each player turns his own card face down near him on = the table. Law 66A: So long as his side has not led or played to the next trick, declarer or either defender may, until he has turned his own card face = down on the table, require that all cards just played to the trick be faced. Law 65A places some responsibility on each player related to his own = played card, but not related to any card belonging to another player.=20 Law 66A clearly anticipates the possibility that a lead or even a play = to the next trick may occur before all four cards in the previous tricks = have been turned face down and there is no indication that such occurrence = should be treated as an irregularity. > From memory many contributers here said that that was not > proper procedure. And yet here we have Soloway leading > while the sK from the previous trick was face up on the > table - this is stated in the facts. While I don't believe > Soloway did anything wrong it certainly would have added > to the confusion of the situation. You are perfectly right: Soloway did nothing wrong and whatever = confusion may have been caused in Lauria's mind would only be his own = responsibility. >=20 > There seems also to be significant testimony that the > card was considered played by the defenders because the > vugraph operator called the card. This does not make a > card played. What makes you believe that the announcement by the vugraph operator was relevant in any way? It only confirms that even this operator understood Lauria to having played that card. >=20 > If declarer's testimony was that he was arranging dummy > I would be inclined to believe him without significant > evidence to the contrary. I don't see that evidence > in the appeal report. If Lauria had rearranged the S:7 in between the other remaining spades = in dummy I might have believed him. But as he removed the S:7 from the = other unplayed spades in dummy and placed the S:7 on top of the S:K played to = the previous trick I certainly do not. And I still consider the AC very tolerant when they returned the = deposit. Regards Sven From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Nov 29 15:36:36 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 15:36:36 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dummy play Message-ID: <018501c3b68e$9db80540$b99868d5@tinyhrieuyik> > [Sven Pran] > My impression from what I have read so far is > that Lauria changed his mind when he discovered > that LHO played a (to Lauria) completely unexpected > card, but that he at that time already had touched > the S:7 anticipating (in error) what would come. [Nigel -- Sorry Sven -- meant for list] We cannot read Lauria's mind to be certain but, by all accounts, your impression fits the facts, so the AC ruling was justified. > [Sven] > And if my impression is correct I would expect any > Norwegian AC to keep the appeal deposit. [Nigel] But keeping the deposit seems over the top in a decision that hinges on a *subjective* assessment of declarer's *probable* intent. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.545 / Virus Database: 339 - Release Date: 27/11/2003 From svenpran@online.no Sat Nov 29 15:44:21 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 16:44:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <018501c3b68e$9db80540$b99868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <000401c3b68f$a8513a20$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Nigel Guthrie > We cannot read Lauria's mind to be certain but, by > all accounts, your impression fits the facts, so the > AC ruling was justified. >=20 > > [Sven] > > And if my impression is correct I would expect any > > Norwegian AC to keep the appeal deposit. >=20 > [Nigel] > But keeping the deposit seems over the top in a > decision that hinges on a *subjective* assessment > of declarer's *probable* intent. In the meantime I have read the appeals document as published and I = consider my impressions verified. As to mind-reading: Have you ever experienced or can you at all imagine = a player "re-arranging" the cards in dummy by placing a not yet played = card away from the remaining unplayed cards on top of the card played to the previous trick? I cannot, so I am not too concerned about mind-reading here. And as for keeping the deposit: My impression of the appeal is that it = is a fishing-tour trying absolutely any technicality available to avoid the defeat. If the actions described on how the S:7 was played does not constitute a played card I don't know one when I see it. IMO an appeal absolutely without merit. Regards Sven=20 From twm@cix.co.uk Sat Nov 29 17:43:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:43 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Board 32, from Grattan Endicott (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > The Players: North said that he had picked up the small Spade to "cover > the King" and demonstrated his meaning. I'm not entirely sure what the above means but it sounds as if Lauria claimed he moved the spade 7 while "arranging" dummy in some way. (Touching a card in dummy while trying to turn over a played card would not be ruled as playing it anywhere I can think of.) > The Committee's Decision: Declarer had touched the seven and it was not > evident to the committee that declarer had touched the card for the > purpose either of adjusting dummy's cards or of reaching for the Queen. How could it be "evident" - the committee were not there at the time! All the committee can do is accept Lauria's statement (and rule S7 as not played) or reject it as self-serving (and rule the S7 as played). Either would be a clear and valid interpretation of law so any "toss-up" that occurred was with regard to establishing the facts rather than ambiguity in law. To me the most bizarre aspect of the whole affair is that the finals were being recorded on camera but it was pointing in the wrong direction at the time - a bit like watching the rugby world cup and finding the cameras watching the crowd instead of Wilko's drop goal. Tim From blml@dybdal.dk Sat Nov 29 17:48:49 2003 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:48:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] ACBLLC minutes - 2005 Law 16 In-Reply-To: <3FC5B6AC.7010000@hdw.be> References: <000901c3b221$1f221ca0$aada193e@4nrw70j> <0065svkmf56m6pijet6oisb17dciq8d180@nuser.dybdal.dk> <001e01c3b326$e661bcc0$0de1193e@4nrw70j> <3FC46825.1080501@hdw.be> <0ldasv0ggh5bgigm1ucgdddts4iuqtjbcl@nuser.dybdal.dk> <3FC5B6AC.7010000@hdw.be> Message-ID: <3smhsvc51mo1i4jb522jmtfomq2krp6ks7@nuser.dybdal.dk> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 09:32:44 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >If=20 >you law change would arrive, and this case would come up, I would need=20 >very convincing arguments to convince me that the precise error this=20 >player made was the one of forgetting to check the vulnerability of=20 >the hand. I would easily argue that he probably forgot that the=20 >vulnerability was important (because of his system) and rule that=20 >partner's remark was telling him something about his system, not about=20 >the vulnerability of the board. Even under your proposed law change, I=20 >would rule against this man. =46air enough - you judge what happened, and rule accordingly. But I would suspect that the question of which mistake it was, in this case is a question that is usually reasonably easy to answer correctly for the player himself, which means that in all those happy cases where you can trust your players to not actually lie, you can believe it. (As opposed to the reasons for bidding with UI: even quite honest players are often able to convince themselves that their action is quite obvious, even when it is clearly influenced by UI.) >So did you make the law easier or harder? In that particular case, harder to apply. But in general, I still think it'll be easier. >We disagree. And I hope I have been able to convince you of the error=20 >of your ways. We still disagree. And I am afraid I probably haven't been able to convince you of the error of your ways. Let us leave it to the WBFLC. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From blml@dybdal.dk Sat Nov 29 17:48:50 2003 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:48:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Information gained through partner's action - AI or UI? In-Reply-To: <3FC5B888.1040806@hdw.be> References: <3FC4B4FD.90608@hdw.be> <4obasv8g96b1mkgkpmnr3e9m2ehtngc9p6@nuser.dybdal.dk> <3FC5B888.1040806@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 09:40:40 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >> I would add "Most of the laws" to this list. At least those parts of >> the laws that specify what is legal and what is not. But probably not >> all of the laws: I don't think you are entitled to be told during the >> bidding what 7 redoubled undertricks cost (any other opinions about >> that, by the way?). >>=20 > >My list started with "examples". I was not trying to be inclusive. I realized that - I was not trying to be inclusive either with that addition, it just seemed a fairly important example that I thought it would be a good idea to mention. >>>To coin another acronym, let's call this NEI Non-Enquirable = Information. >>>NEI is always UI. >>=20 >>=20 >> What? I think I must have misunderstood your NEI concept completely. >> Opponents bid a slam in a complicated auction. I believe that I do = not >> need the auction explained in order to choose my opening lead, so I = lead >> face down. Partner now asks about the auction (or he asked earlier, >> during the auction). You are surely not telling me that the = information >> about opponents' system that I gain from the answer is UI for me? >>=20 > >The example I was using was about questions asked after the final pass=20 >and *before* the opening lead (face down or otherwise). I.e., by the opening leader's partner, illegally? >At this=20 >moment, if opening leader choses not to ask questions, the information=20 >becomes NEI, and he is not allowed to use the information in order to=20 >select his opening lead. Why? It happens all the time that NS bid a slam after a complicated auction which the opening leader will obviously need to ask about, and one of the opponents who mistakenly thinks he is on lead, asks about the action. When there are TDs at the table, somebody may say "It is not your turn to ask", after which the opening leader does the asking. When there are no TDs at the table, all players will often just accept that it happened to be the wrong defender that asked the questions that both defenders obviously needed answers to. Surely that does not make the answers UI for the real opening leader? Or have I completely misunderstood what you're saying? --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From blml@dybdal.dk Sat Nov 29 17:48:51 2003 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:48:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Information gained through partner's action - AI or UI? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 11:13:20 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Jesper Dybdal asked: > >>I would add "Most of the laws" to this list. At least >>those parts of the laws that specify what is legal and >>what is not. But probably not all of the laws: I don't >>think you are entitled to be told during the bidding >>what 7 redoubled undertricks cost (any other opinions >>about that, by the way?). > >Footnote to Law 40E2: > >"A player is not entitled, during the auction and play >periods, to any aids to his memory, calculation or >technique....." > >Richard James Hills quibbles: > >Therefore, I would argue that it would UI to be reminded >of *any* Law through partner's action. It seems fairly obvious to me that players are in general allowed to call the TD and ask for guidance about the rules of the game. Questions like "Director, my partner hesitated and I know there are some rules about unauthorized information; could you please tell me exactly what those rules say?" or "Director, my opponents are asking about a call that partner and I have no clear agreement about. What are my duties now? Should I tell them how I choose to interpret that call?" are IMO obviously legal, and the player has a right to an answer. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From svenpran@online.no Sat Nov 29 17:58:14 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:58:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Board 32, from Grattan Endicott (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c3b6a2$5c6b29f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Tim West-Meads > > The Players: North said that he had picked up the small Spade to "cover > > the King" and demonstrated his meaning. > > I'm not entirely sure what the above means but it sounds as if Lauria > claimed he moved the spade 7 while "arranging" dummy in some way. > (Touching a card in dummy while trying to turn over a played card would > not be ruled as playing it anywhere I can think of.) According to the evidence (agreed to also by Lauria) he had taken the S:7 and placed it on top of (covering with it) the S:K which had been played in the previous trick but still remained face-up on the table. If that isn't playing a card I do not know a play when I see it. "Oh, I didn't play that card from dummy, I just rearranged dummy so that that particular card should lie easily noticeable and not mixed up with the other cards in dummy!" Sven From blml@wellsborocomputing.com Sat Nov 29 18:18:57 2003 From: blml@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 13:18:57 -0500 Subject: [blml] Board 32, from Grattan Endicott (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:43 +0000 (GMT Standard Time), Tim West-Meads wrote: > >To me the most bizarre aspect of the whole affair is that the finals were >being recorded on camera but it was pointing in the wrong direction at the >time - a bit like watching the rugby world cup and finding the cameras >watching the crowd instead of Wilko's drop goal. > Maybe there has been a reason stated elsewhere and I haven't read about it - but I think the idea of a player leaving his partner to play dummy's cards as declarer on the last hand of the BB final runs the camera work a close second in the bizarre stakes. You know it's a close match and that you're in a "delicate" contract, why burden pard with any extra distractions? Brian. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Nov 29 18:37:06 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:37:06 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dummy play References: <000401c3b68f$a8513a20$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <004201c3b6a7$da768560$e59468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Oh dear. I seem to have misread the AC minutes] East leads a low Spade. Dummy has left the table and declarer is playing dummy himself. He touches the Spade 7, the vu-graph caller says '7 of Spades' and West plays the 10. Declarer says he was playing the Queen. The Director is called. [Declarer explained to the TD] that he was covering up the King with the seven.. (The King had been played to the previous trick and, because dummy was absent, was still face-up on the table.) The director considered the Spade 7 played. [Nigel] Dummy's spade king, from the previous trick, was still face-up. It had to be turned face-down and, according to law 45C, Lauria may legally touch dummy's cards to rearrange them, for this purpose. Lauria also appears to have *named* the spade queen. Hence, according to law 45B, the spade queen is legally played. The TD/AC seem to have ruled instead that the touched spade seven was *illegally* played (without nomination). --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.545 / Virus Database: 339 - Release Date: 27/11/2003 From wayne@ebridgenz.com Sat Nov 29 19:16:58 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 08:16:58 +1300 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000001c3b687$5bf37d30$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <004b01c3b6ad$619de100$26e536d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Sunday, 30 November 2003 2:45 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy play > > > > Wayne > ......... > > I am amazed at what I read in the appeal report. > > I am not. > > > It is reported as fact that Lauria said that he was > > covering up the King with the seven that sure sounds > > like arranging the dummy to me. > > Now, why would a player "arrange" dummy's cards by placing > one of them (S:7) > on top of the card played to the previous trick (S:K), a card > that still > remains face up on the table, in such a way as to cover that > previously > played card? > > The only sensible explanation for me is that he really > intended to play the > S:7 and marked this by covering the previously played S:K > leaving only one > card visible as played cards from dummy to avoid any misunderstanding. > > Even if he had not covered the S:K with his S:7 I would still > have ruled the > S:7 played once he removed it from among the other spades and > placed it in > an "isolated" position on the table. There is no indication in the report that he did that. His testimony at the table and stated as fact and in the appeal indicate that he intended to play the Queen. > > > > > And yet the committee state that it was not evident > > that Lauria was adjusting dummy's cards. > > "And yet ..."? > > To me it is evident that you do not "arrange" dummy's cards > by covering an > already played card with a card not yet played without > intending to play > that card. If you want to arrange them you first turn played > card(s) face > down together with the other cards already played and then > you shift the > remaining cards in dummy to end up with an orderly faced > hand. (Preferably > but not compulsory you also announce that you are just > arranging the cards). Not compulsory means not relevant when not hinted at by the laws. > > > > We had a long thread on here about playing to subsequent > > tricks while the previous trick was face up on the table. > > Can you find any bridge law that prevents a defender on lead > from playing to > the next trick while a card played to the previous trick (by > dummy) still > lies face up on the table? I cannot. But one Sven Pran can >From the archives: Wayne asked: Which law(s) establishes as incorrect a player leading to the next trick before another player has quitted a completed trick? Sven answered: Are you satisfied with Law 74A2? Some of the reasons Sven gave: "If another player ignores my need for such thinking and just leads his = card to the next trick I shall hold him in contempt unless his action was = purely unintentional, in which case I shall expect his excuse and that will be = it. If I were to be called to a table where an apparent conflict exists with = one player "digesting" information and another player complains I shall most likely rule a violation of Law 74B2 against the complaining player. So = far this has never happened to me as a director and I would be most = surprised if it ever happens" and Sven went as far as: "The proper penalty against repeated or really severe violations of = Law 74B is expulsion, a penalty that can not be appealed, are you aware of = that?" and Sven wrote: "During my nearly 25 years as director (and even more as player) I have = more than once found myself facing the situation where a player leads to the = next trick while some other player still has his last played card face up. That player then simply points out the fact, everybody holds their play = to the next trick until the last previously played card is finally turned = face down; and that is that. No problem and no confusion." Apparently it is no problem except in the Bermuda Bowl final Sven. > > Let me quote from: > Law 44B: .... and the four cards so played constitutes a trick > Law 44G: The player who has won the trick leads to the next trick > Law 45G: No player should turn his card face down until all > four players > have played to the trick. > Law 65A: ....... each player turns his own card face down > near him on the > table. > Law 66A: So long as his side has not led or played to the next trick, > declarer or either defender may, until he has turned his own > card face down > on the table, require that all cards just played to the trick > be faced. > > Law 65A places some responsibility on each player related to > his own played > card, but not related to any card belonging to another player. > Law 66A clearly anticipates the possibility that a lead or > even a play to > the next trick may occur before all four cards in the > previous tricks have > been turned face down and there is no indication that such > occurrence should > be treated as an irregularity. > > > From memory many contributers here said that that was not > > proper procedure. And yet here we have Soloway leading > > while the sK from the previous trick was face up on the > > table - this is stated in the facts. While I don't believe > > Soloway did anything wrong it certainly would have added > > to the confusion of the situation. > > You are perfectly right: Soloway did nothing wrong and > whatever confusion > may have been caused in Lauria's mind would only be his own > responsibility. I agree but I see no evidence of confusion in the appeal report. > > > > > There seems also to be significant testimony that the > > card was considered played by the defenders because the > > vugraph operator called the card. This does not make a > > card played. > > What makes you believe that the announcement by the vugraph > operator was > relevant in any way? It only confirms that even this operator > understood > Lauria to having played that card. Both Hamman and Soloway gave evidence that the s7 was called. Lauria said he did not name the card. Hamman and Soloway's evidence is irrelevant if they heard the operator and not Lauria. > > > > > If declarer's testimony was that he was arranging dummy > > I would be inclined to believe him without significant > > evidence to the contrary. I don't see that evidence > > in the appeal report. > > If Lauria had rearranged the S:7 in between the other > remaining spades in > dummy I might have believed him. But as he removed the S:7 > from the other > unplayed spades in dummy and placed the S:7 on top of the S:K > played to the > previous trick I certainly do not. It is not clear to me from the report where the sK was. It is only clear that it was face up. > > And I still consider the AC very tolerant when they returned > the deposit. You may see evidence but I do not. Even if the King was separate and Lauria was 'arranging' dummy by covering as he stated, a mechanical error in that process of arranging dummy (as in moving a card to an unintended position) does not force declarer to play the card. Declarer was still arranging the dummy as he is entitled to do. I see no evidence that there was an infraction. There may have been but I do not see the evidence reported. The player stated at the time that he intended to play the queen and this was statement was established by the committee. The player stated that he was "covering up" the king with the seven which by inference suggests he was not plying the seven. I need better evidence to believe that the player is not telling me the truth. Wayne > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From svenpran@online.no Sat Nov 29 19:19:22 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:19:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <004201c3b6a7$da768560$e59468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <000601c3b6ad$b20fe750$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Nigel Guthrie > [Oh dear. I seem to have misread the AC minutes] It appears to me that you must indeed have misread the AC minutes? > East leads a low Spade. Dummy has left the table > and declarer is playing dummy himself. He touches > the Spade 7, the vu-graph caller says '7 of Spades' > and West plays the 10. Declarer says he was playing > the Queen. The Director is called. > [Declarer explained to the TD] that he was covering > up the King with the seven.. (The King had been > played to the previous trick and, because dummy was > absent, was still face-up on the table.) The > director considered the Spade 7 played. He didn't "touch" the spade 7, he took it and placed it on top of the = spade King which was still lying face-up on the table after being played to = the previous trick. ("He was covering up the King with the seven") =20 > [Nigel] >=20 > Dummy's spade king, from the previous trick, was > still face-up. It had to be turned face-down and, > according to law 45C, Lauria may legally touch > dummy's cards to rearrange them, for this purpose. Of course, but Lauria cannot possibly claim that he was rearranging the = King of spades when he grabbed the seven of spades? >=20 > Lauria also appears to have *named* the spade > queen. Hence, according to law 45B, the spade > queen is legally played. The TD/AC seem to have > ruled instead that the touched spade seven was > *illegally* played (without nomination). According to the minutes Lauria himself denied naming the Queen of = spades. And it is not "illegal" to play a card from dummy without first naming = it.