From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 1 00:20:01 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 10:20:01 +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? John (MadDog) Probst: "3D, every day of the week." >>Question 2 - What other call do you consider >> making? John (MadDog) Probst: "Pass" >>Question 3 - In the modern expert bridge world, >> is Law 16 equivalent to the Law of >> Total Tricks? John (MadDog) Probst: "for experts, pretty much so IMO" >Swiss Teams >Board no 12 >Dealer W >N/S vulnerable > A9 > AT6 > QJ75 > AK76 >8532 KQJT7 >J743 95 >A8 K >JT2 Q8543 > 64 > KQ82 > T96432 > 9 > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >Pass 1C 1S Pass >2S Pass(1) Pass Double >Pass 3D Pass 4D >Pass 5D Pass Pass >Pass > >(1) Agreed hesitation > >Director's statement of facts: >Reserved rights at end of auction - called back at >end of play. E/W contend that South's bid of 'Dbl' >to re-open was not obvious and should not be allowed >after the (agreed) hesitation by North. > >Director's ruling: >Score assigned for both sides: >2S -1 by East, NS +50 > >Details of ruling: >TD disallowed the double as he ruled that pass was a >logical alternative, especially as South could take >no action over 1S (Law 16A). The auction this far >marks North with a good hand but the hesitation makes >continuation by South even safer. Richard James Hills comment: I disagree with the TD's parenthetical comment, "especially as South could take no action over 1S". It is risky to take action over 1S, but it is *less* risky to take action once 1S has been raised to 2S. This is because a penalty of 1100 on a misfit is much *less* likely, because *after* the opponents have found a spade fit, the odds favour North-South having a fit in a red suit. 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 Dec 1 00:10:12 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 01:10:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3b79f$7d596700$6900a8c0@WINXP> Tim West-Meads > 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! >=20 > 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. No this is NOT just speculation. This is plain, stupid slander unless you have solid evidence to = corroborate your allegations. You owe both Hamman, Damiani, the members of the AC = and WBF an unconditional apology for uttering anything like that without = proof to be shown. I can tell you this much: Had words to that same effect come from your = mouth at a tournament in Norway you would be given the choice between = immediate expulsion from the tournament (with a report to the NBO) and presenting = a humble and unconditional apology to everybody so insulted. And as for the AC not keeping the deposit, I have seen too many examples = of committees letting people get away with appeals without any merit to = give any weight to this fact. After all, the penalty on the Italian team = became severe enough don't you think? Sven From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Dec 1 00:18:21 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:18:21 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dummy play References: <005801c3b774$92eada20$d14236d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <003b01c3b7a0$d5fbdf90$c222e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "'Grattan Endicott'" ; Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 7:02 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy play > > > Probst: > > > 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. > > > Endicott: > > +=+ 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 ~ +=+ > You: > 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 > >>>>>>> +=+ Please read this again: > > in the context of 45C3 I consider that > > "dummy's cards" properly relates to the mention > > of "dummy" earlier in the same sentence in other words in 45C3 the dummy in "dummy's cards" is per the second definition and the card played to the trick is no longer among "dummy's cards" - so the Director and the AC ruled and the Jurisprudence records that view for future reference. Take a different stance if you wish, you are entitled to it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ . . From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Dec 1 00:18:43 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:18:43 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dummy play References: <005701c3b774$2c826be0$d14236d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <003c01c3b7a0$d6d9bc70$c222e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "'Grattan Endicott'" ; Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 6:59 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy play > 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. > +=+ No - the Jurisprudence is saying that a card played to a trick is no longer in dummy. The law does say the correct procedure is to turn the card down when all four hands have contributed a card to the trick - but does not suggest that failure to do so be penalized. Moreover, the law provides no sanction against the player whose lead it is and who leads to the next trick (as provided in Law 44G) before all the cards are turned down, always provided that he does not lead to a trick before his partner has played to the previous trick. Once a player has won a trick to which his partner has played there is no penalty for his leading to the next trick. It is not categorized as a premature lead (see Law 57) and Laws 53 and 56 only turn up the heat when he has not in fact won the trick and therefore it is not his turn to lead. As for the mayhem you envisage, Law 9A2(a) should forestall it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 1 01:02:22 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:02:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <002101c3b728$d31799e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <0557D0A9-239A-11D8-9109-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Sunday, Nov 30, 2003, at 05:00 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > If they didn't then apparently nobody found it necessary, the action > speaks > for itself. Not to me. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 1 01:08:19 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:08:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <002301c3b72a$4f3fb330$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Sunday, Nov 30, 2003, at 05:11 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > Ed Reppert >>> 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. > > You didn't answer my question. Okay, here's my answer: it has not been demonstrated "that both defenders understood the S:7 to hav[e] been played from Lauria's actions" *is* a fact. > 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? I'm not accusing anyone of anything. My comments are based solely on the evidence, and the only evidence as to this point is that both defenders heard the S7 called. If you wish to believe that they also based their understanding on the way Lauria handled the cards, have at it, but that's your assumption; there is no *evidence* to that effect. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 1 01:09:55 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:09:55 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <002401c3b72a$9794d9d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <133E488E-239B-11D8-9109-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Sunday, Nov 30, 2003, at 05:13 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > And what is your basis for assuming that they did not also "observe" > the way > Lauria handled the S:7 and drew their conclusions from that > observation with > the announcement as a corroborating piece of evidence? I don't assume anything. I observe the evidence presented, and there was no evidence presented as to the defenders' conclusion as to what card was played save that they both said they heard the S7 called. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 1 01:11:01 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:11:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <002501c3b72a$f5cda3b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3A7C60FF-239B-11D8-9109-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Sunday, Nov 30, 2003, at 05:16 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > 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 That doesn't answer the question, which was "from whom" not "from what". From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 1 01:12:20 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:12:20 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <001501c3b741$8e033d00$a41ce150@endicott> Message-ID: <69BFF7D8-239B-11D8-9109-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Sunday, Nov 30, 2003, at 05:43 US/Eastern, Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ So Hamman played the 10 following a card > that he did not think had been played ? +=+ He didn't say, so I have no idea. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 1 01:19:47 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:19:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <001a01c3b747$18044580$4340e150@endicott> Message-ID: <740FF606-239C-11D8-9109-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Sunday, Nov 30, 2003, at 08:36 US/Eastern, Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ Actually Mr. Lauria was not asked to write the report. > " . place it on top of ..." seems to indicate clearly enough > what Mr. Lauria demonstrated. +=+ I've pretty much lost track of who was on the committee. Are you saying this as a reader of the report, or were you there? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 1 01:21:10 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:21:10 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.0.20031130110136.038f3640@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: On Sunday, Nov 30, 2003, at 11:05 US/Eastern, Walt wrote: > The committee was not considering overruling the director on a point > of law. What they were considering was whether according to the law > the S7 had been played. Okay, now I have a question: what, precisely, is "a point of law"? From svenpran@online.no Mon Dec 1 01:23:08 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 02:23:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <3A7C60FF-239B-11D8-9109-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c3b7a9$ae3c2880$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 > > That doesn't answer the question, which was "from whom" not "from what". Declarer is not requesting an exception from anybody, he is requesting an exception from the obligation to play a touched card as described in L45C3. The function (office) to grant him such an exception is the Director, his decision can be appealed to the AC. Sven From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 1 01:28:30 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:28:30 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <005701c3b774$2c826be0$d14236d2@Desktop> Message-ID: On Sunday, Nov 30, 2003, at 13:59 US/Eastern, wayne@ebridgenz.com wrote: > 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. Flawed jurisprudence is nothing new. Eventually it gets corrected (though this can take a long time and perhaps a little violence). From svenpran@online.no Mon Dec 1 01:28:12 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 02:28:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <0557D0A9-239A-11D8-9109-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000101c3b7aa$62b3f4f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > On Sunday, Nov 30, 2003, at 05:00 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > > > If they didn't then apparently nobody found it necessary, the action > > speaks > > for itself. > > Not to me. To those who count it did: The Director and the AC. Do you consider yourself superior to those in judging this matter? Sven From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 1 01:37:24 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:37:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] Information gained through partner's action - AI or UI? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sunday, Nov 30, 2003, at 18:53 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > However, only Laws 9B and 16A permit the summoning of the TD. And Law 75D requires it. Are there other instances? From svenpran@online.no Mon Dec 1 01:38:27 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 02:38:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c3b7ab$d14f6d80$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? > >> > >> 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. For your convenience I have included below the official report on what declarer and both defenders stated for the AC. You cannot possibly have = read that. > > > > You didn't answer my question. >=20 > Okay, here's my answer: it has not been demonstrated "that both > defenders understood the S:7 to > hav[e] been played from Lauria's actions" *is* a fact. See below >=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? >=20 > I'm not accusing anyone of anything. My comments are based solely on > the evidence, and the only evidence as to this point is that both > defenders heard the S7 called. If you wish to believe that they also > based their understanding on the way Lauria handled the cards, have at > it, but that's your assumption; there is no *evidence* to that effect. Here is an extract from the AC document: 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. Do you still claim there was no evidence that the defenders based their understanding on what they had seen? Once we accept the fact that declarer did not announce the seven of = spade this announcement must have come from somebody else (the vugraph = operator) subsequent to the action by declarer which both the operator and the defenders can have seen and understood as playing the seven of spades.=20 Sven From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 1 01:43:10 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:43:10 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000001c3b7a9$ae3c2880$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Sunday, Nov 30, 2003, at 20:23 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > Declarer is not requesting an exception from anybody, he is requesting > an > exception from the obligation to play a touched card as described in > L45C3. > > The function (office) to grant him such an exception is the Director, > his > decision can be appealed to the AC. Then he is requesting an exception from the TD. If so, why does the law not require him to *call* the TD to request that exception before taking action? I do not think your argument flies, Sven. From svenpran@online.no Mon Dec 1 02:01:52 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 03:01:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Information gained through partner's action - AI or UI? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c3b7af$16f6f8f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > On Sunday, Nov 30, 2003, at 18:53 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au > wrote: > > > However, only Laws 9B and 16A permit the summoning of the TD. > > And Law 75D requires it. Are there other instances? There is nothing in the laws that prevent a player who feels he can use the director's assistance or just his presence from summoning him. However Law 74B5 has something to say on the manner in which the director may be summoned and/or addressed. Sven From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 1 02:05:13 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:05:13 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000101c3b7aa$62b3f4f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Sunday, Nov 30, 2003, at 20:28 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > To those who count it did: The Director and the AC. > > Do you consider yourself superior to those in judging this matter? Why must you resort to this kind of thing, Sven? Am I not entitled to my own opinions? I submit that if we're going to toss the opinions of everyone who doesn't count, we have to toss yours too. And Lauria's, and Soloway's, and Hamman's, and Grattan's (assuming he wasn't on the committee). And everybody else posting here. Seems like this thread is now over. From svenpran@online.no Mon Dec 1 02:13:08 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 03:13:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c3b7b0$a9953180$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > On Sunday, Nov 30, 2003, at 20:23 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: >=20 > > Declarer is not requesting an exception from anybody, he is = requesting > > an > > exception from the obligation to play a touched card as described in > > L45C3. > > > > The function (office) to grant him such an exception is the = Director, > > his > > decision can be appealed to the AC. >=20 > Then he is requesting an exception from the TD. If so, why does the = law > not require him to *call* the TD to request that exception before > taking action? >=20 > I do not think your argument flies, Sven. If his opponents agree that his action was not that of changing his mind = and a request to replace an allegedly played card with another then there is = no irregularity and no need for summoning the director. The moment there is some disagreement on this question then the director must be summoned as indeed she was in the case that started this thread. And remember that the burden of showing that there was no change of mind = is on the player who claims this. His opponents do not need to show that he originally (probably) intended to play the first card touched. Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 1 03:40:45 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:40:45 +1000 Subject: [blml] Exception (was Dummy play) Message-ID: Sven asserted: >Declarer is not requesting an exception from anybody, he >is requesting an exception from the obligation to play a >touched card as described in L45C3. RJH quibbles: 1. You do not request an "exception" from an obligation, you request an *exemption* from an obligation. 2. Law 45C3 lists three possible situations, only one of which requires a touched card to be played. So, in my opinion, it is "begging the question" to argue that an exception or an exemption is needed by declarer, from a Law 45C3 "obligation" to play a touched card. Sven asserted: >The function (office) to grant him such an exception is >the Director, his decision can be appealed to the AC. RJH quibbles: No, when the facts are disputed, the function of the TD is to give a ruling under Law 85A or Law 85B. Nowhere in Law 85B or Law 45C3 is it stated that the TD must assume that a *particular* ruling is correct. 