=20 At the very best you can claim that Law 45B describes (in a way that = does not include any suggestion to penalize a deviation) declarer naming a = card in dummy before picking it up as "correct procedure". And there is no consensus that Law 45B is to be understood this way. Instead it appears = that Law 45B generally is understood (and practiced) to allow declarer = physically playing a card from dummy without naming it first. =20 Anyway when declarer uses the procedure described in Law 45C3 this can hardly be called an "illegal" play when there nowhere in the laws exists = any prescription for penalizing this procedure. Sven From svenpran@online.no Sat Nov 29 20:09:35 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 21:09:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <004b01c3b6ad$619de100$26e536d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <000701c3b6b4$b5d50170$6900a8c0@WINXP> > wayne@ebridgenz.com > > > Wayne > > ......... > > > I am amazed at what I read in the appeal report. > > > > I am not. > > > > > It is reported as fact that Lauria said that he was > > > covering up the King with the seven that sure sounds > > > like arranging the dummy to me. > > > > Now, why would a player "arrange" dummy's cards by placing > > one of them (S:7) > > on top of the card played to the previous trick (S:K), a card > > that still > > remains face up on the table, in such a way as to cover that > > previously > > played card? > > > > The only sensible explanation for me is that he really > > intended to play the > > S:7 and marked this by covering the previously played S:K > > leaving only one > > card visible as played cards from dummy to avoid any = misunderstanding. > > > > Even if he had not covered the S:K with his S:7 I would still > > have ruled the > > S:7 played once he removed it from among the other spades and > > placed it in > > an "isolated" position on the table. >=20 > There is no indication in the report that he did that. No, the report is that he covered the (previously played) S:K with the = S:7. The following is copied directly from the AC document as presented here. Exactly what action does in your opinion this statement describe? Begin quote: The Director: The Director enquired of declarer as to his actions and = he said that he was covering up the King with the seven.. (The King had = been played to the previous trick and, because dummy was absent, was still face-up on the table.) The director considered the Spade 7 played. End quote. > His testimony at the table and stated as fact and in the appeal > indicate that he intended to play the Queen. What is obvious is that he intended to play the Queen after he realized which card had been led. But can it be accepted a fact that this was his intention already when he took the S:7 from dummy and placed it on top = of the S:K? This is where I don't believe him. And as the reports indicate: Neither = did the Director nor the AC. >=20 > > > > > > > > And yet the committee state that it was not evident > > > that Lauria was adjusting dummy's cards. > > > > "And yet ..."? > > > > To me it is evident that you do not "arrange" dummy's cards > > by covering an > > already played card with a card not yet played without > > intending to play > > that card. If you want to arrange them you first turn played > > card(s) face > > down together with the other cards already played and then > > you shift the > > remaining cards in dummy to end up with an orderly faced > > hand. (Preferably > > but not compulsory you also announce that you are just > > arranging the cards). >=20 > Not compulsory means not relevant when not hinted at by the > laws. The risk of being ruled to having played the card touched lies with the declarer who neither in action nor by declaration makes it clear that he = is arranging dummy's cards rather than playing a card. He can make this = clear by announcing that fact before taking any action that can be = misunderstood. =20 >=20 > > > > > > We had a long thread on here about playing to subsequent > > > tricks while the previous trick was face up on the table. > > > > Can you find any bridge law that prevents a defender on lead > > from playing to > > the next trick while a card played to the previous trick (by > > dummy) still > > lies face up on the table? >=20 > I cannot. >=20 > But one Sven Pran can >=20 > From the archives: >=20 > Wayne asked: Which law(s) establishes as incorrect a player leading > to the next trick before another player has quitted a completed trick? >=20 > Sven answered: Are you satisfied with Law 74A2? Indeed I said, and I haven't changed my opinion. =20 > Some of the reasons Sven gave: >=20 > "If another player ignores my need for such thinking and just leads = his > =3D > card > to the next trick I shall hold him in contempt unless his action was = =3D > purely > unintentional, in which case I shall expect his excuse and that will = be > =3D > it. >=20 > If I were to be called to a table where an apparent conflict exists = with > =3D > one > player "digesting" information and another player complains I shall = most > likely rule a violation of Law 74B2 against the complaining player. So = =3D > far > this has never happened to me as a director and I would be most =3D > surprised if > it ever happens" However, none of this is relevant when the unturned card belongs to = dummy who has absolutely no reason to keep his card face up after the three = active players have turned their cards face down. > and Sven went as far as: >=20 > "The proper penalty against repeated or really severe violations of = =3D > Law > 74B is expulsion, a penalty that can not be appealed, are you aware of = =3D > that?" >=20 > and Sven wrote: >=20 > "During my nearly 25 years as director (and even more as player) I = have > =3D > more > than once found myself facing the situation where a player leads to = the > =3D > next > trick while some other player still has his last played card face up. > That player then simply points out the fact, everybody holds their = play > =3D > to > the next trick until the last previously played card is finally turned = =3D > face > down; and that is that. No problem and no confusion." >=20 > Apparently it is no problem except in the Bermuda Bowl final Sven. Yes there is a problem when you mix the rights of a player with the non-existing rights of dummy to participate in the play. =20 Besides, even if we should rule that the lead was premature because of = an unturned card (which I would have ruled had the faced card belonged to declarer and not to dummy) it doesn't change the fact that the card "prematurely" led would eventually have to be led anyway. And none of = this changes the case as far as Lauria is concerned. ........... > > > From memory many contributers here said that that was not > > > proper procedure. And yet here we have Soloway leading > > > while the sK from the previous trick was face up on the > > > table - this is stated in the facts. While I don't believe > > > Soloway did anything wrong it certainly would have added > > > to the confusion of the situation. > > > > You are perfectly right: Soloway did nothing wrong and > > whatever confusion > > may have been caused in Lauria's mind would only be his own > > responsibility. >=20 > I agree but I see no evidence of confusion in the appeal report. Neither do I. But you will find the word "confusion" in your own text = about 8 lines up. >=20 > > > > > > > > There seems also to be significant testimony that the > > > card was considered played by the defenders because the > > > vugraph operator called the card. This does not make a > > > card played. > > > > What makes you believe that the announcement by the vugraph > > operator was > > relevant in any way? It only confirms that even this operator > > understood > > Lauria to having played that card. >=20 > Both Hamman and Soloway gave evidence that the s7 was called. > Lauria said he did not name the card. >=20 > Hamman and Soloway's evidence is irrelevant if they heard the > operator and not Lauria. Absolutely. It is only evidence of the vugraph operator understanding Lauria's action as playing the card. They apparently understood the card having been played by the way Lauria acted at the table. >=20 > > > > > > > > If declarer's testimony was that he was arranging dummy > > > I would be inclined to believe him without significant > > > evidence to the contrary. I don't see that evidence > > > in the appeal report. > > > > If Lauria had rearranged the S:7 in between the other > > remaining spades in > > dummy I might have believed him. But as he removed the S:7 > > from the other > > unplayed spades in dummy and placed the S:7 on top of the S:K > > played to the > > previous trick I certainly do not. >=20 > It is not clear to me from the report where the sK was. It is > only clear that it was face up. And it had been played, which must mean that it was no longer located in between the other unplayed cards belonging to dummy. =20 > > > > And I still consider the AC very tolerant when they returned > > the deposit. >=20 > You may see evidence but I do not. >=20 > Even if the King was separate and Lauria was 'arranging' dummy > by covering as he stated, a mechanical error in that process of > arranging dummy (as in moving a card to an unintended position) > does not force declarer to play the card. Declarer was still > arranging the dummy as he is entitled to do. >=20 > I see no evidence that there was an infraction. There may have > been but I do not see the evidence reported. >=20 > The player stated at the time that he intended to play the queen > and this was statement was established by the committee. >=20 > The player stated that he was "covering up" the king with the > seven which by inference suggests he was not plying the seven. Oh, come on! Have you ever seen, or can you imagine a declarer = "rearranging" cards in dummy by picking up one of the cards from dummy and placing it = on top of a card played to the previous trick? =20 > I need better evidence to believe that the player is not telling > me the truth. I need better evidence to believe that Lauria did not get surprised by = the lead not cashing a high heart (to which he obviously would discard his = low spade) and that he didn't really change his mind when he discovered what = was led. Sven From svenpran@online.no Sat Nov 29 20:21:30 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 21:21:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000601c3b6ad$b20fe750$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000801c3b6b6$600ec670$6900a8c0@WINXP> Sven Pran ............ > And it is not "illegal" to play a card from dummy without first naming = it. >=20 > At the very best you can claim that Law 45B describes (in a way that = does > not include any suggestion to penalize a deviation) declarer naming a = card > in dummy before picking it up as "correct procedure". And there is no > consensus that Law 45B is to be understood this way. Instead it = appears > that > Law 45B generally is understood (and practiced) to allow declarer > physically > playing a card from dummy without naming it first. After writing this I looked up the commentaries to the Bridge Laws of = 1987 and found: 45.2 A card is played if: (i) ....... (ii) it is a card in dummy which declarer has named for the purpose = (dummy's action in picking it out of dummy and facing it is subsequent to the = play of the card), or it is a card which declarer has picked from dummy for the purpose of playing it. Please note that Law 45B was not changed from 1987 to 1997. IMO this should clarify that the second statement in Law 45B is intended = as an alternative to naming the card in dummy (which makes the card played) = and not just to the mechanical action of picking a named card from dummy subsequent to this play. Sven From wayne@ebridgenz.com Sat Nov 29 21:18:56 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 10:18:56 +1300 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000801c3b6b6$600ec670$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000801c3b6be$6bbc7460$632f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Sunday, 30 November 2003 8:22 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy play > > > Sven Pran > ............ > > And it is not "illegal" to play a card from dummy without > first naming it. > > > > At the very best you can claim that Law 45B describes (in a > way that does > > not include any suggestion to penalize a deviation) > declarer naming a card > > in dummy before picking it up as "correct procedure". And > there is no > > consensus that Law 45B is to be understood this way. > Instead it appears > > that > > Law 45B generally is understood (and practiced) to allow declarer > > physically > > playing a card from dummy without naming it first. > > After writing this I looked up the commentaries to the Bridge > Laws of 1987 > and found: > > 45.2 A card is played if: > (i) ....... > (ii) it is a card in dummy which declarer has named for the > purpose (dummy's > action in picking it out of dummy and facing it is subsequent > to the play of > the card), or it is a card which declarer has picked from > dummy for the > purpose of playing it. > > Please note that Law 45B was not changed from 1987 to 1997. > > IMO this should clarify that the second statement in Law 45B > is intended as > an alternative to naming the card in dummy (which makes the > card played) and > not just to the mechanical action of picking a named card from dummy > subsequent to this play. Yeah right. (intended as a negative) Someone rights a commentary and that unilaterally makes the intention of the law clear? I think not. Someone writes a commentary and that is merely that person's interpretation. It does not make it law. Wayne > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From svenpran@online.no Sat Nov 29 22:16:49 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:16:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000801c3b6be$6bbc7460$632f37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <000a01c3b6c6$7bfa31c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > wayne@ebridgenz.com ....... > > After writing this I looked up the commentaries to the Bridge > > Laws of 1987 > > and found: > > > > 45.2 A card is played if: > > (i) ....... > > (ii) it is a card in dummy which declarer has named for the > > purpose (dummy's > > action in picking it out of dummy and facing it is subsequent > > to the play of > > the card), or it is a card which declarer has picked from > > dummy for the > > purpose of playing it. > > > > Please note that Law 45B was not changed from 1987 to 1997. > > > > IMO this should clarify that the second statement in Law 45B > > is intended as > > an alternative to naming the card in dummy (which makes the > > card played) and > > not just to the mechanical action of picking a named card from dummy > > subsequent to this play. > > Yeah right. (intended as a negative) > > Someone rights a commentary and that unilaterally makes the > intention of the law clear? > > I think not. > > Someone writes a commentary and that is merely that person's > interpretation. It does not make it law. "Someone" ? ? ? ? ? You really disappoint me These commentaries are official commentaries issued by EBL. They were written by Grattan Endicott and Bent Keith Hansen. At that time both were members of the EBL Laws Committee, and Grattan was also a member of the WBF Laws Committee. Someone - indeed. Sven From wayne@ebridgenz.com Sat Nov 29 22:18:23 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:18:23 +1300 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000701c3b6b4$b5d50170$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000b01c3b6c6$b999cc70$632f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Sunday, 30 November 2003 8:10 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy play > > > > wayne@ebridgenz.com > > > > Wayne > > > ......... > > > > I am amazed at what I read in the appeal report. > > > > > > I am not. > > > > > > > It is reported as fact that Lauria said that he was > > > > covering up the King with the seven that sure sounds > > > > like arranging the dummy to me. > > > > > > Now, why would a player "arrange" dummy's cards by placing > > > one of them (S:7) > > > on top of the card played to the previous trick (S:K), a card > > > that still > > > remains face up on the table, in such a way as to cover that > > > previously > > > played card? > > > > > > The only sensible explanation for me is that he really > > > intended to play the > > > S:7 and marked this by covering the previously played S:K > > > leaving only one > > > card visible as played cards from dummy to avoid any > misunderstanding. > > > > > > Even if he had not covered the S:K with his S:7 I would still > > > have ruled the > > > S:7 played once he removed it from among the other spades and > > > placed it in > > > an "isolated" position on the table. > > > > There is no indication in the report that he did that. > > No, the report is that he covered the (previously played) S:K > with the S:7. > > The following is copied directly from the AC document as > presented here. > Exactly what action does in your opinion this statement describe? > > Begin quote: > The Director: The Director enquired of declarer as to his > actions and he > said that he was covering up the King with the seven.. (The > King had been > played to the previous trick and, because dummy was absent, was still > face-up on the table.) The director considered the Spade 7 played. > End quote. The report indicates that he demonstrated this to the committee. I did not see the demonstration so I do not know for certain. When the report indicates that he maintained that he was not playing the s7 but rather playing the Queen I will believe him. It seems a bizarre thing to say if you really did play the s7 and then changed your mind (or woke up). Bottom line for me is that declarer is entitled to arrange dummy without penalty. The same commentary that you quote elsewhere says on this matter that "...the defender to the left of dummy should not play prematurely - i.e. before it is clear what card has been played from dummy" > > > > His testimony at the table and stated as fact and in the appeal > > indicate that he intended to play the Queen. > > What is obvious is that he intended to play the Queen after > he realized > which card had been led. There is nothing in the report that suggests he changed his mind. You are jumping to conclusions - why is this obvious. I see no evidence or suggestion of this fact. As far as I know that Lauria changed his mind is folklore. I have not seen the evidence for it. It is not a stated fact nor a stated opinion of the appeal committee. > But can it be accepted a fact that > this was his > intention already when he took the S:7 from dummy and placed > it on top of > the S:K? > > This is where I don't believe him. And as the reports > indicate: Neither did > the Director nor the AC. Ok what evidence do they use for that. If they are saying that he went to appeal and told them a bunch of lies about what he intended to play then how could they give him back a deposit? The player has a right to be believed unless you are going to accuse him of cheating. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And yet the committee state that it was not evident > > > > that Lauria was adjusting dummy's cards. > > > > > > "And yet ..."? > > > > > > To me it is evident that you do not "arrange" dummy's cards > > > by covering an > > > already played card with a card not yet played without > > > intending to play > > > that card. If you want to arrange them you first turn played > > > card(s) face > > > down together with the other cards already played and then > > > you shift the > > > remaining cards in dummy to end up with an orderly faced > > > hand. (Preferably > > > but not compulsory you also announce that you are just > > > arranging the cards). > > > > Not compulsory means not relevant when not hinted at by the > > laws. > > The risk of being ruled to having played the card touched > lies with the > declarer who neither in action nor by declaration makes it > clear that he is > arranging dummy's cards rather than playing a card. He can > make this clear > by announcing that fact before taking any action that can be > misunderstood. Where does it state that. As stated above the commentary on the 1987 law says that the defender should make clear what is happening. Common sense tells me that if there are cards still faced on the table from the previous trick then it could easily be unclear what has been played and what has been adjusted simply as part of the arranging process. > > > > > > > > > > > We had a long thread on here about playing to subsequent > > > > tricks while the previous trick was face up on the table. > > > > > > Can you find any bridge law that prevents a defender on lead > > > from playing to > > > the next trick while a card played to the previous trick (by > > > dummy) still > > > lies face up on the table? > > > > I cannot. > > > > But one Sven Pran can > > > > From the archives: > > > > Wayne asked: Which law(s) establishes as incorrect a player leading > > to the next trick before another player has quitted a > completed trick? > > > > Sven answered: Are you satisfied with Law 74A2? > > Indeed I said, and I haven't changed my opinion. > > > Some of the reasons Sven gave: > > > > "If another player ignores my need for such thinking and > just leads his > > = > > card > > to the next trick I shall hold him in contempt unless his > action was = > > purely > > unintentional, in which case I shall expect his excuse and > that will be > > = > > it. > > > > If I were to be called to a table where an apparent > conflict exists with > > = > > one > > player "digesting" information and another player complains > I shall most > > likely rule a violation of Law 74B2 against the complaining > player. So = > > far > > this has never happened to me as a director and I would be most = > > surprised if > > it ever happens" > > However, none of this is relevant when the unturned card > belongs to dummy > who has absolutely no reason to keep his card face up after > the three active > players have turned their cards face down. Really my question looks to be generic that is about any player's card. > > > and Sven went as far as: > > > > "The proper penalty against repeated or really severe > violations of = > > Law > > 74B is expulsion, a penalty that can not be appealed, are > you aware of = > > that?" > > > > and Sven wrote: > > > > "During my nearly 25 years as director (and even more as > player) I have > > = > > more > > than once found myself facing the situation where a player > leads to the > > = > > next > > trick while some other player still has his last played > card face up. > > That player then simply points out the fact, everybody > holds their play > > = > > to > > the next trick until the last previously played card is > finally turned = > > face > > down; and that is that. No problem and no confusion." > > > > Apparently it is no problem except in the Bermuda Bowl final Sven. > > Yes there is a problem when you mix the rights of a player with the > non-existing rights of dummy to participate in the play. Declarer was playing the dummy. I am not claiming any rights for dummy. > > Besides, even if we should rule that the lead was premature > because of an > unturned card (which I would have ruled had the faced card belonged to > declarer and not to dummy) it doesn't change the fact that the card > "prematurely" led would eventually have to be led anyway. And > none of this > changes the case as far as Lauria is concerned. Lauria still has an unconditional right to arrange the cards in the dummy. > > ........... > > > > From memory many contributers here said that that was not > > > > proper procedure. And yet here we have Soloway leading > > > > while the sK from the previous trick was face up on the > > > > table - this is stated in the facts. While I don't believe > > > > Soloway did anything wrong it certainly would have added > > > > to the confusion of the situation. > > > > > > You are perfectly right: Soloway did nothing wrong and > > > whatever confusion > > > may have been caused in Lauria's mind would only be his own > > > responsibility. > > > > I agree but I see no evidence of confusion in the appeal report. > > Neither do I. But you will find the word "confusion" in your > own text about > 8 lines up. I did. But I did not state that that confusion was in Lauria's mind. I see no evidence of this in the report. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There seems also to be significant testimony that the > > > > card was considered played by the defenders because the > > > > vugraph operator called the card. This does not make a > > > > card played. > > > > > > What makes you believe that the announcement by the vugraph > > > operator was > > > relevant in any way? It only confirms that even this operator > > > understood > > > Lauria to having played that card. > > > > Both Hamman and Soloway gave evidence that the s7 was called. > > Lauria said he did not name the card. > > > > Hamman and Soloway's evidence is irrelevant if they heard the > > operator and not Lauria. > > Absolutely. It is only evidence of the vugraph operator understanding > Lauria's action as playing the card. They apparently > understood the card > having been played by the way Lauria acted at the table. I am talking about the defenders hearing the card named and not what might or might not be perceived by Lauria's actions. Hamman and Soloway gave evidence that they heard a card named. The committee discounted this evidence. They also gave evidence that a card was "touched". There is no evidence discrediting Lauria's claim that he was arranging dummy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If declarer's testimony was that he was arranging dummy > > > > I would be inclined to believe him without significant > > > > evidence to the contrary. I don't see that evidence > > > > in the appeal report. > > > > > > If Lauria had rearranged the S:7 in between the other > > > remaining spades in > > > dummy I might have believed him. But as he removed the S:7 > > > from the other > > > unplayed spades in dummy and placed the S:7 on top of the S:K > > > played to the > > > previous trick I certainly do not. > > > > It is not clear to me from the report where the sK was. It is > > only clear that it was face up. > > And it had been played, which must mean that it was no longer > located in > between the other unplayed cards belonging to dummy. I do not accept this. It might be so but the report does not tell us where the sK was. > > > > > > > And I still consider the AC very tolerant when they returned > > > the deposit. > > > > You may see evidence but I do not. > > > > Even if the King was separate and Lauria was 'arranging' dummy > > by covering as he stated, a mechanical error in that process of > > arranging dummy (as in moving a card to an unintended position) > > does not force declarer to play the card. Declarer was still > > arranging the dummy as he is entitled to do. > > > > I see no evidence that there was an infraction. There may have > > been but I do not see the evidence reported. > > > > The player stated at the time that he intended to play the queen > > and this was statement was established by the committee. > > > > The player stated that he was "covering up" the king with the > > seven which by inference suggests he was not plying the seven. > > Oh, come on! Have you ever seen, or can you imagine a > declarer "rearranging" > cards in dummy by picking up one of the cards from dummy and > placing it on > top of a card played to the previous trick? I have never seen but I could imagine. If this is what the player says he was doing why not give him the benefit of the doubt. > > > I need better evidence to believe that the player is not telling > > me the truth. > > I need better evidence to believe that Lauria did not get > surprised by the > lead not cashing a high heart (to which he obviously would > discard his low > spade) and that he didn't really change his mind when he > discovered what was > led. There is no evidence of Lauria being surprised by this in the official document. If there were I might believe it. I would expect a player to tell the truth and as a player I would expect to be believed if I was telling the truth. Wayne > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Nov 29 22:32:58 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:32:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] Board 32, from Grattan Endicott (fwd) In-Reply-To: <000501c3b6a2$5c6b29f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Saturday, Nov 29, 2003, at 12:58 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > According to the evidence (agreed to also by Lauria) he had taken the > S:7 > and placed it on top of (covering with it) the S:K which had been > played in > the previous trick but still remained face-up on the table. > > If that isn't playing a card I do not know a play when I see it. If the spade K was still face up on the table, then the previous trick had not yet been quitted. Why was declarer "covering it" instead of turning it over? Not saying I agree or disagree with Sven, just that there isn't enough in the report to be certain of the correct ruling. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Nov 29 22:36:35 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:36:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000001c3b687$5bf37d30$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <7CF9987D-22BC-11D8-8209-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Saturday, Nov 29, 2003, at 09:44 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > What makes you believe that the announcement by the vugraph operator > was > relevant in any way? The defenders said that they heard the S7 called. Lauria said that he did not call the seven. Either somebody is lying, or what the defenders heard came from the vugraph operator. In the latter case, the operator's announcement is most certainly relevant. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Nov 29 22:38:08 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:38:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000401c3b68f$a8513a20$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Saturday, Nov 29, 2003, at 10:44 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > s to mind-reading: Have you ever experienced or can you at all imagine > a > player "re-arranging" the cards in dummy by placing a not yet played > card > away from the remaining unplayed cards on top of the card played to the > previous trick? You make an assumption here regarding the location of the SK. That assumption is not supported by anything in evidence. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Nov 29 22:45:33 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:45:33 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <004b01c3b6ad$619de100$26e536d2@Desktop> Message-ID: On Saturday, Nov 29, 2003, at 14:16 US/Eastern, wayne@ebridgenz.com wrote: > The player stated that he was "covering up" the king with the > seven which by inference suggests he was not plying the seven. > > I need better evidence to believe that the player is not telling > me the truth. Precisely. And so should we all. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Nov 29 22:48:08 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:48:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000701c3b6b4$b5d50170$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <1A3D9801-22BE-11D8-8209-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Saturday, Nov 29, 2003, at 15:09 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > The risk of being ruled to having played the card touched lies with the > declarer who neither in action nor by declaration makes it clear that > he is > arranging dummy's cards rather than playing a card. He can make this > clear > by announcing that fact before taking any action that can be > misunderstood. What law places this risk with declarer? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Nov 29 22:53:09 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:53:09 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000b01c3b6c6$b999cc70$632f37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: On Saturday, Nov 29, 2003, at 17:18 US/Eastern, wayne@ebridgenz.com wrote: > The player has a right to be believed unless you are going > to accuse him of cheating. Pfui. A player has a right to be believed unless there is sufficient evidence to *convict* him of cheating. Accusations are not proof. That said, I think your intent was to say that a priori a player should be believed. I agree with that. From wayne@ebridgenz.com Sat Nov 29 22:58:04 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:58:04 +1300 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000a01c3b6c6$7bfa31c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000e01c3b6cc$45007f70$632f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Sunday, 30 November 2003 10:17 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy play > > > > wayne@ebridgenz.com > ....... > > > After writing this I looked up the commentaries to the Bridge > > > Laws of 1987 > > > and found: > > > > > > 45.2 A card is played if: > > > (i) ....... > > > (ii) it is a card in dummy which declarer has named for the > > > purpose (dummy's > > > action in picking it out of dummy and facing it is subsequent > > > to the play of > > > the card), or it is a card which declarer has picked from > > > dummy for the > > > purpose of playing it. > > > > > > Please note that Law 45B was not changed from 1987 to 1997. > > > > > > IMO this should clarify that the second statement in Law 45B > > > is intended as > > > an alternative to naming the card in dummy (which makes the > > > card played) and > > > not just to the mechanical action of picking a named card > from dummy > > > subsequent to this play. > > > > Yeah right. (intended as a negative) > > > > Someone rights a commentary and that unilaterally makes the > > intention of the law clear? > > > > I think not. > > > > Someone writes a commentary and that is merely that person's > > interpretation. It does not make it law. > > "Someone" ? ? ? ? ? You really disappoint me > > These commentaries are official commentaries issued by EBL. They were > written by Grattan Endicott and Bent Keith Hansen. At that > time both were > members of the EBL Laws Committee, and Grattan was also a > member of the WBF > Laws Committee. > > Someone - indeed. I know who wrote it and it is a valuable document. Nevertheless they acknowledge that liklihood of short-comings. And a commentary is a commentary whoever wrote it ... It is never a substitute for the law. Wayne > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Nov 29 22:58:19 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:58:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000a01c3b6c6$7bfa31c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <86962990-22BF-11D8-8209-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Saturday, Nov 29, 2003, at 17:16 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > "Someone" ? ? ? ? ? You really disappoint me > > These commentaries are official commentaries issued by EBL. They were > written by Grattan Endicott and Bent Keith Hansen. At that time both > were > members of the EBL Laws Committee, and Grattan was also a member of > the WBF > Laws Committee. > > Someone - indeed. Are (or were, at the time of writing) Blackstone's "Commentaries" law, or simply his interpretations of law? Unless these commentaries contain an official statement by the WBFLC that they accurately reflect the intent of the LC, then commentaries is all they are, whatever the credentials of their writers. I would also note that if you call these commentaries official under the EBL as a "promulgator" of the laws, they still do not necessarily apply in either the Western Hemisphere (where the laws, under this argument, are in the purview of the ACBLLC) or WBF events (where the laws are in the purview of the WBF). From wayne@ebridgenz.com Sat Nov 29 23:05:28 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:05:28 +1300 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000f01c3b6cd$4d545830$632f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Ed Reppert > Sent: Sunday, 30 November 2003 10:53 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy play > > > > On Saturday, Nov 29, 2003, at 17:18 US/Eastern, wayne@ebridgenz.com > wrote: > > > The player has a right to be believed unless you are going > > to accuse him of cheating. > > Pfui. A player has a right to be believed unless there is sufficient > evidence to *convict* him of cheating. Accusations are not proof. > > That said, I think your intent was to say that a priori a > player should > be believed. I agree with that. You are correct that proof is required. What I really meant was that ... You need to believe a player with regard to his own intentions unless you are willing to accuse him of cheating and deal with the matter on that level. Wayne > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From svenpran@online.no Sat Nov 29 23:47:46 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:47:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000b01c3b6c6$b999cc70$632f37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <000b01c3b6d3$30e7d400$6900a8c0@WINXP> > wayne@ebridgenz.com ........... > > The following is copied directly from the AC document as > > presented here. > > Exactly what action does in your opinion this statement describe? > > > > Begin quote: > > The Director: The Director enquired of declarer as to his > > actions and he said that he was covering up the King with=20 > > the seven.. (The King had been played to the previous trick > > and, because dummy was absent, was still face-up on the table.) > > The director considered the Spade 7 played. > > End quote. >=20 > The report indicates that he demonstrated this to the committee. No, this part of the report quotes what the Director told the AC on what = had happened at the table in his precence. >=20 > I did not see the demonstration so I do not know for certain. Are you seriously suggesting that the report is incorrect? =20 > When the report indicates that he maintained that he was not playing > the s7 but rather playing the Queen I will believe him. Sure he maintained. The question is not whether he told the AC he played = the Queen. The question is not whether he said he intended all the time to = play the Queen. The question is what on earth did he do with the seven of spades? And when he claimed that he was just re-arranging the cards in dummy and = as part of such re-arrangements was placing the seven of spades on top of = the previously played King of spades ("covering the King with the seven") = then that is a story that did not check with the Director, it did not check = with the AC and it does not check with me. That particular action is simply = not consistent with "arranging the cards". > It seems a bizarre thing to say if you really did play the s7 and > then changed your mind (or woke up). Why is this bizarre? I believe most directors and certainly all ACs are = just too familiar with players who suppress the fact that they have been unconscious for a moment. >=20 > Bottom line for me is that declarer is entitled to arrange dummy > without penalty. Sure he is, nobody is arguing that, but was he really arranging dummy? >=20 > The same commentary that you quote elsewhere says on this matter > that "...the defender to the left of dummy should not play > prematurely - i.e. before it is clear what card has been played > from dummy" True and we have no indication other than that it was quite clear to him what card had been played from dummy. What is your point?=20 > > > His testimony at the table and stated as fact and in the appeal > > > indicate that he intended to play the Queen. > > > > What is obvious is that he intended to play the Queen after > > he realized > > which card had been led. >=20 > There is nothing in the report that suggests he changed his mind. >=20 > You are jumping to conclusions - why is this obvious. >=20 > I see no evidence or suggestion of this fact. Well, if it is not obvious to you that his final intention was to play = the Queen I just do not understand what you are arguing about. To me it is obvious that whatever his original intention might have = been; after registering the spade return his intention would be to having = played the Queen. To me it is almost obvious from his own description that he did not grab = the seven of spade in order to arrange the cards in dummy, he grabbed that = card in order to play it and then discovered his momentary unconsciousness = and tried by all means to correct his mistake. >=20 > As far as I know that Lauria changed his mind is folklore. I > have not seen the evidence for it. It is not a stated fact > nor a stated opinion of the appeal committee. "As far as you know"? Isn't it "obvious" from the AC report that this is exactly what the AC = (and before them the Director) must have used as foundation for their = rulings? >=20 > > But can it be accepted a fact that > > this was his > > intention already when he took the S:7 from dummy and placed > > it on top of > > the S:K? > > > > This is where I don't believe him. And as the reports > > indicate: Neither did > > the Director nor the AC. >=20 > Ok what evidence do they use for that. I assume simply the undisputed description on how he handled the seven = of spades. >=20 > If they are saying that he went to appeal and told them a > bunch of lies about what he intended to play then how > could they give him back a deposit? Very few if anybody wants to tell another person straight in his face = that he is lying. There is nothing to be gained from such a statement. But = the ruling tells all that need to be said. And yes, I would have voted to keep the deposit. >=20 > The player has a right to be believed unless you are going > to accuse him of cheating. No, and this is not any accusation of cheating. > > The risk of being ruled to having played the card touched > > lies with the declarer who neither in action nor by=20 > > declaration makes it clear that he is arranging dummy's > > cards rather than playing a card. He can make this clear > > by announcing that fact before taking any action that=20 > > can be misunderstood. >=20 > Where does it state that. =20 Law 45C3 > As stated above the commentary on the > 1987 law says that the defender should make clear what is happening. W H A T ???? =20 > Common sense tells me that if there are cards still faced on the > table from the previous trick then it could easily be unclear > what has been played and what has been adjusted simply as part > of the arranging process. Doesn't your common sense also tell you to begin any rearrangement with turning face down any played card that may happen to still remain face = up? And doesn't your "common sense" tell you that nobody with his senses = working would ever "rearrange" the cards in dummy by taking a card away from the other cards in dummy and place it over a card previously played (unless = he has the intention of playing that card)? Or do you seriously suggest that there is anything in the AC report that opens for the possibility of the King previously played still remaining located in between the cards not yet played from dummy's hand? ........... > > However, none of this is relevant when the unturned card > > belongs to dummy > > who has absolutely no reason to keep his card face up after > > the three active > > players have turned their cards face down. >=20 > Really my question looks to be generic that is about any player's > card. So I understand. And that just demonstrates to me that you must have a problem understanding the laws when you do not see the difference = between dummy and the other three players in this context. =20 ............ > > Yes there is a problem when you mix the rights of a player with the > > non-existing rights of dummy to participate in the play. >=20 > Declarer was playing the dummy. I am not claiming any rights for > dummy. No? From the information available we must assume that declarer had = turned his own card face down which implies that he had completed the previous trick for his own digesting. =20 > > > > Besides, even if we should rule that the lead was premature > > because of an > > unturned card (which I would have ruled had the faced card belonged = to > > declarer and not to dummy) it doesn't change the fact that the card > > "prematurely" led would eventually have to be led anyway. And > > none of this > > changes the case as far as Lauria is concerned. >=20 > Lauria still has an unconditional right to arrange the cards in the > dummy. Why do you repeat and repeat this statement, nobody is contesting that. >=20 > > > > ........... > > > > > From memory many contributers here said that that was not > > > > > proper procedure. And yet here we have Soloway leading > > > > > while the sK from the previous trick was face up on the > > > > > table - this is stated in the facts. While I don't believe > > > > > Soloway did anything wrong it certainly would have added > > > > > to the confusion of the situation. > > > > > > > > You are perfectly right: Soloway did nothing wrong and > > > > whatever confusion > > > > may have been caused in Lauria's mind would only be his own > > > > responsibility. > > > > > > I agree but I see no evidence of confusion in the appeal report. > > > > Neither do I. But you will find the word "confusion" in your > > own text about > > 8 lines up. >=20 > I did. >=20 > But I did not state that that confusion was in Lauria's mind. Neither did I. But when you used the word confusion, whom did you have = in mind? .......... > > > Both Hamman and Soloway gave evidence that the s7 was called. > > > Lauria said he did not name the card. > > > > > > Hamman and Soloway's evidence is irrelevant if they heard the > > > operator and not Lauria. > > > > Absolutely. It is only evidence of the vugraph operator = understanding > > Lauria's action as playing the card. They apparently > > understood the card > > having been played by the way Lauria acted at the table. >=20 > I am talking about the defenders hearing the card named and not what > might or might not be perceived by Lauria's actions. Why do you deny the fact that both defenders understood the S:7 to = having been played from Lauria's actions?=20 After all I do not for a single moment believe that the Director or the = AC based their ruling solely upon anything the vugraph operator may have = said. But with two experienced defenders and an experienced (I assume) vugraph operator I regard them all as very competent witnesses to the facts. > Hamman and Soloway gave evidence that they heard a card named. The > committee discounted this evidence. They also gave evidence that > a card was "touched". There is no evidence discrediting Lauria's > claim that he was arranging dummy. Yes there is: The available evidence corroborated by Lauria's own = statement that he "covered the King of spades with his seven of spades". > > > It is not clear to me from the report where the sK was. It is > > > only clear that it was face up. > > > > And it had been played, which must mean that it was no longer > > located in > > between the other unplayed cards belonging to dummy. >=20 > I do not accept this. It might be so but the report does not tell > us where the sK was. It had been played. Where do you think it was? .......... > > Have you ever seen, or can you imagine a > > declarer "rearranging" > > cards in dummy by picking up one of the cards from dummy and > > placing it on > > top of a card played to the previous trick? >=20 > I have never seen but I could imagine. I must admire your imagination, it appears to be marvelous. >=20 > If this is what the player says he was doing why not give him > the benefit of the doubt.=20 Because we are not in a "criminal court". This is a matter of sorting = out a conflict of interests between two parties and then there is no such = thing as the "benefit of the doubt". Law 45C3 places the burden of evidence on = the declarer when he claims he was not playing a card that he has = deliberately touched in dummy. Lauria failed to convince first the Director, next the AC and now me = (from available documents) of his case. > > I need better evidence to believe that Lauria did not get > > surprised by the > > lead not cashing a high heart (to which he obviously would > > discard his low > > spade) and that he didn't really change his mind when he > > discovered what was > > led. >=20 > There is no evidence of Lauria being surprised by this in the > official document. It is there if you read the document. The AC sustained the Director's = ruling that the S:7 was played, in other words they ruled that Lauria had = changed his mind when he wanted to play the Queen. >=20 > If there were I might believe it. >=20 > I would expect a player to tell the truth and as a player I would > expect to be believed if I was telling the truth. I too, but when a story is so improbable as Lauria's here I do not = believe him when a more convincing theory on what happened is available. Sven From svenpran@online.no Sat Nov 29 23:52:14 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:52:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Board 32, from Grattan Endicott (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000c01c3b6d3$d06a7be0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert .......... > If the spade K was still face up on the table, then the previous trick > had not yet been quitted. Why was declarer "covering it" instead of > turning it over? Have you never (in particular towards the end of a board) played another card from dummy without bothering to turn the card from the previous trick face down? I have. Either the game is just about over or I will turn all the played cards face down when I see that there is more to the game than I anticipated. Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Sat Nov 29 23:57:25 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:57:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <7CF9987D-22BC-11D8-8209-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000d01c3b6d4$89a5c3d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > > What makes you believe that the announcement by the vugraph operator > > was > > relevant in any way? >=20 > The defenders said that they heard the S7 called. Lauria said that he > did not call the seven. Either somebody is lying, or what the = defenders > heard came from the vugraph operator. In the latter case, the > operator's announcement is most certainly relevant. It is (of course) relevant as evidence that the vugraph operator saw Lauria's action to be playing the card. Whether either defender heard or not heard what the operator said is irrelevant. The players must base their understanding on the progress of = the game from actions at the table, not from what any spectator says. (And = the vugraph operator, although being an official is still a spectator). Regards Sven =20 From svenpran@online.no Sun Nov 30 00:00:28 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:00:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000e01c3b6d4$f79142c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > > s to mind-reading: Have you ever experienced or can you at all = imagine > > a > > player "re-arranging" the cards in dummy by placing a not yet played > > card > > away from the remaining unplayed cards on top of the card played to = the > > previous trick? >=20 > You make an assumption here regarding the location of the SK. That > assumption is not supported by anything in evidence. With no evidence to the contrary I consider it most unlikely and really unbelievable that a card played by declarer from dummy should remain = located in between those cards not yet played. Sven From svenpran@online.no Sun Nov 30 00:03:47 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:03:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000f01c3b6d5$6d3dc5c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > > The player stated that he was "covering up" the king with the > > seven which by inference suggests he was not plying the seven. > > > > I need better evidence to believe that the player is not telling > > me the truth. > > Precisely. And so should we all. For what other reason would he place the seven of spades on top of a card previously played (but not yet turned face down). And please do not suggest again that he was "arranging" dummy's cards. You just do not arrange dummy's cards by mixing together played and unplayed cards the first thing you do. Sven From svenpran@online.no Sun Nov 30 00:04:57 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:04:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <1A3D9801-22BE-11D8-8209-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <001001c3b6d5$975141c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > > The risk of being ruled to having played the card touched lies with the > > declarer who neither in action nor by declaration makes it clear that > > he is > > arranging dummy's cards rather than playing a card. He can make this > > clear > > by announcing that fact before taking any action that can be > > misunderstood. > > What law places this risk with declarer? Law 45C3 Sven From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Nov 30 00:08:40 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:08:40 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000f01c3b6cd$4d545830$632f37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <5A47351A-22C9-11D8-8209-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Saturday, Nov 29, 2003, at 18:05 US/Eastern, wayne@ebridgenz.com wrote: > What I really meant was that ... > > You need to believe a player with regard to his own intentions unless > you are willing to accuse him of cheating and deal with the matter > on that level. > I can live with that. :-) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Nov 30 00:10:09 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:10:09 -0500 Subject: [blml] Board 32, from Grattan Endicott (fwd) In-Reply-To: <000c01c3b6d3$d06a7be0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <8F094810-22C9-11D8-8209-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Saturday, Nov 29, 2003, at 18:52 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > Have you never (in particular towards the end of a board) played > another > card from dummy without bothering to turn the card from the previous > trick > face down? Not that I can recall, no. IAC, my point was that the evidence presented is insufficient to support a determination either way. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Nov 30 00:11:57 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:11:57 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000d01c3b6d4$89a5c3d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Saturday, Nov 29, 2003, at 18:57 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > Ed Reppert >>> What makes you believe that the announcement by the vugraph operator >>> was >>> relevant in any way? >> >> The defenders said that they heard the S7 called. Lauria said that he >> did not call the seven. Either somebody is lying, or what the >> defenders >> heard came from the vugraph operator. In the latter case, the >> operator's announcement is most certainly relevant. > > It is (of course) relevant as evidence that the vugraph operator saw > Lauria's action to be playing the card. > > Whether either defender heard or not heard what the operator said is > irrelevant. The players must base their understanding on the progress > of the > game from actions at the table, not from what any spectator says. (And > the > vugraph operator, although being an official is still a spectator). Of course. But the evidence presented is that the defenders heard the S7 named. If the vugraph operator is who they heard, then their evidence is irrelevant. From svenpran@online.no Sun Nov 30 00:12:30 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:12:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <86962990-22BF-11D8-8209-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <001101c3b6d6$a550ac10$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > > "Someone" ? ? ? ? ? You really disappoint me > > > > These commentaries are official commentaries issued by EBL. They were > > written by Grattan Endicott and Bent Keith Hansen. At that time both > > were > > members of the EBL Laws Committee, and Grattan was also a member of > > the WBF > > Laws Committee. > > > > Someone - indeed. > > Are (or were, at the time of writing) Blackstone's "Commentaries" law, > or simply his interpretations of law? > > Unless these commentaries contain an official statement by the WBFLC > that they accurately reflect the intent of the LC, then commentaries is > all they are, whatever the credentials of their writers. I would also > note that if you call these commentaries official under the EBL as a > "promulgator" of the laws, they still do not necessarily apply in > either the Western Hemisphere (where the laws, under this argument, are > in the purview of the ACBLLC) or WBF events (where the laws are in the > purview of the WBF). What are you talking about? Blackstone's ??? The full title of the book I am referring to is: Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1987 By Grattan Endicott and Bent Keith Hansen European Bridge League 1992 ISBN No. 0 946236 37 2 I shall leave it to Grattan to comment on any allegation that these commentaries were not recognized by WBF; as indicated above they were an official product from EBL. Sven From svenpran@online.no Sun Nov 30 00:18:42 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:18:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000f01c3b6cd$4d545830$632f37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <001201c3b6d7$832304c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > wayne@ebridgenz.com > > On Saturday, Nov 29, 2003, at 17:18 US/Eastern, wayne@ebridgenz.com > > wrote: > > > > > The player has a right to be believed unless you are going > > > to accuse him of cheating. > > > > Pfui. A player has a right to be believed unless there is sufficient > > evidence to *convict* him of cheating. Accusations are not proof. > > > > That said, I think your intent was to say that a priori a > > player should > > be believed. I agree with that. >=20 > You are correct that proof is required. >=20 > What I really meant was that ... >=20 > You need to believe a player with regard to his own intentions unless > you are willing to accuse him of cheating and deal with the matter > on that level. So what you and Ed say is that Lauria has the right to be believed, a = right his opponents do not enjoy? Will you please explain to me the reasons for this difference in trust? Remember as I have said before: This is not a case in a "criminal = court"; this is a case in a "civil court" for the purpose of resolving a = conflict of interests. Sven From wayne@ebridgenz.com Sun Nov 30 00:26:00 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:26:00 +1300 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <001001c3b6d5$975141c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000001c3b6d8$8ad8a1b0$632f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Sunday, 30 November 2003 12:05 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy play > > > Ed Reppert > > > > The risk of being ruled to having played the card touched > lies with the > > > declarer who neither in action nor by declaration makes > it clear that > > > he is > > > arranging dummy's cards rather than playing a card. He > can make this > > > clear > > > by announcing that fact before taking any action that can be > > > misunderstood. > > > > What law places this risk with declarer? > > Law 45C3 That nuance in the written law goes right past me. The law in part simply says if declarer's purpose in touching another card was to arrange the dummy then the forced play of the card does not apply. There is no hint that the risk is on declarer if his actions are ambiguous. Wayne > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From wayne@ebridgenz.com Sun Nov 30 00:27:59 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:27:59 +1300 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000f01c3b6d5$6d3dc5c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000101c3b6d8$d440bef0$632f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Sunday, 30 November 2003 12:04 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy play > > > Ed Reppert > > > The player stated that he was "covering up" the king with the > > > seven which by inference suggests he was not plying the seven. > > > > > > I need better evidence to believe that the player is not telling > > > me the truth. > > > > Precisely. And so should we all. > > For what other reason would he place the seven of spades on > top of a card > previously played (but not yet turned face down). > > And please do not suggest again that he was "arranging" > dummy's cards. You > just do not arrange dummy's cards by mixing together played > and unplayed > cards the first thing you do. If it is as you say I can think of no reason why the Appeal Committee did not establish that fact by asking the player. Without asking the question the only acceptable action to take is to accept the word of the player. Wayne > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From wayne@ebridgenz.com Sun Nov 30 00:32:02 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:32:02 +1300 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000b01c3b6d3$30e7d400$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000201c3b6d9$659d1e20$632f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Sunday, 30 November 2003 11:48 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy play > > > > wayne@ebridgenz.com > ........... > > > The following is copied directly from the AC document as > > > presented here. > > > Exactly what action does in your opinion this statement describe? > > > > > > Begin quote: > > > The Director: The Director enquired of declarer as to his > > > actions and he said that he was covering up the King with > > > the seven.. (The King had been played to the previous trick > > > and, because dummy was absent, was still face-up on the table.) > > > The director considered the Spade 7 played. > > > End quote. > > > > The report indicates that he demonstrated this to the committee. > > No, this part of the report quotes what the Director told the > AC on what had > happened at the table in his precence. 'The Players: North said that he picked up the small spade to "cover the King" and demonstrated his meaning' I do not see where the report tells me this was demonstrated to the director. The report indicates that he demonstrated this to the committee. Wayne From svenpran@online.no Sun Nov 30 00:35:22 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:35:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001301c3b6d9$d720df00$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert ........... > Of course. But the evidence presented is that the defenders heard the > S7 named. If the vugraph operator is who they heard, then their > evidence is irrelevant. Have you overlooked the fact (according to Lauria's own statement) that at the time they could possibly have heard the announcement there must already have been some action by Lauria at the table causing whoever gave that announcement the impression that the seven of spades was played. The announcement cannot possibly have preceded this action. And the only probable action that can have triggered this announcement is Lauria "covering the King of spades with dummy's seven of spades". The possibility that the defenders did not notice this action is so remote that I trust them to have their own observation as foundation for their statement when they say that the seven of spades in their opinion was played. What they eventually heard from the vugraph operator would only serve as a confirmation on what they already "knew". Sven From wayne@ebridgenz.com Sun Nov 30 00:36:50 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:36:50 +1300 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000b01c3b6d3$30e7d400$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000501c3b6da$11f6f970$632f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Sunday, 30 November 2003 11:48 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy play > > > Well, if it is not obvious to you that his final intention > was to play the > Queen I just do not understand what you are arguing about. > > To me it is obvious that whatever his original intention > might have been; > after registering the spade return his intention would be to > having played > the Queen. > > To me it is almost obvious from his own description that he > did not grab the > seven of spade in order to arrange the cards in dummy, he > grabbed that card > in order to play it and then discovered his momentary > unconsciousness and > tried by all means to correct his mistake. There was no evidence presented or at least recorded that Lauria changed his mind. Nor was there evidence that recorded that Lauria thought some different card was played. This is simply speculation that some have proposed to explain what happened. If there is evidence in the report then show me. If there was evidence at the committee I feel sure that it would be recorded. Wayne From wayne@ebridgenz.com Sun Nov 30 00:38:14 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:38:14 +1300 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000b01c3b6d3$30e7d400$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000601c3b6da$4306c9f0$632f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Sunday, 30 November 2003 11:48 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy play > > > > > > As far as I know that Lauria changed his mind is folklore. I > > have not seen the evidence for it. It is not a stated fact > > nor a stated opinion of the appeal committee. > > "As far as you know"? > > Isn't it "obvious" from the AC report that this is exactly > what the AC (and > before them the Director) must have used as foundation for > their rulings? > Why did they not right in their report the evidence for this? Why did they not ask Lauria if he had changed his mind? Why if they did not ask did they jump to that conclusion? Wayne From wayne@ebridgenz.com Sun Nov 30 00:39:33 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:39:33 +1300 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000b01c3b6d3$30e7d400$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000701c3b6da$7258e4e0$632f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Sunday, 30 November 2003 11:48 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy play > > > > > > The player has a right to be believed unless you are going > > to accuse him of cheating. > > No, and this is not any accusation of cheating. > I would consider lieing to the committee to be cheating. Wayne From wayne@ebridgenz.com Sun Nov 30 00:41:58 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:41:58 +1300 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000b01c3b6d3$30e7d400$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000801c3b6da$c8f82fe0$632f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Sunday, 30 November 2003 11:48 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy play > > > > > The risk of being ruled to having played the card touched > > > lies with the declarer who neither in action nor by > > > declaration makes it clear that he is arranging dummy's > > > cards rather than playing a card. He can make this clear > > > by announcing that fact before taking any action that > > > can be misunderstood. > > > > Where does it state that. > > Law 45C3 > Utter rubbish. There is no such statement in L45C3. Wayne From wayne@ebridgenz.com Sun Nov 30 00:46:25 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:46:25 +1300 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000b01c3b6d3$30e7d400$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000901c3b6db$67d0dc20$632f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Sunday, 30 November 2003 11:48 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy play > > > > As stated above the commentary on the > > 1987 law says that the defender should make clear what is happening. > > W H A T ???? I did not make this clear. "Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge" Endicott and Hansen Page 155 45.3(iii) "Note that the defender to the left of dummy should not play prematurely - i.e before it is clear what card has been played from dummy" Wayne From svenpran@online.no Sun Nov 30 00:45:24 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:45:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000001c3b6d8$8ad8a1b0$632f37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <001401c3b6db$3da5b970$6900a8c0@WINXP> > wayne@ebridgenz.com > > Law 45C3 >=20 > That nuance in the written law goes right past me. >=20 > The law in part simply says if declarer's purpose in touching > another card was to arrange the dummy then the forced play of > the card does not apply. >=20 > There is no hint that the risk is on declarer if his actions > are ambiguous. Yes there is. The laws state that a card deliberately touched must be = played except ..... I certainly hope that you understand the difference between an exception = and a straight condition. Sven From wayne@ebridgenz.com Sun Nov 30 00:49:16 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:49:16 +1300 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000b01c3b6d3$30e7d400$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000b01c3b6db$cd901210$632f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Sunday, 30 November 2003 11:48 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy play > > > > > > > > > > I agree but I see no evidence of confusion in the appeal report. > > > > > > Neither do I. But you will find the word "confusion" in your > > > own text about > > > 8 lines up. > > > > I did. > > > > But I did not state that that confusion was in Lauria's mind. > > Neither did I. But when you used the word confusion, whom did > you have in > mind? > If Lauria intended to play the sQ as he claimed then clearly the defenders were confused. They demonstrated this at appeal