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 twm@cix.co.uk Mon Dec 1 02:55:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 02:55 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000001c3b79f$7d596700$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > > No this is NOT just speculation. > > This is plain, stupid slander unless you have solid evidence to > corroborate your allegations. You owe both Hamman, Damiani, the members > of the AC and WBF an unconditional apology for uttering anything like > that without proof to be shown. Get your facts straight Sven. you asked for a possible explanation - I gave one. I clearly presented it as speculation. > I can tell you this much: Had words to that same effect come from your > mouth at a tournament in Norway you would be given the choice between > immediate expulsion from the tournament (with a report to the NBO) and > presenting a humble and unconditional apology to everybody so insulted. All I can say is that the Norwegian NBO must be particularly enamoured of losing legal battles. I am not responsible for the adequacy (or otherwise) of WBF jurisprudence guidelines. And if you really want proof just read the appeal report again. Everything I said (whilst purely fictitious) fits the facts. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Dec 1 02:55:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 02:55 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <003b01c3b7a0$d5fbdf90$c222e150@endicott> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > in other words in 45C3 the dummy in "dummy's cards" > is per the second definition and the card played to the > trick is no longer among "dummy's cards" - so the > Director and the AC ruled and the Jurisprudence > records that view for future reference. Take a > different stance if you wish, you are entitled to it. Just for clarification. The WBF now states that any card touched while declarer attempts to turn over a card already played by dummy constitutes a played card. This is because the card being turned over is no longer part of dummy and thus the action being carried can never be considered as "arranging" dummy? tim From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Dec 1 04:12:05 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:12:05 +1300 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000001c3b7a9$ae3c2880$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <005d01c3b7c1$4f8010f0$1ae436d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Monday, 1 December 2003 1:23 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy play > > > 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 > > > > That doesn't answer the question, which was "from whom" not > "from what". > > Declarer is not requesting an exception from anybody, he is > requesting an > exception from the obligation to play a touched card as > described in L45C3. > > The function (office) to grant him such an exception is the > Director, his > decision can be appealed to the AC. If the law allows an exception it is not required that the that exception only be granted as a function of the director. If arranging one's cards is allowed then I would consider it frivolous to call the director when declarer is arranging the cards - that right has already been granted. Wayne > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Dec 1 04:13:36 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:13:36 +1300 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000101c3b7aa$62b3f4f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <005e01c3b7c1$834cde90$1ae436d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Monday, 1 December 2003 1:28 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy play > > > Ed Reppert > > On Sunday, Nov 30, 2003, at 05:00 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > If they didn't then apparently nobody found it necessary, > the action > > > speaks > > > for itself. > > > > Not to me. > > To those who count it did: The Director and the AC. The report did not say that. The report merely said that they considered the s7 played. It did not give a reason for discounting Lauria's testimony. Wayne > > Do you consider yourself superior to those in judging this matter? > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Dec 1 04:19:06 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:19:06 +1300 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000201c3b7ab$d14f6d80$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <005f01c3b7c2$48631fa0$1ae436d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Monday, 1 December 2003 1:38 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy play > > > Ed Reppert > > >>> 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. > > For your convenience I have included below the official report on what > declarer and both defenders stated for the AC. You cannot > possibly have read > that. > > > > > > > You didn't answer my question. > > > > Okay, here's my answer: it has not been demonstrated "that both > > defenders understood the S:7 to > > hav[e] been played from Lauria's actions" *is* a fact. > > See below > > > > > > 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? > > > > I'm not accusing anyone of anything. My comments are based solely on > > the evidence, and the only evidence as to this point is that both > > defenders heard the S7 called. If you wish to believe that they also > > based their understanding on the way Lauria handled the > cards, have at > > it, but that's your assumption; there is no *evidence* to > that effect. > > Here is an extract from the AC document: > > 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. > > Do you still claim there was no evidence that the defenders > based their > understanding on what they had seen? > > Once we accept the fact that declarer did not announce the > seven of spade > this announcement must have come from somebody else (the > vugraph operator) > subsequent to the action by declarer which both the operator and the > defenders can have seen and understood as playing the seven > of spades. There is a flaw in the logic here. The players may not have understood the initial touching of the s7 as playing that card. They may only have become convinced of that once the operator announced the card and they heard that announcement and mistakenly attributed it to Lauria. So while I accept that the operator saw something that was interpreted by that operator as playing the card there is nothing except that Soloway and Hamman say they saw the s7 being "touched". Hamman believed the s7 was played because he saw it touched and he heard it named according to his own testimony. If he erroneously attributed the naming to Lauria then he may have played out of turn. Wayne Wayne > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Dec 1 04:22:26 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:22:26 +1300 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000201c3b7b0$a9953180$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <006001c3b7c2$bf643620$1ae436d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Monday, 1 December 2003 2:13 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy play > > > Ed Reppert > > On Sunday, Nov 30, 2003, at 20:23 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > Declarer is not requesting an exception from anybody, he > is requesting > > > an > > > exception from the obligation to play a touched card as > described in > > > L45C3. > > > > > > The function (office) to grant him such an exception is > the Director, > > > his > > > decision can be appealed to the AC. > > > > Then he is requesting an exception from the TD. If so, why > does the law > > not require him to *call* the TD to request that exception before > > taking action? > > > > I do not think your argument flies, Sven. > > If his opponents agree that his action was not that of > changing his mind and > a request to replace an allegedly played card with another > then there is no > irregularity and no need for summoning the director. > > The moment there is some disagreement on this question then > the director > must be summoned as indeed she was in the case that started > this thread. > > And remember that the burden of showing that there was no > change of mind is > on the player who claims this. His opponents do not need to > show that he > originally (probably) intended to play the first card touched. And why pray tell is that? I would have thought that the burden was equal. It is impossible for declarer if when he says "I did not change my mind" you still rule against him. Maybe I should resort to calling the director everytime and seeing how many 'free' tricks I can get. I wouldn't be happy playing the game like that. Wayne > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Dec 1 04:24:55 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:24:55 +1300 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <006101c3b7c3$17f5db40$1ae436d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sent: Monday, 1 December 2003 2:55 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy play > > > Grattan wrote: > > > in other words in 45C3 the dummy in "dummy's cards" > > is per the second definition and the card played to the > > trick is no longer among "dummy's cards" - so the > > Director and the AC ruled and the Jurisprudence > > records that view for future reference. Take a > > different stance if you wish, you are entitled to it. > > Just for clarification. The WBF now states that any card > touched while > declarer attempts to turn over a card already played by dummy > constitutes > a played card. This is because the card being turned over is > no longer > part of dummy and thus the action being carried can never be > considered as > "arranging" dummy? Yes and this (jurisprudence) is plainly utter nonsense. Wayne > > tim > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 1 06:06:43 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:06:43 +1000 Subject: [blml] Information gained through partner's action - AI or UI? Message-ID: Sven wrote: >There is nothing in the laws that prevent a player who >feels he can use the director's assistance or just his >presence from summoning him. [snip] RJH replies: There is nothing in the laws that prevent a player who feels they can use terpsichorean assistance from tap- dancing while they bid and play. However, extra-Lawful extraneous tap-dancing may interfere with an opponent's enjoyment of the game, an infraction of Law 74A2. Likewise, extra-Lawful extraneous TD summoning may also interfere with an opponent's enjoyment of the game, also an infraction of Law 74A2. 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 vitold@elnet.msk.ru Mon Dec 1 11:16:28 2003 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru (vitold) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 14:16:28 +0300 Subject: [blml] Board 32, from Grattan Endicott (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3FCB230C.1040501@elnet.msk.ru> Hi all:) Am joining to thanks to Grattan for providing this write-up Appeal No. 9 at Bermuda Bowl, final round The final position of the board: > 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. > > For my modest opinion the most surprising part of the happening was "The Director is called"... I dare to remind my position on the problem of "active TD-ships": "**...Besides that TD ought to keep under his control all happenings at the playing area where he is TD-in-charge; that means - TD should be inside this area, working all around the session "on his feet", trying to be a witness in every happening at every table but not paying his attention only to one table (so called "active TD-ship" style, with this aim one should limit playing area to 12-15 tables per a TD)." (Art. 20, project of TD Code, by the way it was almost not discussed). As I understand - at this very case there was only ONE playing table at final stage of this tourney of the highest world rank. And there was no TD at this table?.. And noTD could see with his OWN eyes and hear with his OWN ears all the happenenig? My pupils-TD usually can do at club's tourneys... And I guess that if there there had been TD at the table - there would not be any Appeal at all. Best wishes Vitold From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Dec 1 11:36:32 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:36:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <00eb01c3b6e8$980247a0$3938e150@endicott> References: <001901c3b6df$69348e00$6900a8c0@WINXP> <00eb01c3b6e8$980247a0$3938e150@endicott> Message-ID: <3FCB27C0.80500@hdw.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > Grattan Endicott (also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > and gesta@tiscali.co.uk) > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, > as when you find a trout in the milk." > [Thoreau] > ================================== > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 1:15 AM > Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy play > > > >>>>No, this part of the report quotes what >>> >>>. the Director told the AC on what had >>> >>>>happened at the table in his precence. >>> > +=+ "her presence" +=+ > Now why was that necessary, Grattan? By saying "the TD (he)" - we are always talking of an unnamed individual. Now you have named her, and we shall always remember her for it. I am sure Jeanne does not mind being referred to as "he" in an otherwise neutral report. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Dec 1 11:48:24 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 00:48:24 +1300 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <003c01c3b7a0$d6d9bc70$c222e150@endicott> Message-ID: <005101c3b801$110f0160$bd2e56d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Grattan Endicott > Sent: Monday, 1 December 2003 12:19 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy play > > > > Grattan Endicott (also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > and gesta@tiscali.co.uk) > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "How was your first marriage terminated?" > "By death" > "And by whose death was it terminated?" > [US Law Report] > ================================== > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: "'Grattan Endicott'" ; > Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 6:59 PM > Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy play > > > > 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. > > > +=+ No - the Jurisprudence is saying that a card played to > a trick is no longer in dummy. The law does say the correct > procedure is to turn the card down when all four hands > have contributed a card to the trick - but does not suggest > that failure to do so be penalized. So are we to believe that if dummy's cards were left face up on the table there would be no penalties? Wayne From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Dec 1 12:05:45 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:05:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000001c3b79f$7d596700$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c3b79f$7d596700$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3FCB2E99.6030308@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: > Tim West-Meads > >>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. > > > No this is NOT just speculation. > > This is plain, stupid slander unless you have solid evidence to corroborate > your allegations. You owe both Hamman, Damiani, the members of the AC and > WBF an unconditional apology for uttering anything like that without proof > to be shown. > > I can tell you this much: Had words to that same effect come from your mouth > at a tournament in Norway you would be given the choice between immediate > expulsion from the tournament (with a report to the NBO) and presenting a > humble and unconditional apology to everybody so insulted. > I have meanwhile read Tim's reply and agree with him that he did not intend to slander anybody. Though I believe he did not do so sufficiently clearly. Anyway, that issue is settled in the meantime. As for: > And as for the AC not keeping the deposit, I have seen too many examples of > committees letting people get away with appeals without any merit to give > any weight to this fact. After all, the penalty on the Italian team became > severe enough don't you think? > I for one am accepting the fact that with high stakes, less obvious appeals ought to be acceptable. With a world championship at stake, I don't begrudge the Italians their right to appeal and I agree that the deposit be returned. After all, a case which generates 100 messages is surely meritous to have the best possible result without doubt. > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Mon Dec 1 12:05:15 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:05:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <005101c3b801$110f0160$bd2e56d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <000001c3b803$61c88610$6900a8c0@WINXP> > wayne@ebridgenz.com > > Grattan Endicott > (also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > > and gesta@tiscali.co.uk) > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > "How was your first marriage terminated?" > > "By death" > > "And by whose death was it terminated?" > > [US Law Report] > > ================================== ......... > > +=+ No - the Jurisprudence is saying that a card played to > > a trick is no longer in dummy. The law does say the correct > > procedure is to turn the card down when all four hands > > have contributed a card to the trick - but does not suggest > > that failure to do so be penalized. > > So are we to believe that if dummy's cards were left face up > on the table there would be no penalties? Yes, that is correct. (But if a defender feels that this is disturbing and requests declarer to dispose of the played cards according to Law 65 and declarer ignores this request even after the Director has been summoned to repeat the request; then he - the declarer - may of course be penalized under Law 90B8) Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Dec 1 12:21:46 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:21:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] 51 cards and 53 Message-ID: <3FCB325A.6050402@hdw.be> Case one: A player discovers, at trick 11, that he has a card too few. There were only 51 cards to start with. The Director awards 40/60. The player appeals, and the AC agrees that the TD has made a mistake. The board is playable, and should have been scored normally, after checking that the player with 12 cards did not revoke. Case two: Declarer (here placed in South) is in 2NT and has made a few tricks when he tackles this club suit (dummy on top) K10943 J765 52 AQ8 Yes indeed, a fourteenth club - the five in East is superfluous, he has 14 cards in total. Declarer plays ace-queen, and when both opponents follow suit (he has not remarked they both played a 5) he claims a total of eight tricks, stating among others that dummy's clubs are high. West says "no, they're not" and shows his two remaining clubs. The TD ruled 60/40. I believe this is correct, but it is totally unfair on declarer, whose claim is completely correct (he can claim the same, including a club finesse, after East shows out). To make matters worse, +120 is a shared top. 60% (corrected to 61% because of their total score) brought them 4th place, a top would make that third. Should they have appealed? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Mon Dec 1 12:22:34 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 01:22:34 +1300 Subject: [blml] Condtradiction in L53 Message-ID: <006001c3b805$cd3fe5d0$bd2e56d2@Desktop> There is in my mind a contradiction in L53A and L53C A. Lead Out of Turn Treated as Correct Lead Any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct lead. It becomes a correct lead if declarer or either defender, as the case may be, accepts it (by making a statement to that effect), or if the player next in rotation plays to the irregular lead, but see Law 47E1. (If no acceptance statement or play is made, the Director will require that the lead be made from the correct hand.) C. Proper Lead Made Subsequent to Irregular Lead If it was properly the turn to lead of an opponent of the player who led out of turn, that opponent may make his proper lead to the trick of the infraction without his card being deemed played to the irregular lead. When this occurs, the proper lead stands, and all cards played in error to this trick may be withdrawn without penalty. (Law 16C2 applies to a defender.) L53A states that "if the player next in rotation plays to the irregular lead" "It becomes a correct lead". L53C states that "If it was properly the turn to lead of an opponent of the player who led out of turn, that opponent may make his proper lead to the trick of the infraction" and "When this occurs, the proper lead stands, and all cards played in error to this trick may be withdrawn" So when declarer leads out of turn and my partner condones this by playing (invoking L53A) as happened to me recently when I held the setting trick and it was properly my trick as everyone else failed to notice my ruff do I still have a L53C right to make my proper lead and play my setting trick before declarer discards on dummy's winners? Wayne From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Dec 1 12:30:14 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 01:30:14 +1300 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <3FCB2E99.6030308@hdw.be> Message-ID: <007001c3b806$e4867f00$bd2e56d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Tuesday, 2 December 2003 12:06 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy play > > > Sven Pran wrote: > > > Tim West-Meads > > > >>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. > > > > > > No this is NOT just speculation. > > > > This is plain, stupid slander unless you have solid > evidence to corroborate > > your allegations. You owe both Hamman, Damiani, the members > of the AC and > > WBF an unconditional apology for uttering anything like > that without proof > > to be shown. > > > > I can tell you this much: Had words to that same effect > come from your mouth > > at a tournament in Norway you would be given the choice > between immediate > > expulsion from the tournament (with a report to the NBO) > and presenting a > > humble and unconditional apology to everybody so insulted. > > > > I have meanwhile read Tim's reply and agree with him that he did not > intend to slander anybody. Though I believe he did not do so > sufficiently clearly. Anyway, that issue is settled in the meantime. > > As for: > > > And as for the AC not keeping the deposit, I have seen too > many examples of > > committees letting people get away with appeals without any > merit to give > > any weight to this fact. After all, the penalty on the > Italian team became > > severe enough don't you think? > > > > I for one am accepting the fact that with high stakes, less obvious > appeals ought to be acceptable. With a world championship at stake, I > don't begrudge the Italians their right to appeal and I agree > that the > deposit be returned. After all, a case which generates 100 > messages is > surely meritous to have the best possible result without doubt. The laws don't say that you can buy the right to appeal the laws bestow on you the right to appeal. L92A "A contestant or his Captain may appeal for a review of any ruling made at his table by the Director ." There is a footnote that allows for "penalties without merit" however in my mind a penalty for an appeal without merit is quite different than a deposit that must be paid before a meritorious appeal is heard. Wayne > > > Sven > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Dec 1 12:25:52 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:25:52 -0000 Subject: [blml] Re: Tournament References: <82.50ca51.2cfc0696@aol.com> Message-ID: <005401c3b806$edd6ae90$cc36e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: ; Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 2:51 AM Subject: Tournament > I'll be in Wiesbaden Germany from 1 to 8 December for the ACBL > Regional that takes place there yearly. Back on 9 December to > wade through the pile of E-mail awaiting me then. > > This AM I had 115 e-mails from BLML. Many copies of Sven for > example. Something going wrong? > > Kojak > +=+ :Well, for one thing that blml address is out of date Try blml@rtflb.org For the rest, just freedom of speech. Have a good time. +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Dec 1 12:29:27 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:29:27 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dummy play References: Message-ID: <005501c3b806$eedcfb00$cc36e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 2:55 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy play > Grattan wrote: > > > in other words in 45C3 the dummy in "dummy's cards" > > is per the second definition and the card played to the > > trick is no longer among "dummy's cards" - so the > > Director and the AC ruled and the Jurisprudence > > records that view for future reference. Take a > > different stance if you wish, you are entitled to it. > > Just for clarification. The WBF now states that any card > touched while declarer attempts to turn over a card > already played by dummy constitutes a played card. > This is because the card being turned over is no longer > part of dummy and thus the action being carried can > never be considered as "arranging" dummy? > +=+ The King had been put in the played position, detached from dummy. The Director ruled that the player was not adjusting dummy in doing as he claimed. The committee (comprising Auken, Damiani, Endicott, Maas, Meyer) upheld the ruling after hearing the Chief Director read the law. Those are the simple facts. I have been instructed to add the appeal to the example appeals in the WBF collation of Jurisprudence. I surmise that the ruling could be different if the played card were still among dummy's cards; reaching for it to place it in the played position (and touching a card in dummy whilst doing so) would, I believe, be "for the purpose of ,,,, reaching a card or cards above or below the card touched", but this was not the case here - and that purpose does not require that the card reached for is necessarily one of dummy's cards. It could be a stray card that did not belong in dummy. Since the Director ruled that way, and the Chief Director had no problem with the ruling, the WBF is "now" (sic) only confirming for the record what was already considered to be the law prior to the incident. On a personal note, if a card is in the played position, no longer among dummy's cards, it seems a bit of fantasy to me to pick up a card from dummy in order to do anything to the played card - to turn it over do you not simply pick it up and place it face down, pointing as the law says in the right direction, in the row of quitted cards? When the WBFLC next meets (in Istanbul?) it may review the subject and say something about the interpretation of the law. In due course I will also be saying something to the Laws Drafting Sub-committee in relation to the future wording of this law. In the meantime it has been a pleasure to afford subscribers opportunity for self-expression. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Dec 1 13:15:25 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:15:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] Who was right TD or AC? In-Reply-To: <414E3E23-2204-11D8-85E4-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <3FC7A8DF.13B8F90B@inter.net.il> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031201080006.00a2a460@pop.starpower.net> At 07:37 PM 11/28/03, Ed wrote: >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? What if the pair is in a position where an average result is acceptable but they must avoid a bottom? Doesn't partner's ambiguous huddle then directly suggest that the receiver of the UI would be best off to "split the difference" between the possible interpretations and just pass? ISTM that a huddle that could suggest that partner has a hand for one or another of two opposite actions could put one in a position to know that his safest/best action is to refrain from acting on either assumption. Here forcing a pass could be requiring the player to take the action suggested to be in his best interest by the UI. I prefer to interpret "may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could have been demonstrably suggested" [L16A] as not including actions which may have been (more or less equally) either suggested or counter-suggested by ambiguous (unauthorized) information. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From svenpran@online.no Mon Dec 1 13:23:54 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 14:23:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] 51 cards and 53 In-Reply-To: <3FCB325A.6050402@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c3b80e$5f034a90$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael > Case one: >=20 > A player discovers, at trick 11, that he has a card too few. There > were only 51 cards to start with. The Director awards 40/60. >=20 > The player appeals, and the AC agrees that the TD has made a mistake. > The board is playable, and should have been scored normally, after > checking that the player with 12 cards did not revoke. This is so obvious it needs no discussion (Law 14B3) > Case two: >=20 > Declarer (here placed in South) is in 2NT and has made a few tricks > when he tackles this club suit (dummy on top) >=20 > K10943 > J765 52 > AQ8 >=20 > Yes indeed, a fourteenth club - the five in East is superfluous, he > has 14 cards in total. >=20 > Declarer plays ace-queen, and when both opponents follow suit (he has > not remarked they both played a 5) he claims a total of eight tricks, > stating among others that dummy's clubs are high. > West says "no, they're not" and shows his two remaining clubs. >=20 > The TD ruled 60/40. > I believe this is correct, but it is totally unfair on declarer, whose > claim is completely correct (he can claim the same, including a club > finesse, after East shows out). > To make matters worse, +120 is a shared top. 60% (corrected to 61% > because of their total score) brought them 4th place, a top would make > that third. > Should they have appealed? I don't think so. This touches the matter from a previous discussion (which I have no intention of reopening although I believe I found myself in a minority = that time). The crucial question is Law 1 and its relation (if any) to Laws 13 and = 14.=20 In the "Commentary" is stated on Law 1 (official comment on behalf of = EBL): No result is ever to be considered valid if the pack does not conform to = the specification of this Law. This holds true even when the discrepancy = appears to be irrelevant, such as there being two deuces of clubs but no three. The comments continues with among other items instructing that the board must be cancelled and both sides being awarded A+ (assuming that the = error was such as to rule neither side at fault) As I have a problem seeing how Laws 13 or 14 could be relevant in this = case I have the opinion that the only correct ruling is to completely cancel = this board and award A+ to the pair not at fault and A- to the pair at fault. (They are at fault due to not counting cards initially). There is an alternative solution and that is to say that the extra card never belonged to the pack, its presence is a "nullity" which is to be ignored. (I cannot follow that logic but let that be). The consequence of this is that the director must judge the probable = outcome of the board had there been no irregularity which calls for rulings on: 1: Is there any probability that the extra card may have had any = influence whatsoever on the auction? (In this case I shall guess not) 2: How would the play have gone without the irregularity? And now there is a solid reason for an appeal: As Herman shows; declarer = has chosen a line of play which (absent the extra card) would have secured = all the club tricks, thus the correct ruling should be to award an assigned score to this effect. Regards Sven From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Dec 1 13:40:04 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 08:40:04 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000001c3b687$5bf37d30$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000501c3b670$720e7b90$b8b337d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031201082957.00a2dec0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:44 AM 11/29/03, Sven wrote: > > 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. > > > > > 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). > > > > 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: >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. > > > > > 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. > > > > > 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. Although we are actually attempting to interpret L45C3-4 here, we should note the relevance of the reference in L45C2 to "a card... maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played", which L45D calls "the played position". The SK, which was previously played and not yet moved, was therefore perforce in the "played position". If Lauria indeed attempted to "cover" the SK with the S7, he could only have done so by moving the S7 to the "played position". I don't see how we can avoid interpreting putting a card in what TFLB calls the "played position" as anything other than "otherwise designat[ing] it as the card he proposes to play" [L45C4(a)]. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From hans-olof.hallen@swipnet.se Mon Dec 1 16:18:30 2003 From: hans-olof.hallen@swipnet.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:18:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] dummy play Message-ID: <004b01c3b826$c3781240$774665d5@swipnet.se> I think that re-arranging the dummy cards is very peculiar. Why sould it = happen just at that moment? I guess it never happened in the whole = Bermuda Bowl that Lauria did just that. So, I think it is a 100% shot = that he did something else. Yours etc Hans-Olof Hall=E9n From walt1@verizon.net Mon Dec 1 15:38:41 2003 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 10:38:41 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <005501c3b806$eedcfb00$cc36e150@endicott> References: <005501c3b806$eedcfb00$cc36e150@endicott> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.0.20031201103641.03778760@incoming.verizon.net> Grattan Many thanks for your input. Hearing what happened from someone who was present at the hearing was very interesting. Walt At 07:29 AM 1/12/2003, Grattan Endicott wrote: >Grattan Endicott(also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > and gesta@tiscali.co.uk) >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >"What gear were you in at the moment of > the impact?" > "Gucci sweats and Reeboks". > [US Court transcript] >================================== > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Tim West-Meads" >To: >Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 2:55 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy play > > > > Grattan wrote: > > > > > in other words in 45C3 the dummy in "dummy's cards" > > > is per the second definition and the card played to the > > > trick is no longer among "dummy's cards" - so the > > > Director and the AC ruled and the Jurisprudence > > > records that view for future reference. Take a > > > different stance if you wish, you are entitled to it. > > > > Just for clarification. The WBF now states that any card > > touched while declarer attempts to turn over a card > > already played by dummy constitutes a played card. > > This is because the card being turned over is no longer > > part of dummy and thus the action being carried can > > never be considered as "arranging" dummy? > > >+=+ The King had been put in the played position, >detached from dummy. The Director ruled that the >player was not adjusting dummy in doing as he >claimed. The committee (comprising Auken, Damiani, >Endicott, Maas, Meyer) upheld the ruling after hearing >the Chief Director read the law. Those are the simple >facts. I have been instructed to add the appeal to the >example appeals in the WBF collation of Jurisprudence. >I surmise that the ruling could be different if the played >card were still among dummy's cards; reaching for it >to place it in the played position (and touching a card >in dummy whilst doing so) would, I believe, be "for the >purpose of ,,,, reaching a card or cards above or >below the card touched", but this was not the case >here - and that purpose does not require that the card >reached for is necessarily one of dummy's cards. It >could be a stray card that did not belong in dummy. > Since the Director ruled that way, and the Chief >Director had no problem with the ruling, the WBF is >"now" (sic) only confirming for the record what was >already considered to be the law prior to the incident. > On a personal note, if a card is in the played position, >no longer among dummy's cards, it seems a bit of >fantasy to me to pick up a card from dummy in order >to do anything to the played card - to turn it over >do you not simply pick it up and place it face down, >pointing as the law says in the right direction, in the >row of quitted cards? > When the WBFLC next meets (in Istanbul?) it >may review the subject and say something about >the interpretation of the law. In due course I will >also be saying something to the Laws Drafting >Sub-committee in relation to the future wording of >this law. In the meantime it has been a pleasure to >afford subscribers opportunity for self-expression. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon Dec 1 17:48:24 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:48:24 +0000 Subject: [blml] Condtradiction in L53 In-Reply-To: <006001c3b805$cd3fe5d0$bd2e56d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <8F6F882F-2426-11D8-8F04-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Monday, December 1, 2003, at 12:22 pm, Wayne Burrows wrote: > There is in my mind a contradiction in L53A and L53C > > A. Lead Out of Turn Treated as Correct Lead > Any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct lead. It = becomes > a correct lead if declarer or either defender, as the case may be, > accepts it (by making a statement to that effect), or if the player=20 > next > in rotation plays to the irregular lead, but see Law 47E1. (If no > acceptance statement or play is made, the Director will require that=20= > the > lead be made from the correct hand.) > > C. Proper Lead Made Subsequent to Irregular Lead > If it was properly the turn to lead of an opponent of the player who=20= > led > out of turn, that opponent may make his proper lead to the trick of = the > infraction without his card being deemed played to the irregular lead. > When this occurs, the proper lead stands, and all cards played in = error > to this trick may be withdrawn without penalty. (Law 16C2 applies to = a > defender.) > > L53A states that "if the player next in rotation plays to the=20 > irregular > lead" "It becomes a correct lead". > > L53C states that "If it was properly the turn to lead of an opponent = of > the player who led out of turn, that opponent may make his proper lead > to the trick of the infraction" and "When this occurs, the proper lead > stands, and all cards played in error to this trick may be withdrawn" > The full sub-section reads: If it was properly the turn to lead of an opponent of the player who=20 led out of turn, that opponent may make his proper lead to the trick of=20= the infraction without his card being deemed played to the irregular=20 lead. When this occurs, the proper lead stands, and all cards played in=20= error to this trick may be withdrawn without penalty. ( Law=A016C2=20 applies to a defender.) Removing that phrase alters the meaning quite significantly, doesn't it=20= Wayne? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK= From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Dec 1 20:12:00 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 09:12:00 +1300 Subject: [blml] Condtradiction in L53 In-Reply-To: <8F6F882F-2426-11D8-8F04-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <008c01c3b847$669dc3f0$5a2f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On=20 > Behalf Of Gordon Rainsford > Sent: Tuesday, 2 December 2003 5:48 a.m. > Cc: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Condtradiction in L53 >=20 >=20 >=20 > On Monday, December 1, 2003, at 12:22 pm, Wayne Burrows wrote: >=20 > > There is in my mind a contradiction in L53A and L53C > > > > A. Lead Out of Turn Treated as Correct Lead > > Any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct=20 > lead. It becomes > > a correct lead if declarer or either defender, as the case may be, > > accepts it (by making a statement to that effect), or if the player=20 > > next > > in rotation plays to the irregular lead, but see Law 47E1. (If no > > acceptance statement or play is made, the Director will=20 > require that=20 > > the > > lead be made from the correct hand.) > > > > C. Proper Lead Made Subsequent to Irregular Lead > > If it was properly the turn to lead of an opponent of the=20 > player who=20 > > led > > out of turn, that opponent may make his proper lead to the=20 > trick of the > > infraction without his card being deemed played to the=20 > irregular lead. > > When this occurs, the proper lead stands, and all cards=20 > played in error > > to this trick may be withdrawn without penalty. (Law 16C2=20 > applies to a > > defender.) > > > > L53A states that "if the player next in rotation plays to the=20 > > irregular > > lead" "It becomes a correct lead". > > > > L53C states that "If it was properly the turn to lead of an=20 > opponent of > > the player who led out of turn, that opponent may make his=20 > proper lead > > to the trick of the infraction" and "When this occurs, the=20 > proper lead > > stands, and all cards played in error to this trick may be=20 > withdrawn" > > > The full sub-section reads: >=20 > If it was properly the turn to lead of an opponent of the player who=20 > led out of turn, So it is properly my turn to lead ... > that opponent may make his proper lead to=20 > the trick of=20 > the infraction I am allowed to make my proper lead ... > without his card being deemed played to the irregular=20 > lead. My proper lead is not deemed an infraction... > When this occurs, the proper lead stands, My lead stands ... > and all cards=20 > played in=20 > error to this trick may be withdrawn without penalty. ( Law=A016C2=20 > applies to a defender.) All cards played are withdrawn ... But L53A states that my partner's play to declarer's irregular lead accepts that irregular lead. >=20 > Removing that phrase alters the meaning quite significantly,=20 > doesn't it=20 > Wayne? In what way? Wayne >=20 > -- > Gordon Rainsford > London UK >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 >=20 >=20 From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Dec 1 20:59:01 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 20:59:01 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dummy play References: <001901c3b6df$69348e00$6900a8c0@WINXP> <00eb01c3b6e8$980247a0$3938e150@endicott> <3FCB27C0.80500@hdw.be> Message-ID: <008401c3b84f$de9d3e00$2b23e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 11:36 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy play > > > By saying "the TD (he)" - we are always > talking of an unnamed individual. Now you > have named her, and we shall always > remember her for it. I am sure Jeanne does > not mind being referred to as "he" in an > otherwise neutral report. > +=+ The vugraph audience probably saw the Director at the table and may have worked out that she was female (and the throng of journalists and others outside the committee room probably recognized her). I have no qualms at revealing a good director working competently in a stressful situation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Dec 1 21:11:56 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 21:11:56 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dummy play References: <000501c3b670$720e7b90$b8b337d2@Desktop> <5.2.0.9.0.20031201082957.00a2dec0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <008501c3b84f$df60b510$2b23e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 1:40 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy play > > > > And I still consider the AC very tolerant when they > > returned the deposit. > +=+ ;-) ... perhaps it was foreseen that on blml someone would find cause to challenge the application of the law? How could they have imagined it? +=+ From adam@irvine.com Mon Dec 1 21:31:16 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:31:16 -0800 Subject: [blml] Condtradiction in L53 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:48:24 GMT." <8F6F882F-2426-11D8-8F04-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <200312012131.NAA05734@mailhub.irvine.com> On Monday, December 1, 2003, at 12:22 pm, Wayne Burrows wrote: > There is in my mind a contradiction in L53A and L53C > > A. Lead Out of Turn Treated as Correct Lead > Any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct lead. It becomes > a correct lead if declarer or either defender, as the case may be, > accepts it (by making a statement to that effect), or if the player > next > in rotation plays to the irregular lead, but see Law 47E1. (If no > acceptance statement or play is made, the Director will require that > the > lead be made from the correct hand.) > > C. Proper Lead Made Subsequent to Irregular Lead > If it was properly the turn to lead of an opponent of the player who > led > out of turn, that opponent may make his proper lead to the trick of the > infraction without his card being deemed played to the irregular lead. > When this occurs, the proper lead stands, and all cards played in error > to this trick may be withdrawn without penalty. (Law 16C2 applies to a > defender.) In L53A, there's a footnote after the word "plays", at least in the edition on the ACBL's website. A. Lead Out of Turn Treated as Correct Lead Any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct lead. It becomes a correct lead if declarer or either defender, as the case may be, accepts it (by making a statement to that effect), or if the player next in rotation plays (*) to the irregular lead, but see Law 47E1. (If no acceptance statement or play is made, the Director will require that the lead be made from the correct hand.) (*) But see C below. This footnote seems to imply that L53C takes precedence. I assume that the TD has to determine whether the opponent whose turn it is to lead intended to *lead* to the trick or to follow to the opponent's trick. If it's a lead, then L53C takes precedence and applies, otherwise L53A applies. (This is not the only case where the TD must determine whether a played card is a lead: see L45E.) -- Adam From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 1 22:59:14 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 08:59:14 +1000 Subject: [blml] Perfect pronouns (was Dummy play) Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >By saying "the TD (he)" - we are always >talking of an unnamed individual. Now you >have named her, and we shall always >remember her for it. I am sure Jeanne does >not mind being referred to as "he" in an >otherwise neutral report. Richard James Hills: I disagree. When referring to a generic or unknown individual, the pronoun "they" is less offensive to 50% of homo sapiens than the pronoun "he". 