when they said that heard the s7 be called but the committee accepted that Lauria probably did not call that card. Wayne From wayne@ebridgenz.com Sun Nov 30 00:51:54 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:51:54 +1300 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000b01c3b6d3$30e7d400$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000c01c3b6dc$2c06cf50$632f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Sunday, 30 November 2003 11:48 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy play > > > > > If this is what the player says he was doing why not give him > > the benefit of the doubt. > > Because we are not in a "criminal court". This is a matter of > sorting out a > conflict of interests between two parties and then there is > no such thing as > the "benefit of the doubt". Law 45C3 places the burden of > evidence on the > declarer when he claims he was not playing a card that he has > deliberately > touched in dummy. Why do you keep repeating this nonsense. There is no such statement in L45C3 and you know it. If there were you would quote it. Wayne From svenpran@online.no Sun Nov 30 00:54:04 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:54:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000101c3b6d8$d440bef0$632f37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <001501c3b6dc$73c05230$6900a8c0@WINXP> > wayne@ebridgenz.com > > For what other reason would he place the seven of spades on > > top of a card > > previously played (but not yet turned face down). > > > > And please do not suggest again that he was "arranging" > > dummy's cards. You > > just do not arrange dummy's cards by mixing together played > > and unplayed > > cards the first thing you do. >=20 > If it is as you say I can think of no reason why the Appeal > Committee did not establish that fact by asking the player. I can, I assume they considered that they had all the evidence they = needed to know exactly what was the facts. Lauria's handling of the seven of = spades speaks for itself. =20 > Without asking the question the only acceptable action to take > is to accept the word of the player. When a player presents an unbelievable story like Lauria's? Sven From wayne@ebridgenz.com Sun Nov 30 00:58:10 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:58:10 +1300 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000b01c3b6d3$30e7d400$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000f01c3b6dd$0c1f2060$632f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Sunday, 30 November 2003 11:48 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy play > > > > > I would expect a player to tell the truth and as a player I would > > expect to be believed if I was telling the truth. > > I too, but when a story is so improbable as Lauria's here I > do not believe > him when a more convincing theory on what happened is available. So you would rather rule against a player when there may have been no infraction than accept his word for what he says were his intentions. I would prefer to establish that there was an infraction. I would ask the player what his interntions were. And I would allow him to play the card that he intended. If the player says I always intended to play the sQ I allow him to do that. Wayne > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From svenpran@online.no Sun Nov 30 00:59:06 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:59:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000601c3b6da$4306c9f0$632f37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <001601c3b6dd$28043d60$6900a8c0@WINXP> > wayne@ebridgenz.com ........... > > > As far as I know that Lauria changed his mind is folklore. I > > > have not seen the evidence for it. It is not a stated fact > > > nor a stated opinion of the appeal committee. > > > > "As far as you know"? > > > > Isn't it "obvious" from the AC report that this is exactly > > what the AC (and before them the Director) must have used > > as foundation for their rulings? > > > > Why did they not right in their report the evidence for this? Isn't this pretty obvious from the fact that they ruled Law 45C3: Card played? > Why did they not ask Lauria if he had changed his mind? Why should they provoke Lauria to tell lies or embarrass him to admit the truth? > Why if they did not ask did they jump to that conclusion? What makes you believe that they jumped to a conclusion when Lauria's own statement must have made it all clear what really happened? Sven From svenpran@online.no Sun Nov 30 01:07:45 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:07:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000701c3b6da$7258e4e0$632f37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <001701c3b6de$5d369900$6900a8c0@WINXP> > wayne@ebridgenz.com ............ > > > The player has a right to be believed unless you are going > > > to accuse him of cheating. > > > > No, and this is not any accusation of cheating. > > > > I would consider lieing to the committee to be cheating. I don't know what experience you have in directing. What most directors are fully familiar with is that players tell the truth, except that their truth does not always fit the facts that can be proven otherwise. In other words we know that players repress (unconsciously) facts that are embarrassing to them. And we never consider this cheating; first of all cheating requires intent. Sven From svenpran@online.no Sun Nov 30 01:11:14 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:11:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000501c3b6da$11f6f970$632f37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <001801c3b6de$d9defb50$6900a8c0@WINXP> > wayne@ebridgenz.com ........ > > To me it is almost obvious from his own description that he > > did not grab the > > seven of spade in order to arrange the cards in dummy, he > > grabbed that card > > in order to play it and then discovered his momentary > > unconsciousness and > > tried by all means to correct his mistake. > > There was no evidence presented or at least recorded that > Lauria changed his mind. > > Nor was there evidence that recorded that Lauria thought > some different card was played. > > This is simply speculation that some have proposed to > explain what happened. > > If there is evidence in the report then show me. > > If there was evidence at the committee I feel sure that > it would be recorded. The evidence is in the way Lauria handled the seven of spades. Sven From svenpran@online.no Sun Nov 30 01:15:15 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:15:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000201c3b6d9$659d1e20$632f37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <001901c3b6df$69348e00$6900a8c0@WINXP> > wayne@ebridgenz.com > > ........... > > > > The following is copied directly from the AC document as > > > > presented here. > > > > Exactly what action does in your opinion this statement describe? > > > > > > > > Begin quote: > > > > The Director: The Director enquired of declarer as to his > > > > actions and he said that he was covering up the King with > > > > the seven.. (The King had been played to the previous trick > > > > and, because dummy was absent, was still face-up on the table.) > > > > The director considered the Spade 7 played. > > > > End quote. > > > > > > The report indicates that he demonstrated this to the committee. > > > > No, this part of the report quotes what the Director told the > > AC on what had > > happened at the table in his precence. > > 'The Players: > > North said that he picked up the small spade to "cover the King" > and demonstrated his meaning' > > I do not see where the report tells me this was demonstrated to the > director. > > The report indicates that he demonstrated this to the committee. Tell me: Are you unable to read the text within the quote - end quote frame above? The Director's report to the AC: "The director enquired ....." Sven From svenpran@online.no Sun Nov 30 01:19:53 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:19:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000801c3b6da$c8f82fe0$632f37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <001a01c3b6e0$0f453830$6900a8c0@WINXP> > wayne@ebridgenz.com > > > > The risk of being ruled to having played the card touched > > > > lies with the declarer who neither in action nor by > > > > declaration makes it clear that he is arranging dummy's > > > > cards rather than playing a card. He can make this clear > > > > by announcing that fact before taking any action that > > > > can be misunderstood. > > > > > > Where does it state that. > > > > Law 45C3 > > >=20 > Utter rubbish. >=20 > There is no such statement in L45C3. Not being required to play a card deliberately touched is an exception = from the general rule, all contained in Law 45C3. The player requesting an exception is the one who must show cause for the exception to be = applicable. Sven From svenpran@online.no Sun Nov 30 01:26:48 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:26:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000901c3b6db$67d0dc20$632f37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <001b01c3b6e1$06a24320$6900a8c0@WINXP> > wayne@ebridgenz.com > > > As stated above the commentary on the > > > 1987 law says that the defender should make clear what is = happening. > > > > W H A T ???? >=20 > I did not make this clear. >=20 > "Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge" Endicott and > Hansen > Page 155 45.3(iii) >=20 > "Note that the defender to the left of dummy should not play = prematurely > - i.e before it is clear what card has been played from dummy" And exactly why was it not clear to that defender which card had been = played from dummy? Are you going to accuse that player of lying when he says = that he was quite sure the seven of spades had been played from dummy? Sven From svenpran@online.no Sun Nov 30 01:36:53 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:36:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000b01c3b6db$cd901210$632f37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <001c01c3b6e2$6f40fce0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > wayne@ebridgenz.com ........... > If Lauria intended to play the sQ as he claimed then clearly the > defenders were confused. >=20 > They demonstrated this at appeal when they said that heard the > s7 be called but the committee accepted that Lauria probably > did not call that card. I see no reason to disbelieve Lauria in not calling the seven of spades. Thus the defenders must have heard the announcement from the vugraph operator. I see no reason to believe that the vugraph operator announced the seven = of spades played until after Lauria had "covered the S:K with the S:7". I see no reason to disbelieve the defenders that they saw the same = action which the vugraph operator saw, and that they drew the same conclusion = as to the seven of spades having been played. And the defenders had no influence on Lauria "playing" the seven of = spades so there is no reason for assuming that the defenders were "confused". = There is however, every reason to believe that they considered Lauria's action = a violation of Law 45C3, a consideration which was sustained by both the Director and the AC after hearing all the evidence they could collect. Sven From john@asimere.com Sun Nov 30 01:37:15 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:37:15 +0000 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000b01c3b6c6$b999cc70$632f37d2@Desktop> References: <000701c3b6b4$b5d50170$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000b01c3b6c6$b999cc70$632f37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <$Z8eajALnUy$Ewzk@asimere.com> In article <000b01c3b6c6$b999cc70$632f37d2@Desktop>, wayne@ebridgenz.com writes > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On >> Behalf Of Sven Pran >> Sent: Sunday, 30 November 2003 8:10 a.m. >> To: blml >> Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy play what to me is interesting is that the Vugraph operator called a card. Here we have an unbiased observer, who has been watching the tempo and like of the game for a couple of hours. I would have asked the Vugraph operator "In your opinion was a card played, and tell me how" as part of my questioning at the table at the time, and I would have given a lot of weight to the reply to that question. cheers John >> >> >> > wayne@ebridgenz.com >> > > > Wayne >> > > ......... >> > > > I am amazed at what I read in the appeal report. >> > > >> > > I am not. >> > > -- 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 Sun Nov 30 01:39:54 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:39:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000c01c3b6dc$2c06cf50$632f37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <001d01c3b6e2$dadd0d90$6900a8c0@WINXP> > wayne@ebridgenz.com ......... > > > If this is what the player says he was doing why not give him > > > the benefit of the doubt. > > > > Because we are not in a "criminal court". This is a matter of > > sorting out a > > conflict of interests between two parties and then there is > > no such thing as > > the "benefit of the doubt". Law 45C3 places the burden of > > evidence on the > > declarer when he claims he was not playing a card that he has > > deliberately > > touched in dummy. > > Why do you keep repeating this nonsense. There is no such statement > in L45C3 and you know it. > > If there were you would quote it. Do you know the full meaning of the word "except"? Why do you insist of giving Lauria all the benefit of the doubt and his opponents none of the same? Sven From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Nov 30 01:38:20 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:38:20 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dummy play References: <000701c3b6b4$b5d50170$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <00be01c3b6e3$9a1f7490$3938e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott <004201c3b6a7$da768560$e59468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <00bf01c3b6e3$9b2f36e0$3938e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 6:37 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy play > [Nigel] > > Dummy's spade king, from the previous trick, was > still face-up. It had to be turned face-down and, > according to law 45C, Lauria may legally touch > dummy's cards to rearrange them, for this purpose. > > Lauria also appears to have *named* the spade > queen. Hence, according to law 45B, the spade > queen is legally played. The TD/AC seem to have > ruled instead that the touched spade seven was > *illegally* played (without nomination). > +=+ Nothing said about turning down. The K was not among dummy's unplayed cards but face-up where it had been placed when played; according to Mr Lauria the seven was being put on top of it. Read again what Mr. Lauria told the committee - he did not name a card in playing it. So any mention of a card was after what was done was done, even if perhaps almost instantaneously. The WBF CoP states that the committee's presumption is that the Director's ruling is correct and to win his appeal the appellant bears the onus to produce evidence that persuades the committee the ruling is not correct. Would you not think it stretches credibility slightly to argue that in order to remedy the continued exposure of the King one finds a need to take a card from among dummy's unplayed cards over to the place at which the King is lying face-up? - or might one think the slightly more natural action would be just to pick up the King and turn it face down? The report of the appeal states how the committee judged the matter, and remarks in parenthesis on the application of the law to the action. This interpretation has been confirmed by the WBF Chief Director. Not for a moment would I wish to deter anyone from exploring the thought that the committee could have found the case for Mr. Lauria's argument "evident" rather than "not evident", but at least we know what the committee decided - and that the accumulating body of the WBF's jurisprudence now incorporates the decision. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Sun Nov 30 01:52:57 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:52:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000f01c3b6dd$0c1f2060$632f37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <001e01c3b6e4$aeeecc30$6900a8c0@WINXP> > wayne@ebridgenz.com > > > I would expect a player to tell the truth and as a player I would > > > expect to be believed if I was telling the truth. > > > > I too, but when a story is so improbable as Lauria's here I > > do not believe > > him when a more convincing theory on what happened is available. >=20 > So you would rather rule against a player when there may have been no > infraction than accept his word for what he says were his intentions. >=20 > I would prefer to establish that there was an infraction. >=20 > I would ask the player what his interntions were. >=20 > And I would allow him to play the card that he intended. >=20 > If the player says I always intended to play the sQ I allow him to do > that. The only player possibly having made an infraction of law here is = Lauria. Thus it is not a question of believing a player innocent of causing an irregularity. It is a question of resolving a conflict of interests. =20 Lauria caused a situation that required the Director to determine under = Law 45C3 whether Laura's request for playing the Queen of spades was = legitimate or not.=20 The Director after hearing statements from both sides at the table and = using his own judgment ruled that the Seven of spades was played and that = Lauria was not permitted to replace this card with the Queen of spades. The AC after further hearings sustained that ruling. The way I see it the most important evidence in this case must have been = the way Lauria had handled the seven of spades, an action that apparently = nobody found consistent with Lauria just "arranging the cards" in dummy. Except for Lauria's claim that he was just arranging the cards I find = all the evidence referred to in the AC report consistent with the rulings of = the Director and the AC. In this situation it would be impossible for me to = take this claim by Lauria seriously. Sven From wayne@ebridgenz.com Sun Nov 30 02:09:49 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:09:49 +1300 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <001401c3b6db$3da5b970$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001001c3b6e7$340a0b80$632f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Sunday, 30 November 2003 12:45 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy play > > > > wayne@ebridgenz.com > > > Law 45C3 > > > > That nuance in the written law goes right past me. > > > > The law in part simply says if declarer's purpose in touching > > another card was to arrange the dummy then the forced play of > > the card does not apply. > > > > There is no hint that the risk is on declarer if his actions > > are ambiguous. > > Yes there is. The laws state that a card deliberately touched > must be played > except ..... > > I certainly hope that you understand the difference between > an exception and > a straight condition. I do not accept that an exception necessarily contains an element of risk. Wayne > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From wayne@ebridgenz.com Sun Nov 30 02:09:49 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:09:49 +1300 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <001201c3b6d7$832304c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001101c3b6e7$397586d0$632f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Sunday, 30 November 2003 12:19 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy play > > > > wayne@ebridgenz.com > > > On Saturday, Nov 29, 2003, at 17:18 US/Eastern, > wayne@ebridgenz.com > > > wrote: > > > > > > > The player has a right to be believed unless you are going > > > > to accuse him of cheating. > > > > > > Pfui. A player has a right to be believed unless there is > sufficient > > > evidence to *convict* him of cheating. Accusations are not proof. > > > > > > That said, I think your intent was to say that a priori a > > > player should > > > be believed. I agree with that. > > > > You are correct that proof is required. > > > > What I really meant was that ... > > > > You need to believe a player with regard to his own > intentions unless > > you are willing to accuse him of cheating and deal with the matter > > on that level. > > So what you and Ed say is that Lauria has the right to be > believed, a right > his opponents do not enjoy? Yes they do. > > Will you please explain to me the reasons for this difference > in trust? There is no difference. > > Remember as I have said before: This is not a case in a > "criminal court"; > this is a case in a "civil court" for the purpose of > resolving a conflict of > interests. And to restore equity. Wayne > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From wayne@ebridgenz.com Sun Nov 30 02:13:28 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:13:28 +1300 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <001801c3b6de$d9defb50$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001601c3b6e7$90f2aeb0$632f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Sunday, 30 November 2003 1:11 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy play > > > > wayne@ebridgenz.com > ........ > > > To me it is almost obvious from his own description that he > > > did not grab the > > > seven of spade in order to arrange the cards in dummy, he > > > grabbed that card > > > in order to play it and then discovered his momentary > > > unconsciousness and > > > tried by all means to correct his mistake. > > > > There was no evidence presented or at least recorded that > > Lauria changed his mind. > > > > Nor was there evidence that recorded that Lauria thought > > some different card was played. > > > > This is simply speculation that some have proposed to > > explain what happened. > > > > If there is evidence in the report then show me. > > > > If there was evidence at the committee I feel sure that > > it would be recorded. > > The evidence is in the way Lauria handled the seven of spades. That is hardly evidence that Lauria believed he was following to a different suit. Wayne > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Nov 30 01:51:30 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:51:30 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dummy play References: <001901c3b6df$69348e00$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <00eb01c3b6e8$980247a0$3938e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 1:15 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy play > > > > > > No, this part of the report quotes what > > . the Director told the AC on what had > > > happened at the table in his precence. > > +=+ "her presence" +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Nov 30 02:19:03 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:19:03 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dummy play References: <000701c3b6b4$b5d50170$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000b01c3b6c6$b999cc70$632f37d2@Desktop> <$Z8eajALnUy$Ewzk@asimere.com> Message-ID: <00ec01c3b6e8$98c5e5c0$3938e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 1:37 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy play > what to me is interesting is that the Vugraph > operator called a card. Here we have an unbiased > observer, who has been watching the tempo and > like of the game for a couple of hours. I would > have asked the Vugraph operator "In your > opinion was a card played, and tell me how" as > part of my questioning at the table at the time, > and I would have given a lot of weight to the > reply to that question. > +=+ The vugraph operator was standing by to give evidence to the committee if needed. But if you read the report you will discover that the facts as stated to the committee by North were decisive in themselves - no nomination of the card, a purpose in touching it not excepted in 45C3. Applying the Code of Practice all the committee had to do was to judge themselves not persuaded that North's action was evidently within the exceptions 45C3 allows in the latter respect. +=+ From wayne@ebridgenz.com Sun Nov 30 02:23:26 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:23:26 +1300 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <001901c3b6df$69348e00$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001701c3b6e8$f8159de0$632f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Sunday, 30 November 2003 1:15 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy play > > > > wayne@ebridgenz.com > > > ........... > > > > > The following is copied directly from the AC document as > > > > > presented here. > > > > > Exactly what action does in your opinion this > statement describe? > > > > > > > > > > Begin quote: > > > > > The Director: The Director enquired of declarer as to his > > > > > actions and he said that he was covering up the King with > > > > > the seven.. (The King had been played to the previous trick > > > > > and, because dummy was absent, was still face-up on > the table.) > > > > > The director considered the Spade 7 played. > > > > > End quote. > > > > > > > > The report indicates that he demonstrated this to the committee. > > > > > > No, this part of the report quotes what the Director told the > > > AC on what had > > > happened at the table in his precence. > > > > 'The Players: > > > > North said that he picked up the small spade to "cover the King" > > and demonstrated his meaning' > > > > I do not see where the report tells me this was demonstrated to the > > director. > > > > The report indicates that he demonstrated this to the committee. > > Tell me: > Are you unable to read the text within the quote - end quote > frame above? > > The Director's report to the AC: "The director enquired ....." Yes and I stated that the report indicated that Lauria demonstrated what this meant to the committee. I neither saw the action at the table nor saw the demonstration. I am unfamiliar with precisely what Lauria meant by "cover the King". >From the context however it seems to me that Lauria was handling the dummy in a way to quit the previous trick. This is consistent with his statement. Wayne > > Sven > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From wayne@ebridgenz.com Sun Nov 30 02:31:40 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:31:40 +1300 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <00be01c3b6e3$9a1f7490$3938e150@endicott> Message-ID: <001801c3b6ea$1ea247a0$632f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Grattan Endicott > Sent: Sunday, 30 November 2003 1:38 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy play > > > > Grattan Endicott (also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > and gesta@tiscali.co.uk) > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, > as when you find a trout in the milk." > [Thoreau] > ================================== > > +=+ Someone wrote: > "This is where I don't believe him. And as the reports > indicate: Neither did the Director nor the AC." > < > Please do not ascribe disbelief so freely to people. > The question whether to believe or not believe did > not arise. Once it was settled that North was not > adjusting the dummy nor reaching for the Q the > seven was a card he must play.+=+ Declarer stated he was "covering up" that sounds like adjusting the dummy to me. Wayne > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From svenpran@online.no Sun Nov 30 02:42:27 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:42:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <00eb01c3b6e8$980247a0$3938e150@endicott> Message-ID: <001f01c3b6eb$982ea770$6900a8c0@WINXP> > > > > No, this part of the report quotes what > > > . the Director told the AC on what had > > > > happened at the table in his precence. > > > > +=+ "her presence" +=+ My apologies. Nowhere have I noticed any reference to the Director's sex. Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Sun Nov 30 02:48:30 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:48:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <001701c3b6e8$f8159de0$632f37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <002001c3b6ec$6feee490$6900a8c0@WINXP> > wayne@ebridgenz.com ......... > From the context however it seems to me that Lauria was handling the > dummy in a way to quit the previous trick. This is consistent with > his statement. So he was using the seven of spades as a tool to turn the King of spades around did he? Only he managed to place the seven of spades on top of the King instead of using it as a shovel to "dig" the King off the table and turn it around? You are amazing! Sven From wayne@ebridgenz.com Sun Nov 30 04:34:23 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:34:23 +1300 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <002001c3b6ec$6feee490$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002101c3b6fb$40a900d0$25e436d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Sunday, 30 November 2003 2:49 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy play > > > > wayne@ebridgenz.com > ......... > > From the context however it seems to me that Lauria was handling the > > dummy in a way to quit the previous trick. This is consistent with > > his statement. > > So he was using the seven of spades as a tool to turn the > King of spades > around did he? Only he managed to place the seven of spades > on top of the > King instead of using it as a shovel to "dig" the King off > the table and > turn it around? > > You are amazing! Thank you. The evidence presented does not give that much detail. It does say that Lauria made it clear that he was not playing the s7. It seems that Lauria was claiming to be 'arranging' the dummy in some way. If he was then he has been dealt with harshly. As soon as he realized the defenders were confused as to his intentions he made it clear that his intention was to play the Queen. That is good enough for me. Wayne > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Nov 30 04:40:19 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:40:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <001001c3b6d5$975141c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4D7A57E6-22EF-11D8-8209-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Saturday, Nov 29, 2003, at 19:04 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: >> What law places this risk with declarer? > > Law 45C3 Ah. Okay. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Nov 30 04:41:22 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:41:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dummy play Message-ID: <9A0BA2C0-22EF-11D8-8209-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Oops. Meant to send this to this list. Sorry, Sven. On Saturday, Nov 29, 2003, at 19:03 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > For what other reason would he place the seven of spades on top of a > card > previously played (but not yet turned face down). I have no idea. Did anyone ask him why he did it? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Nov 30 04:46:22 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:46:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000b01c3b6d3$30e7d400$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <25C5CE6A-22F0-11D8-8209-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Saturday, Nov 29, 2003, at 18:47 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > Why do you deny the fact that both defenders understood the S:7 to > having > been played from Lauria's actions? Both defenders gave evidence that they heard the S7 called. Neither defender gave evidence (assuming the report is complete and accurate) that he understood it to have been played from declarer's actions. From walt1@verizon.net Sun Nov 30 04:47:23 2003 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:47:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] Board 32, from Grattan Endicott (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.0.20031129234209.0345beb0@incoming.verizon.net> At 01:18 PM 29/11/2003, Brian Meadows wrote: >On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:43 +0000 (GMT Standard Time), Tim >West-Meads wrote: > > > > > > >To me the most bizarre aspect of the whole affair is that the finals were > >being recorded on camera but it was pointing in the wrong direction at the > >time - a bit like watching the rugby world cup and finding the cameras > >watching the crowd instead of Wilko's drop goal. > > > >Maybe there has been a reason stated elsewhere and I haven't read >about it - but I think the idea of a player leaving his partner >to play dummy's cards as declarer on the last hand of the BB >final runs the camera work a close second in the bizarre stakes. >You know it's a close match and that you're in a "delicate" >contract, why burden pard with any extra distractions? > >Brian. I would even think that there might be a spare director or official when the field has shrunk to only two who would sit down and turn cards if partner had an urgent need to go to the bath room ... why else would he leave at a point like that? Heck when I play at my local club the director often sits and turns cards when someone has to make a pit stop ... and they have a full game to run, not just two teams left. Is there a reason why someone would not be available at the Bermuda Bowl finals? Walt BBWolf From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Nov 30 04:52:07 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:52:07 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <001101c3b6d6$a550ac10$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Saturday, Nov 29, 2003, at 19:12 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > What are you talking about? Blackstone's ??? Sorry. I should have realized this reference would be obscure. Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780) was an English lawyer. His "commentaries" were the major work on English common law for over a century. But they were not law. See http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/blackstone/blacksto.htm#intro and http://earlyamerica.com/review/spring97/blackstone.html. From walt1@verizon.net Sun Nov 30 04:57:48 2003 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:57:48 -0500 Subject: [blml] Board 32, from Grattan Endicott (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: <000501c3b6a2$5c6b29f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.0.20031129235332.03459350@incoming.verizon.net> At 05:32 PM 29/11/2003, Ed Reppert wrote: >On Saturday, Nov 29, 2003, at 12:58 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > >>According to the evidence (agreed to also by Lauria) he had taken the S:7 >>and placed it on top of (covering with it) the S:K which had been played in >>the previous trick but still remained face-up on the table. >> >>If that isn't playing a card I do not know a play when I see it. > >If the spade K was still face up on the table, then the previous trick had >not yet been quitted. Why was declarer "covering it" instead of turning it >over? > >Not saying I agree or disagree with Sven, just that there isn't enough in >the report to be certain of the correct ruling. I would think that instead of reaching across the table, turning over the previously played card and then picking up the card he was going to play now that he was probably just stacking the played cards face up and covering the last played card with the one he was playing now. I'm just guessing, but this is the only scenario I can come up with that made sense and fits with the description of what happened. Does anyone know? Walt BBWolf From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Nov 30 04:58:36 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:58:36 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <001201c3b6d7$832304c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Saturday, Nov 29, 2003, at 19:18 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > So what you and Ed say is that Lauria has the right to be believed, a > right > his opponents do not enjoy? > > Will you please explain to me the reasons for this difference in trust? > > Remember as I have said before: This is not a case in a "criminal > court"; > this is a case in a "civil court" for the purpose of resolving a > conflict of > interests. We are (or at least I am) saying that Lauria's statements as to what happened carry, a priori, as much weight as Soloway's or Hamman's. Soloway and Hamman say they heard the S7 named. Check. Lauria says he did not name the S7. Check. We are told that the vugraph commentator spoke of the S7 (presumably in the hearing of those at the table). Given these data, we must conclude that Soloway and Hamman did *not* hear *Lauria* call for the S7. Therefore, if their hearing it was the basis for their assumption that the S7 was played, they may well have been mistaken in that assumption. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Nov 30 05:04:46 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:04:46 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <001a01c3b6e0$0f453830$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Saturday, Nov 29, 2003, at 20:19 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > The player requesting an > exception is the one who must show cause for the exception to be > applicable. From whom is declarer requesting an exception? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Nov 30 05:14:36 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:14:36 -0500 Subject: [blml] Board 32, from Grattan Endicott (fwd) In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.0.20031129235332.03459350@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <17309348-22F4-11D8-8209-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Saturday, Nov 29, 2003, at 23:57 US/Eastern, Walt wrote: > Does anyone know? Well, I certainly don't. And that is the crux of the problem, it seems to me. :- From john@asimere.com Sun Nov 30 06:34:23 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 06:34:23 +0000 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <00ec01c3b6e8$98c5e5c0$3938e150@endicott> References: <000701c3b6b4$b5d50170$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000b01c3b6c6$b999cc70$632f37d2@Desktop> <$Z8eajALnUy$Ewzk@asimere.com> <00ec01c3b6e8$98c5e5c0$3938e150@endicott> Message-ID: <8VFeJFBv9Yy$Ewys@asimere.com> In article <00ec01c3b6e8$98c5e5c0$3938e150@endicott>, Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott(also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > and gesta@tiscali.co.uk) >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >"Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, >as when you find a trout in the milk." > [Thoreau] >================================== > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >To: >Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 1:37 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy play > > >> what to me is interesting is that the Vugraph >> operator called a card. Here we have an unbiased >> observer, who has been watching the tempo and >> like of the game for a couple of hours. I would >> have asked the Vugraph operator "In your >> opinion was a card played, and tell me how" as >> part of my questioning at the table at the time, >> and I would have given a lot of weight to the >> reply to that question. >> >+=+ The vugraph operator was standing by >to give evidence to the committee if needed. >But if you read the report you will discover >that the facts as stated to the committee by >North were decisive in themselves - no >nomination of the card, a purpose in touching >it not excepted in 45C3. Applying the Code of >Practice all the committee had to do was to >judge themselves not persuaded that North's >action was evidently within the exceptions >45C3 allows in the latter respect. +=+ indeed, but I was considering the matter from the point of view of a TD (or even a rubber bridge host). He will (or should if he's competent) ascertain from any spectators what they have seen, as well as ask the players at the table what happened. It is all part of establishing the facts as best possible, before giving a judgment. In so far as the AC is or should be concerned, it is the evidence of the players themselves which should be scrutinised more closely, often in order to establish intent, although intent is not relevant in this particular matter, as the Law(s) relating to the play of a card is one of the less ambiguous ones. > >_______________________________________________ >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 Nov 30 06:38:22 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 06:38:22 +0000 Subject: [blml] Board 32, from Grattan Endicott (fwd) In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.0.20031129234209.0345beb0@incoming.verizon.net> References: <6.0.1.1.0.20031129234209.0345beb0@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: In article <6.0.1.1.0.20031129234209.0345beb0@incoming.verizon.net>, Walt writes >At 01:18 PM 29/11/2003, Brian Meadows wrote: >>On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:43 +0000 (GMT Standard Time), Tim >>West-Meads wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >To me the most bizarre aspect of the whole affair is that the finals were >> >being recorded on camera but it was pointing in the wrong direction at the >> >time - a bit like watching the rugby world cup and finding the cameras >> >watching the crowd instead of Wilko's drop goal. >> > >> >>Maybe there has been a reason stated elsewhere and I haven't read >>about it - but I think the idea of a player leaving his partner >>to play dummy's cards as declarer on the last hand of the BB >>final runs the camera work a close second in the bizarre stakes. >>You know it's a close match and that you're in a "delicate" >>contract, why burden pard with any extra distractions? >> >>Brian. > > >I would even think that there might be a spare director or official when >the field has shrunk to only two who would sit down and turn cards if >partner had an urgent need to go to the bath room ... why else would he >leave at a point like that? > >Heck when I play at my local club the director often sits and turns cards >when someone has to make a pit stop ... and they have a full game to run, >not just two teams left. > >Is there a reason why someone would not be available at the Bermuda Bowl >finals? You gotta be joking. I wouldn't dream of sitting at a table and turning cards. If I carelessly cause an infraction in the process the friggin' sky's gonna fall in. If dummy wishes to leave the table, he can (it's an infraction in the general case, but not one which is normally penalised) but he does so at his own risk. cheers john > >Walt >BBWolf > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Sun Nov 30 10:02:31 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:02:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <9A0BA2C0-22EF-11D8-8209-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <002201c3b729$11ef1850$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > On Saturday, Nov 29, 2003, at 19:03 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > > > For what other reason would he place the seven of spades on top of a > > card > > previously played (but not yet turned face down). > > I have no idea. Did anyone ask him why he did it? If they didn't then apparently nobody found it necessary, the action speaks for itself. Sven From svenpran@online.no Sun Nov 30 10:11:24 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:11:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <25C5CE6A-22F0-11D8-8209-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <002301c3b72a$4f3fb330$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > > Why do you deny the fact that both defenders understood the S:7 to > > having > > been played from Lauria's actions? >=20 > Both defenders gave evidence that they heard the S7 called. Neither > defender gave evidence (assuming the report is complete and accurate) > that he understood it to have been played from declarer's actions. You didn't answer my question.=20 Are you accusing both defenders to having based their understanding that = the S:7 was played solely on the announcement and not on the way Lauria = handled the S:7? Sven From svenpran@online.no Sun Nov 30 10:13:25 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:13:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002401c3b72a$9794d9d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert ......... > Given these data, we must conclude that Soloway and Hamman did *not* > hear *Lauria* call for the S7. Therefore, if their hearing it was the > basis for their assumption that the S7 was played, they may well have > been mistaken in that assumption. And what is your basis for assuming that they did not also "observe" the = way Lauria handled the S:7 and drew their conclusions from that observation = with the announcement as a corroborating piece of evidence? Sven From svenpran@online.no Sun Nov 30 10:16:03 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:16:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002501c3b72a$f5cda3b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > > The player requesting an > > exception is the one who must show cause for the exception to be > > applicable. > > From whom is declarer requesting an exception? >From the primary obligation in Law 45C3 to play the touched card S:7 Sven From blml@wellsborocomputing.com Sun Nov 30 11:24:57 2003 From: blml@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 06:24:57 -0500 Subject: [blml] Board 32, from Grattan Endicott (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: <6.0.1.1.0.20031129234209.0345beb0@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 06:38:22 +0000, John Probst wrote: >In article <6.0.1.1.0.20031129234209.0345beb0@incoming.verizon.net>, >Walt writes >> >>I would even think that there might be a spare director or official when >>the field has shrunk to only two who would sit down and turn cards if >>partner had an urgent need to go to the bath room ... why else would he >>leave at a point like that? >> >>Heck when I play at my local club the director often sits and turns cards >>when someone has to make a pit stop ... and they have a full game to run, >>not just two teams left. >> >>Is there a reason why someone would not be available at the Bermuda Bowl >>finals? > >You gotta be joking. I wouldn't dream of sitting at a table and turning >cards. If I carelessly cause an infraction in the process the friggin' >sky's gonna fall in. If dummy wishes to leave the table, he can (it's an >infraction in the general case, but not one which is normally penalised) >but he does so at his own risk. > Well, if Walt is correct about the reason, it sounds to me like a possible nomination for one of the most expensive bathroom visits of all time, if you believe that all this would not have occurred had dummy been there to turn the cards. I still think it a little strange that Versace's reason for leaving the table hasn't been mentioned anywhere that I've seen. No, I'm not saying that the AC should have wanted to know it, but if he didn't have an urgent reason, then I could understand his NCBO making him guest of honour at an arse-kicking party. Maybe they have. ;-) Brian. From twm@cix.co.uk Sun Nov 30 12:55:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:55 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000701c3b6b4$b5d50170$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > No, the report is that he covered the (previously played) S:K with the > S:7. Read it again Sven. The report stated that Lauria *said* he was "covering the SK" and demonstrated. Did he say it in English or Italian? Was there an error in his, or the writers, translation? What action did he demonstrate? Was that the same as the action actually carried out at the table? You don't know any better than I do since neither of us was there. Had he been a native English speaker the report *might* have read "using the S7 to flip over the SK which he could not quite reach." > The following is copied directly from the AC document as presented here. > Exactly what action does in your opinion this statement describe? > This is where I don't believe him. And as the reports indicate: Neither > did the Director nor the AC. Had either the TD or AC disbelieved Lauria then the report should certainly have said so - and I would expect a PP as well. Not sure yet whether the committee was gutless or confused or whether Lauria demonstrated something different. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Sun Nov 30 12:56:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:56 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Board 32, from Grattan Endicott (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Brian wrote: > You know it's a close match and that you're in a "delicate" > contract, why burden pard with any extra distractions? This may be a cultural thing. To some of us who spent our formative years playing rubber bridge handling dummy is natural and "calling" the distraction. Tim From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Nov 30 10:43:59 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 10:43:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dummy play References: <25C5CE6A-22F0-11D8-8209-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <001501c3b741$8e033d00$a41ce150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 4:46 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy play > > On Saturday, Nov 29, 2003, at 18:47 US/Eastern, >Sven Pran wrote: > > > Why do you deny the fact that both defenders > > understood the S:7 to having been played from > > Lauria's actions? > > Both defenders gave evidence that they heard > the S7 called. Neither defender gave evidence > (assuming the report is complete and accurate) > that he understood it to have been played from > declarer's actions. > +=+ So Hamman played the 10 following a card that he did not think had been played ? +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Nov 30 12:56:59 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:56:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dummy play References: <000701c3b6b4$b5d50170$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000b01c3b6c6$b999cc70$632f37d2@Desktop> <$Z8eajALnUy$Ewzk@asimere.com> <00ec01c3b6e8$98c5e5c0$3938e150@endicott> <8VFeJFBv9Yy$Ewys@asimere.com> Message-ID: <001601c3b741$8ede81d0$a41ce150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 6:34 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy play > > indeed, but I was considering the matter from > the point of view of a TD (or even a rubber bridge > host). He will (or should if he's competent) ascertain > from any spectators what they have seen, as well > as ask the players at the table what happened. It is > all part of establishing the facts as best possible, > before giving a judgment. > +=+ However, if the player's own account of his actions is, in the Director's belief, sufficient to rule against him, the evidence of third parties is not needed to establish anything. Wayne has been suggesting that the King was still part of 'dummy' whilst exposed in the played position. Or, being a card played to a completed trick, is it no longer in dummy? Both the Director and the committee took the view that 'arranging dummy's cards' in Law 45C3 does not relate to a card which has been picked up from dummy and faced on the table (45B) thus detaching it from dummy. A slight uncertainty could arise from the fact that 'dummy' can be the player or it can be his cards faced on the table; however, in the context of 45C3 I consider that "dummy's cards" properly relates to the mention of "dummy" earlier in the same sentence. Until and unless there is an official interpretation of this point of law by the WBFLC, that decision placed in the WBF Jurisprudence constitutes a precedent to be followed. ~ G ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Sun Nov 30 13:08:25 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:08:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002701c3b743$0a6f8b40$6900a8c0@WINXP> Tim West-Meads > Sven wrote: >=20 > > No, the report is that he covered the (previously played) S:K with = the > > S:7. >=20 > Read it again Sven. The report stated that Lauria *said* he was = "covering > the SK" and demonstrated. Did he say it in English or Italian? Was > there an error in his, or the writers, translation? What action did = he > demonstrate? Was that the same as the action actually carried out at = the > table? You don't know any better than I do since neither of us was = there. > Had he been a native English speaker the report *might* have read = "using > the S7 to flip over the SK which he could not quite reach." How can you be so sure that the Bermuda bowl was played at all this = year?=20 Are you quite sure that this whole story hasn't just been made up? Were you present and able to witness? Sven=20 From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Nov 30 13:36:46 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:36:46 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dummy play References: <002701c3b743$0a6f8b40$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001a01c3b747$18044580$4340e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 1:08 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy play Tim West-Meads > Sven wrote: > > You don't know any better than I do since neither of us was > there. Had he been a native English speaker the report > *might* have read "using the S7 to flip over the SK which > he could not quite reach." +=+ Actually Mr. Lauria was not asked to write the report. " . place it on top of ..." seems to indicate clearly enough what Mr. Lauria demonstrated. +=+ From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Sun Nov 30 15:44:45 2003 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:44:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play References: <000701c3b6b4$b5d50170$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000b01c3b6c6$b999cc70$632f37d2@Desktop> <$Z8eajALnUy$Ewzk@asimere.com> <00ec01c3b6e8$98c5e5c0$3938e150@endicott> Message-ID: <00da01c3b759$048986c0$e6053dd4@c6l8v1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 3:19 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy play > > Grattan Endicott (also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > and gesta@tiscali.co.uk) > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, > as when you find a trout in the milk." > [Thoreau] > ================================== > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > To: > Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 1:37 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy play > > > > what to me is interesting is that the Vugraph > > operator called a card. Here we have an unbiased > > observer, who has been watching the tempo and > > like of the game for a couple of hours. I would > > have asked the Vugraph operator "In your > > opinion was a card played, and tell me how" as > > part of my questioning at the table at the time, > > and I would have given a lot of weight to the > > reply to that question. > > > +=+ The vugraph operator was standing by > to give evidence to the committee if needed. > But if you read the report you will discover > that the facts as stated to the committee by > North were decisive in themselves - no > nomination of the card, a purpose in touching > it not excepted in 45C3. Applying the Code of > Practice all the committee had to do was to > judge themselves not persuaded that North's > action was evidently within the exceptions > 45C3 allows in the latter respect. +=+ > > Question about Law93B3: ". . .except that the committee may not overrule the Director on a point of law . . . ." Was the committee entitled to proceed with the appeal, or could the committee only recommend the Director that she changed her ruling? (if wished) Ben From walt1@verizon.net Sun Nov 30 16:05:23 2003 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 11:05:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <00da01c3b759$048986c0$e6053dd4@c6l8v1> References: <000701c3b6b4$b5d50170$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000b01c3b6c6$b999cc70$632f37d2@Desktop> <$Z8eajALnUy$Ewzk@asimere.com> <00ec01c3b6e8$98c5e5c0$3938e150@endicott> <00da01c3b759$048986c0$e6053dd4@c6l8v1> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.0.20031130110136.038f3640@incoming.verizon.net> At 10:44 AM 30/11/2003, Ben Schelen wrote: >Question about Law93B3: ". . .except that the committee may not overrule the >Director on a point of law . . . ." >Was the committee entitled to proceed with the appeal, or could the >committee only recommend the Director that she changed her ruling? (if >wished) Ben The committee was not considering overruling the director on a point of law. What they were considering was whether according to the law the S7 had been played. Walt From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Nov 30 16:46:38 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:46:38 -0000 Subject: [blml] Quitted Trick Message-ID: <009401c3b761$871c5ec0$549468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Nigel] If you have a bad memory then you may want to leave exposed the cards played to quitted tricks -- but is it legal? IMO, a card from the previous trick must be turned (L65) before a card is played from the same hand to the current trick, unless the card is a lead (L66A) If such a card is exposed in dummy and declarer is fumbling with dummy's cards, turning that card must be assumed to be declarer's priority. Has this any relevance to a recent appeal? [L44B] After the lead, each other player in turn plays a card, and the four cards so played constitute a trick. [L65] When four cards have been played to a trick, each player turns his own card face down near him on the table. [L66A] So long as his side has not led or played to the next trick, declarer or either defender may, until he has turned his own card face down on the table, require that all cards just played to the trick be faced [L66C] Thereafter, until play ceases, quitted tricks may not be inspected (except at the Director's specific instruction; for example, to verify a claim of a revoke). [L45E1] A fifth card contributed to a trick by a defender becomes a penalty card, subject to Law 50, unless the Director deems that it was led, in which case Law 53 or Law 56 applies. [L50 is about penalty cards] [L53 and 56 are about leads out of turn) [L72C8] The following are considered violations of procedure: 8. Leaving the table needlessly before the round is called. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.545 / Virus Database: 339 - Release Date: 27/11/2003 From svenpran@online.no Sun Nov 30 17:01:59 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:01:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <00da01c3b759$048986c0$e6053dd4@c6l8v1> Message-ID: <000001c3b763$ab1ff730$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ben Schelen ........... > Question about Law93B3: ". . .except that the committee may not = overrule > the > Director on a point of law . . . ." > Was the committee entitled to proceed with the appeal, or could the > committee only recommend the Director that she changed her ruling? (if > wished) The committee had all the powers they needed to try the Directors = judgment whether the seven of spade was played or not. What they could not do was to overrule the Directors ruling according to = his findings if they agreed with his findings.=20 In other words: If the committee agreed with the Director that the card = was played (as they did) then they had to sustain his ruling on law. If they = had come to the conclusion that the card had not been played then they would have had to rule as if Lauria had been permitted to play the Queen = instead of the seven which means that they would have had to award an assigned = score instead of the one actually obtained on the board. Sven From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Nov 30 17:11:42 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:11:42 -0000 Subject: [blml] Comma References: <000701c3b6b4$b5d50170$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000b01c3b6c6$b999cc70$632f37d2@Desktop> <$Z8eajALnUy$Ewzk@asimere.com> <00ec01c3b6e8$98c5e5c0$3938e150@endicott> <00da01c3b759$048986c0$e6053dd4@c6l8v1> Message-ID: <00d401c3b765$07507880$549468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ The vugraph operator was standing by > to give evidence to the committee if needed. [Nigel] Seems sensible to me! but is it in accord with David Burn's and your interpretation of L67B? Would the AC have to ask the operator to break the law by reporting an irregularity. (Lauria's failure to name an allegedly "played" spade seven). Would the resulting evidence be admissable? >> [TFLB L76B] >> A spectator may not call attention to any >> irregularity or mistake, nor speak on any >> question of fact or law except by request >> of the Director. >>> [David Burn] >>> This means: >>> (1) A spectator may not call attention to >>> any irregularity or mistake. >>> (2) A spectator may not speak on any question >>> of fact or law except by request of the >>> Director. >>> It does not mean that a spectator may call >>> attention to an irregularity or mistake by >>> request of the Director. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.545 / Virus Database: 339 - Release Date: 27/11/2003 From svenpran@online.no Sun Nov 30 17:13:50 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:13:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Quitted Trick In-Reply-To: <009401c3b761$871c5ec0$549468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <000001c3b765$535d01d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Nigel Guthrie ....... IMO, a card from the previous trick must be > turned (L65) before a card is played from the > same hand to the current trick, unless the > card is a lead (L66A) Whether "must" or "should" is the correct word here is a matter of opinion, a discussion I am not going to participate in if this sets it off. What is clear is that the laws do not expect any kind of penalty for not complying with L66A. (See the section "Interpretation of the Laws") > If such a card is exposed in dummy and declarer > is fumbling with dummy's cards, turning that > card must be assumed to be declarer's priority. > > Has this any relevance to a recent appeal? IMO it has indeed. "Fumbling" with another card or cards in dummy than the one last played but not yet turned face down cannot be excused with "arranging the cards" if there can be the least doubt what declarer actually intends for the card(s) he is fumbling with. As you say (and I fully agree) declarer's top priority when arranging cards in dummy must be to assure that only unplayed cards remain face up. Sven From svenpran@online.no Sun Nov 30 17:22:47 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:22:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Comma In-Reply-To: <00d401c3b765$07507880$549468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <000101c3b766$932c3140$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Nigel Guthrie > [Grattan Endicott] > > +=+ The vugraph operator was standing by > > to give evidence to the committee if needed. > > [Nigel] > Seems sensible to me! but is it in accord > with David Burn's and your interpretation of > L67B? Would the AC have to ask the operator > to break the law by reporting an irregularity. > (Lauria's failure to name an allegedly "played" > spade seven). Would the resulting evidence be > admissable? > > >> [TFLB L76B] > >> A spectator may not call attention to any > >> irregularity or mistake, nor speak on any > >> question of fact or law except by request > >> of the Director. > > >>> [David Burn] > >>> This means: > >>> (1) A spectator may not call attention to > >>> any irregularity or mistake. > >>> (2) A spectator may not speak on any question > >>> of fact or law except by request of the > >>> Director. > >>> It does not mean that a spectator may call > >>> attention to an irregularity or mistake by > >>> request of the Director. What makes you believe she called attention to the irregularity? I haven't seen any indication to that effect in the documentation. I must assume that she was "subpoenaed" to meet before the committee, and whether this request was from the Director or from the committee was completely irrelevant, "the committee may exercise all powers assigned to the Director ....." (Law 93B3); this must include the power to request a spectator to "speak on any question of fact" (law 76B). So what is your problem? Sven From john@asimere.com Sun Nov 30 18:11:43 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:11:43 +0000 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <001601c3b741$8ede81d0$a41ce150@endicott> References: <000701c3b6b4$b5d50170$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000b01c3b6c6$b999cc70$632f37d2@Desktop> <$Z8eajALnUy$Ewzk@asimere.com> <00ec01c3b6e8$98c5e5c0$3938e150@endicott> <8VFeJFBv9Yy$Ewys@asimere.com> <001601c3b741$8ede81d0$a41ce150@endicott> Message-ID: <7u5vHCCfLjy$EwAz@asimere.com> In article <001601c3b741$8ede81d0$a41ce150@endicott>, Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott(also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > and gesta@tiscali.co.uk) >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >"Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, >as when you find a trout in the milk." > [Thoreau] >================================== > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >To: >Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 6:34 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy play >> >> indeed, but I was considering the matter from >> the point of view of a TD (or even a rubber bridge >> host). He will (or should if he's competent) ascertain >> from any spectators what they have seen, as well >> as ask the players at the table what happened. It is >> all part of establishing the facts as best possible, >> before giving a judgment. >> >+=+ However, if the player's own account of his >actions is, in the Director's belief, sufficient to rule >against him, the evidence of third parties is not >needed to establish anything. I think I would still seek such corroboration as is available - wouldn't you? I do agree that this ruling is fairly straight forward. If the player demonstrated to the AC the action he took, that should be the end of the matter. I have found that a rerun of the action almost always makes the position, and thus the ruling clear. I think Wayne is completely out of his mind to go on banging on about this, since a TD, a Vugraph operator, 2 opponents and 5 members of an AC are all convinced that a card was played from dummy. I just don't see why he insists on p**sing into the wind. Both members of my partnership smoke, and thus we both are used to playing the dummy in his absence. To think that I am incapable of playing the dummy (in a legal sense, not in a bridge sense) is stupid, and to suggest that Lauria's partner is remiss or that Lauria shouldn't play the dummy is stupid. For that partnership, Lauria playing the dummy is normal. He likely flipped the 7 on top of the still face up King just as he'd played every other hand where his partner was absent, and no-one had stopped him until hand 192, or whichever it was. Whilst correct procedure is to turn down the King before playing to the trick, the fact it was still face up is completely irrelevant, and not IMO subject to penalty. Perhaps we should fine the Yanks 3 imps for playing before the King was turned down :) > Wayne has been suggesting that the King >was still part of 'dummy' whilst exposed in the >played position. Or, being a card played to a >completed trick, is it no longer in dummy? >Both the Director and the committee took the >view that 'arranging dummy's cards' in Law 45C3 >does not relate to a card which has been picked >up from dummy and faced on the table (45B) thus >detaching it from dummy. A slight uncertainty >could arise from the fact that 'dummy' can be >the player or it can be his cards faced on the table; >however, in the context of 45C3 I consider that >"dummy's cards" properly relates to the mention >of "dummy" earlier in the same sentence. Until >and unless there is an official interpretation of this >point of law by the WBFLC, that decision placed >in the WBF Jurisprudence constitutes a precedent >to be followed. ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Sun Nov 30 18:16:22 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:16:22 +0000 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <00da01c3b759$048986c0$e6053dd4@c6l8v1> References: <000701c3b6b4$b5d50170$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000b01c3b6c6$b999cc70$632f37d2@Desktop> <$Z8eajALnUy$Ewzk@asimere.com> <00ec01c3b6e8$98c5e5c0$3938e150@endicott> <00da01c3b759$048986c0$e6053dd4@c6l8v1> Message-ID: <8+DujMC2Pjy$EwAQ@asimere.com> In article <00da01c3b759$048986c0$e6053dd4@c6l8v1>, Ben Schelen writes > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Grattan Endicott" >To: >Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 3:19 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy play > > >> >> Grattan Endicott> (also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk >> and gesta@tiscali.co.uk) >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> "Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, >> as when you find a trout in the milk." >> [Thoreau] >> ================================== >> >> >Question about Law93B3: ". . .except that the committee may not overrule the >Director on a point of law . . . ." >Was the committee entitled to proceed with the appeal, or could the >committee only recommend the Director that she changed her ruling? (if >wished) A TD would be ill advised not to change his ruling if a properly constituted AC recommended such a change. If it happened to me, I would change my ruling, and go to the L&E for future guidance. > >Ben > > >_______________________________________________ >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@tameware.com Sun Nov 30 18:16:52 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:16:52 -0600 Subject: [blml] Board 32, from Grattan Endicott (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: <6.0.1.1.0.20031129234209.0345beb0@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: At 6:38 AM +0000 11/30/03, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >In article <6.0.1.1.0.20031129234209.0345beb0@incoming.verizon.net>, >Walt writes > >I would even think that there might be a spare director or official when >>the field has shrunk to only two who would sit down and turn cards if >>partner had an urgent need to go to the bath room ... why else would he > >leave at a point like that? Sitting for hours is not healthy for anyone. I always try to stretch when I'm dummy, if there's a kibitzer around who can handle it for me. Bocci was finished bidding and playing for an event which had lasted 13 days -- I think he can be forgiven for wanting to leave the table. Remember, the players were anxious to compare and learn the result! > >Heck when I play at my local club the director often sits and turns cards > >when someone has to make a pit stop ... and they have a full game to run, >>not just two teams left. >> >>Is there a reason why someone would not be available at the Bermuda Bowl >>finals? > >You gotta be joking. I wouldn't dream of sitting at a table and turning >cards. If I carelessly cause an infraction in the process the friggin' >sky's gonna fall in. The TDs in Monaco seemed to fall into John's camp. During the RR I asked a TD if he would play dummy while I went to get some water. He refused, explaining that he might make a mistake. Well and good, but he wouldn't get me any water either! -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From wayne@ebridgenz.com Sun Nov 30 18:54:50 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:54:50 +1300 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <001501c3b741$8e033d00$a41ce150@endicott> Message-ID: <005601c3b773$749771b0$d14236d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Grattan Endicott > Sent: Sunday, 30 November 2003 10:44 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy play > > > > Grattan Endicott (also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > and gesta@tiscali.co.uk) > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, > as when you find a trout in the milk." > [Thoreau] > ================================== > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ed Reppert" > To: "blml" > Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 4:46 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy play > > > > > > On Saturday, Nov 29, 2003, at 18:47 US/Eastern, > >Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > Why do you deny the fact that both defenders > > > understood the S:7 to having been played from > > > Lauria's actions? > > > > Both defenders gave evidence that they heard > > the S7 called. Neither defender gave evidence > > (assuming the report is complete and accurate) > > that he understood it to have been played from > > declarer's actions. > > > +=+ So Hamman played the 10 following a card > that he did not think had been played ? +=+ He may have played the 10 because he mistakenly thought that Lauria had called the s7. Wayne > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From wayne@ebridgenz.com Sun Nov 30 18:59:58 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:59:58 +1300 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <001601c3b741$8ede81d0$a41ce150@endicott> Message-ID: <005701c3b774$2c826be0$d14236d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Grattan Endicott > Sent: Monday, 1 December 2003 12:57 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy play > > > > Grattan Endicott (also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > and gesta@tiscali.co.uk) > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, > as when you find a trout in the milk." > [Thoreau] > ================================== > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > To: > Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 6:34 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy play > > > > indeed, but I was considering the matter from > > the point of view of a TD (or even a rubber bridge > > host). He will (or should if he's competent) ascertain > > from any spectators what they have seen, as well > > as ask the players at the table what happened. It is > > all part of establishing the facts as best possible, > > before giving a judgment. > > > +=+ However, if the player's own account of his > actions is, in the Director's belief, sufficient to rule > against him, the evidence of third parties is not > needed to establish anything. > Wayne has been suggesting that the King > was still part of 'dummy' whilst exposed in the > played position. Or, being a card played to a > completed trick, is it no longer in dummy? > Both the Director and the committee took the > view that 'arranging dummy's cards' in Law 45C3 > does not relate to a card which has been picked > up from dummy and faced on the table (45B) thus > detaching it from dummy. A slight uncertainty > could arise from the fact that 'dummy' can be > the player or it can be his cards faced on the table; > however, in the context of 45C3 I consider that > "dummy's cards" properly relates to the mention > of "dummy" earlier in the same sentence. Until > and unless there is an official interpretation of this > point of law by the WBFLC, that decision placed > in the WBF Jurisprudence constitutes a precedent > to be followed. ~ G ~ +=+ I believe that there is an implicit obligation to quit the previous trick before playing to the current trick. This jurisprudence seems to be over-ruling that obligation. This will lead to mayhem when we are playing and there are multiple cards from multiple tricks face up on the table. Wayne > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From wayne@ebridgenz.com Sun Nov 30 19:02:50 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 08:02:50 +1300 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <001601c3b741$8ede81d0$a41ce150@endicott> Message-ID: <005801c3b774$92eada20$d14236d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Grattan Endicott > Sent: Monday, 1 December 2003 12:57 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy play > > > > Grattan Endicott (also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > and gesta@tiscali.co.uk) > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, > as when you find a trout in the milk." > [Thoreau] > ================================== > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > To: > Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 6:34 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy play > > > > indeed, but I was considering the matter from > > the point of view of a TD (or even a rubber bridge > > host). He will (or should if he's competent) ascertain > > from any spectators what they have seen, as well > > as ask the players at the table what happened. It is > > all part of establishing the facts as best possible, > > before giving a judgment. > > > +=+ However, if the player's own account of his > actions is, in the Director's belief, sufficient to rule > against him, the evidence of third parties is not > needed to establish anything. > Wayne has been suggesting that the King > was still part of 'dummy' whilst exposed in the > played position. Or, being a card played to a > completed trick, is it no longer in dummy? > Both the Director and the committee took the > view that 'arranging dummy's cards' in Law 45C3 > does not relate to a card which has been picked > up from dummy and faced on the table (45B) thus > detaching it from dummy. A slight uncertainty > could arise from the fact that 'dummy' can be > the player or it can be his cards faced on the table; > however, in the context of 45C3 I consider that > "dummy's cards" properly relates to the mention > of "dummy" earlier in the same sentence. Until > and unless there is an official interpretation of this > point of law by the WBFLC, that decision placed > in the WBF Jurisprudence constitutes a precedent > to be followed. ~ G ~ +=+ There is a definition of dummy. Dummy - 1. Declarer's partner. He becomes dummy when the opening lead is faced. 2. Declarer's partner's cards, once they are spread on the table after the opening lead. This definition makes no distinction between declarer's partner's played or unplayed cards. I would assume that the played cards are therefore still a part of dummy. Wayne > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From wayne@ebridgenz.com Sun Nov 30 19:16:12 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 08:16:12 +1300 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <7u5vHCCfLjy$EwAz@asimere.com> Message-ID: <005b01c3b776$70b6d4c0$d14236d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of John (MadDog) Probst > Sent: Monday, 1 December 2003 6:12 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy play > > > I think Wayne is completely out of his mind to go on banging on about > this, since a TD, a Vugraph operator, 2 opponents and 5 > members of an AC > are all convinced that a card was played from dummy. I just don't see > why he insists on p**sing into the wind. > Because I think a player has a fundamental right to be believed. I do not see in the report evidence of an investigation into why Lauria handled the s7. Nor a direct statement of why the committee did not believe his evidence that he was playing the sQ. As a player as a minimum I would expect to be told why I was not believed if I claim I was playing the sQ but while arranging the dummy I had handled the s7. Assuming Lauria was telling the truth then I think he has been done a gross injustice. Wayne From blml@wellsborocomputing.com Sun Nov 30 19:17:25 2003 From: blml@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:17:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <7u5vHCCfLjy$EwAz@asimere.com> References: <000701c3b6b4$b5d50170$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000b01c3b6c6$b999cc70$632f37d2@Desktop> <$Z8eajALnUy$Ewzk@asimere.com> <00ec01c3b6e8$98c5e5c0$3938e150@endicott> <8VFeJFBv9Yy$Ewys@asimere.com> <001601c3b741$8ede81d0$a41ce150@endicott> <7u5vHCCfLjy$EwAz@asimere.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:11:43 +0000, John Probst wrote: >Both members of my partnership smoke, and thus we both are used to >playing the dummy in his absence. To think that I am incapable of >playing the dummy (in a legal sense, not in a bridge sense) is stupid, >and to suggest that Lauria's partner is remiss or that Lauria shouldn't >play the dummy is stupid. Fine, you're entitled to your opinion. I've been called worse. If partner thinks that having a fag (if that's where he went) is sufficient reason to leave the table during the last hand of the final of the BB, then that's his prerogative. I'm having difficulty in thinking of any other team sport where something similar would happen in a world championship. The one thing that seems certain to me is that if Versace had remained there to play dummy's cards, there wouldn't have been any reason to misinterpret (or not!) Lauria's touching the card, because he presumably wouldn't have been handling dummy's cards. Given that we believe Lauria's statement of what he intended, then if Versace had held the same "stupid" views as I do, the match might well have gone to a playoff. Brian. From svenpran@online.no Sun Nov 30 20:33:07 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:33:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <005b01c3b776$70b6d4c0$d14236d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <000001c3b781$2a07bc00$6900a8c0@WINXP> > wayne@ebridgenz.com ......... > Assuming Lauria was telling the truth then > I think he has been done a gross injustice. Use your intelligence (if you have any) and try to figure out for yourself why the Italians have not raised Hell. I trust they know very well. (That was a rhyme, quite unintentional!) According to the available information I have seen Lauria's own statement and demonstration on what he had done "incriminated" himself. Sven From walt1@verizon.net Sun Nov 30 21:21:25 2003 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:21:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <8+DujMC2Pjy$EwAQ@asimere.com> References: <000701c3b6b4$b5d50170$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000b01c3b6c6$b999cc70$632f37d2@Desktop> <$Z8eajALnUy$Ewzk@asimere.com> <00ec01c3b6e8$98c5e5c0$3938e150@endicott> <00da01c3b759$048986c0$e6053dd4@c6l8v1> <8+DujMC2Pjy$EwAQ@asimere.com> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.0.20031130161258.04256800@incoming.verizon.net> At 01:16 PM 30/11/2003, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >A TD would be ill advised not to change his ruling if a properly >constituted AC recommended such a change. If it happened to me, I would >change my ruling, and go to the L&E for future guidance. John I am curious. Why would a TD "be ill advised not to change his ruling if a properly constituted AC recommended such a change"? What consequences do you envision (or have you seen) from a TD not changing his ruling under those circumstances? My first reaction is that we have a division of powers and that the TD is supposed to give the best ruling he can (talking it over with the director in charge of the event if there is any question about the decision being right), and that for the director to allow the appeals committee to make him change his ruling is against the spirt of the laws. Of course, if they could convince him that he had made an incorrect ruling it would be right for him to change the ruling to the correct one. Walt From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Nov 30 21:31:05 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:31:05 -0000 Subject: [blml] Comma Message-ID: <008601c3b789$53f87420$289968d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Sven Pran] What makes you believe she called attention to the irregularity? I haven't seen any indication to that effect in the documentation. [Nigel] Is Lauria's failure to name an allegedly "played" spade seven an infraction of 45B? [Sven] This must include the power to request a spectator to "speak on any question of fact" (law 76B). So what is your problem? [Nigel] Fact is OK. Infraction is a moot point. Perhaps spectators should have to undergo a crash course in Bridge Law :) Anyway, I don't have a problem. IMO TDs should encourage spectators to report infractions; and the law should support such actions. (I side with victims rather than offenders). --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.545 / Virus Database: 339 - Release Date: 27/11/2003 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Nov 30 22:50:04 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 08:50:04 +1000 Subject: [blml] Dummy play Message-ID: >There is a definition of dummy. > >Dummy - 1. Declarer's partner. He becomes dummy >when the opening lead is faced. 2. Declarer's >partner's cards, once they are spread on the table >after the opening lead. > >This definition makes no distinction between >declarer's partner's played or unplayed cards. > >I would assume that the played cards are therefore >still a part of dummy. > >Wayne RJH quibbles: Dummy's played cards are not "spread on the table" but instead "in an orderly overlapping row" - Law 65C. Therefore, one could argue that dummy's played cards are not included in the second definition of dummy. 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 Sun Nov 30 22:07:55 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 11:07:55 +1300 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002201c3b78e$7071c890$1ae436d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On=20 > Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: Monday, 1 December 2003 10:50 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy play >=20 >=20 >=20 > >There is a definition of dummy. > > > >Dummy - 1. Declarer's partner. He becomes dummy > >when the opening lead is faced. 2. Declarer's > >partner's cards, once they are spread on the table > >after the opening lead. > > > >This definition makes no distinction between > >declarer's partner's played or unplayed cards. > > > >I would assume that the played cards are therefore > >still a part of dummy. > > > >Wayne >=20 > RJH quibbles: >=20 > Dummy's played cards are not "spread on the table" > but instead "in an orderly overlapping row" - Law > 65C. Therefore, one could argue that dummy's > played cards are not included in the second > definition of dummy. The definition says they become dummy once the cards are spread. =20 It does not say they cease to be dummy when they are=20 played. I would interpret the definition to mean dummy is dummy until the end of the hand. Wayne >=20 > Best wishes >=20 > Richard James Hills > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------ >=20 > Important Warning: If you have received this email in error,=20 > please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments=20 > immediately. =A0This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, legally=20 > privileged and/or > copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is=20 > prohibited. Any > views expressed in this email are those of the individual=20 > sender, except > where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them=20 > to be the view > of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and=20 > Indigenous Affairs > (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations=20 > under the Privacy > Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------ >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 >=20 >=20 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Nov 30 22:36:48 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:36:48 -0000 Subject: [blml] Quitted Trick References: <008001c3b789$40fc8780$289968d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <00ad01c3b792$74099880$289968d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Sven Pran] Whether "must" or "should" is the correct word here is a matter of opinion.... [Nigel meant for list] Thank you, Sven, you are right, hasty correction.... > IMO, a card from the previous trick *should* > be turned (L65) before a card is played from > the same hand to the current trick, unless > the latter is a lead (L66A) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.545 / Virus Database: 339 - Release Date: 27/11/2003 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Nov 30 23:36:15 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 09:36:15 +1000 Subject: [blml] Exception (was Dummy play) Message-ID: Sven asserted: >Not being required to play a card deliberately >touched is an exception from the general rule, >all contained in Law 45C3. The player requesting >an exception is the one who must show cause for >the exception to be applicable. RJH differs: This may be a lost-in-translation issue between Norwegian and English. The dictionary definitions (Pocket Oxford) of *except* - 1. "exclude from general statement" 2. "not including, but" - do not state that determinations of fact default to an assumption that "except" does not apply. In my opinion, the only section of the Laws where a default assumption about determinations of fact applies, is the _specific_ statement in the Law 75 footnote. 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 Sun Nov 30 18:14:53 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:14:53 -0000 Subject: [blml] Comma References: <000701c3b6b4$b5d50170$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000b01c3b6c6$b999cc70$632f37d2@Desktop> <$Z8eajALnUy$Ewzk@asimere.com> <00ec01c3b6e8$98c5e5c0$3938e150@endicott> <00da01c3b759$048986c0$e6053dd4@c6l8v1> <00d401c3b765$07507880$549468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <001001c3b792$fb3f3e40$b234e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 5:11 PM Subject: [blml] Comma > [Grattan Endicott] > > +=+ The vugraph operator was standing by > > to give evidence to the committee if needed. > > [Nigel] > Seems sensible to me! but is it in accord > with David Burn's and your interpretation of > L67B? > > >>> [David Burn] > >>> This means: > >>> (1) A spectator may not call attention to > >>> any irregularity or mistake. > >>> (2) A spectator may not speak on any question > >>> of fact or law except by request of the > >>> Director. > >>> It does not mean that a spectator may call > >>> attention to an irregularity or mistake by > >>> request of the Director. > +=+ I think the Chairman would have stepped in quickly to stop that witness from expressing an opinion. Had she been asked to give evidence it would have been as to the facts of what she had seen and heard, no more. But such evidence was not required. ~ G ~ +=+ From twm@cix.co.uk Sun Nov 30 22:46:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:46 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <001501c3b741$8e033d00$a41ce150@endicott> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ So Hamman played the 10 following a card > that he did not think had been played ? +=+ We don't know. We do know that Charlie the Cheat would play the ST like lightning if he thought there was even a small chance of persuading a committee that the S7 had been played. Luckily what Hamman *thought* has no relevance to the ruling (although his statement of what he *observed* forms part of the evidence) - the decision is purely about whether Lauria thought he was arranging the dummy. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Sun Nov 30 22:46:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:46 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <001a01c3b747$18044580$4340e150@endicott> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > > You don't know any better than I do since neither of us was > > there. Had he been a native English speaker the report > > *might* have read "using the S7 to flip over the SK which > > he could not quite reach." > > +=+ Actually Mr. Lauria was not asked to write the report. > " . place it on top of ..." seems to indicate clearly enough > what Mr. Lauria demonstrated. +=+ Grattan, in the report the words "cover the king" were enclosed in quotes. I assumed, as would most people, that this was an attribution of those words to Mr Lauria. If he used different words then the report is wrong. The report made no attempt to describe the action he demonstrated and thus is completely useless to those who were not there - why on earth was he "putting the S7 on top of the SK"? While I have seen players play from dummy before turning the previous card (and indeed have done so myself) I have *never* seen one "place it on top of" the previous card. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Sun Nov 30 22:46:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:46 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000001c3b781$2a07bc00$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > Use your intelligence (if you have any) and try to figure out for > yourself why the Italians have not raised Hell. I trust they know very > well. My initial assumption was that Lauria was indeed trying to change a played card and then tried to pull a fast one on the AC. However this is incompatible with the lack of PP and the return of the deposit. Having eliminated the probable we are left trying to find the possible. How about it being Hamman trying to pull a fast one and relying on his strong connections with the WBF to get away with it while Damiani has threatened the Italians with expulsion if they kick up a fuss - at least that fits the facts! Of course the above is just speculation but if the AC does a poor job then speculation is what they deserve. There is something rotten in the state of Denmark (or maybe elsewhere - sorry Jens) but I sure as hell can't work out what it is. Tim From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Nov 30 23:53:10 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 09:53:10 +1000 Subject: [blml] Information gained through partner's action - AI or UI? Message-ID: Richard James Hills quibbles: >>Therefore, I would argue that it would UI to be reminded >>of *any* Law through partner's action. Jesper Dybdal replied: >It seems fairly obvious to me that players are in general >allowed to call the TD and ask for guidance about the >rules of the game. > >Questions like "Director, my partner hesitated and I know >there are some rules about unauthorized information; >could you please tell me exactly what those rules say?" >or "Director, my opponents are asking about a call that >partner and I have no clear agreement about. What are my >duties now? Should I tell them how I choose to interpret >that call?" are IMO obviously legal, and the player has a >right to an answer. Richard James Hills quibbles again: Information provided by a TD in giving a ruling is AI to both sides. However, only Laws 9B and 16A permit the summoning of the TD. A summoning of the TD at other times is extraneous to Law. Extraneous TD calls might disconcert opponents, and therefore be deemed an infraction of Law 74B5. 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 henk@amsterdamned.org Sun Nov 30 23:00:01 2003 From: henk@amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 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