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 Dec 1 22:03:59 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 23:03:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Condtradiction in L53 In-Reply-To: <006001c3b805$cd3fe5d0$bd2e56d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <000001c3b857$0617e280$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Wayne Burrows > There is in my mind a contradiction in L53A and L53C No there is not. You have probably overlooked the footnote in Law 53A: "but see C below" This simply means that in the situation you describe Law 53C takes precedence over Law 53A. Sven From wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Dec 1 22:05:43 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:05:43 +1300 Subject: [blml] Condtradiction in L53 In-Reply-To: <200312012131.NAA05734@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <00b101c3b857$49bacbb0$5a2f37d2@Desktop> Thx Adam Yes the footnote makes that clear. Wayne > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Adam Beneschan > Sent: Tuesday, 2 December 2003 9:31 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Cc: adam@irvine.com > Subject: Re: [blml] Condtradiction in L53 > > > > On Monday, December 1, 2003, at 12:22 pm, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > There is in my mind a contradiction in L53A and L53C > > > > A. Lead Out of Turn Treated as Correct Lead > > Any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct > lead. It becomes > > a correct lead if declarer or either defender, as the case may be, > > accepts it (by making a statement to that effect), or if the player > > next > > in rotation plays to the irregular lead, but see Law 47E1. (If no > > acceptance statement or play is made, the Director will > require that > > the > > lead be made from the correct hand.) > > > > C. Proper Lead Made Subsequent to Irregular Lead > > If it was properly the turn to lead of an opponent of the > player who > > led > > out of turn, that opponent may make his proper lead to the > trick of the > > infraction without his card being deemed played to the > irregular lead. > > When this occurs, the proper lead stands, and all cards > played in error > > to this trick may be withdrawn without penalty. (Law 16C2 > applies to a > > defender.) > > In L53A, there's a footnote after the word "plays", at least in the > edition on the ACBL's website. > > > A. Lead Out of Turn Treated as Correct Lead > > Any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct lead. It > becomes a correct lead if declarer or either defender, as the case may > be, accepts it (by making a statement to that effect), or if the > player next in rotation plays (*) to the irregular lead, but see Law > 47E1. (If no acceptance statement or play is made, the Director will > require that the lead be made from the correct hand.) > > (*) But see C below. > > > This footnote seems to imply that L53C takes precedence. I assume > that the TD has to determine whether the opponent whose turn it is to > lead intended to *lead* to the trick or to follow to the opponent's > trick. If it's a lead, then L53C takes precedence and applies, > otherwise L53A applies. (This is not the only case where the TD must > determine whether a played card is a lead: see L45E.) > > -- Adam > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 1 23:25:13 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 09:25:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] Condtradiction in L53 Message-ID: Adam Beneschan: >(*) But see C below. > >This footnote seems to imply that L53C takes precedence. Richard James Hills: In the interests of clarity, perhaps a more descriptive footnote/cross-reference could be included in the 2005 edition of the Laws? Could the phrase "takes precedence" be actually written in the 2005 Laws, instead of that phrase being merely implied? 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 Mon Dec 1 22:29:24 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 14:29:24 -0800 Subject: [blml] Perfect pronouns (was Dummy play) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 02 Dec 2003 08:59:14 +1000." Message-ID: <200312012229.OAA13984@mailhub.irvine.com> > Herman De Wael: > > >By saying "the TD (he)" - we are always > >talking of an unnamed individual. Now you > >have named her, and we shall always > >remember her for it. I am sure Jeanne does > >not mind being referred to as "he" in an > >otherwise neutral report. > > Richard James Hills: > > I disagree. When referring to a generic > or unknown individual, the pronoun "they" > is less offensive to 50% of homo sapiens > than the pronoun "he". I suspect this 50% figure is much too high. Approximately 50% of the species is female, to be sure, but how many of them are going to be offended by referring to a TD as "he"? A large percentage of that 50% don't speak any English. Of the remainder, I'm sure a significant portion of them either learned in school that it's grammatically correct English to use masculine pronouns when the sex of the antecedent is unknown, so they wouldn't likely be offended---or they realize that life is too short to go around looking for things to be offended about. So the proportion of Homo sapiens who would be offended at all by this use is probably no more than about ten percent, but that's just a guess. -- Adam From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 1 23:43:08 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 09:43:08 +1000 Subject: [blml] Coprolites (was Dummy play) Message-ID: Wayne: >There is a footnote that allows for "penalties >without merit" however in my mind a penalty for >an appeal without merit is quite different than >a deposit that must be paid before a meritorious >appeal is heard. Richard: Fossilised money deposited before an appeal is merely a mechanism for ensuring that a penalty for an appeal without merit is actually paid. Of course, a monetary penalty for an appeal without merit is a load of coprolites. Impoverished players already have difficulty financing their bridge addiction. Impoverished players should not be further disadvantaged by monetary penalties discouraging them from successfully appealing, due to an unacceptable risk of losing their dinner money. 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 Dec 2 00:01:49 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 10:01:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] Perfect pronouns (was Dummy play) Message-ID: Adam Beneschan: [snip] >learned in school that it's grammatically >correct English to use masculine pronouns >when the sex of the antecedent is unknown, [snip] Richard James Hills: Rephrase -> "learned in *a 1950s* school that it *was then* grammatically correct English to use masculine pronouns when the sex of the antecedent is unknown" One of the glories of English is that the language is continually in flux, so what was "correct" English 50 years ago is no longer "correct" English today. Complaints should be forwarded to William Shakespeare, who set an example by coining incorrect English words and using incorrect English grammar. :-) 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 wayne@ebridgenz.com Mon Dec 1 23:26:24 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 12:26:24 +1300 Subject: [blml] Perfect pronouns (was Dummy play) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <00d301c3b862$8f1db360$5a2f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On=20 > Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: Tuesday, 2 December 2003 10:59 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Perfect pronouns (was Dummy play) >=20 >=20 >=20 > Herman De Wael: >=20 > >By saying "the TD (he)" - we are always > >talking of an unnamed individual. Now you > >have named her, and we shall always > >remember her for it. I am sure Jeanne does > >not mind being referred to as "he" in an > >otherwise neutral report. >=20 > Richard James Hills: >=20 > I disagree. When referring to a generic > or unknown individual, the pronoun "they" > is less offensive to 50% of homo sapiens > than the pronoun "he". Which 50%? Wayne >=20 > Best wishes >=20 > RJH > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------ >=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 siegmund@mosquitonet.com Mon Dec 1 23:02:30 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 14:02:30 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] Perfect pronouns (was Dummy play) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Adam Beneschan: > > >learned in school that it's grammatically > >correct English to use masculine pronouns > >when the sex of the antecedent is unknown, > > "learned in *a 1950s* school that it *was > then* grammatically correct English to use > masculine pronouns when the sex of the > antecedent is unknown" Ummm... apparently Aussie grammar textbooks are either very progressive or very sloppy. Use of the generic "he" was still taught as a simple rule of correct usage without further comment until the late 1980s here, and it remains a correct usage today though newer books will also have a section on nonsexist alternatives. The use of "they" to refer to a singular antecedent, by contrast, was not accepted as correct in the 1950s, not accepted as correct in the late 1980s, and is not accepted as correct today. ("Nonstandard," they euphemistically call it, not "wrong" -- just as "ain't" and "leave me be" and "don't got none" are "nonstandard.") GRB From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Dec 2 00:45:35 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:45:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] Perfect pronouns (was Dummy play) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Monday, Dec 1, 2003, at 17:59 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > I disagree. When referring to a generic > or unknown individual, the pronoun "they" > is less offensive to 50% of homo sapiens > than the pronoun "he". The question is not one of "offense", whether real or imagined, but of the rules of English grammar. Those rules do change with time, but as far as I know, currently they are as Herman described, however loudly some may rail against them. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Dec 2 00:48:41 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:48:41 -0500 Subject: [blml] Coprolites (was Dummy play) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <45EB4E0E-2461-11D8-847B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Dec 1, 2003, at 18:43 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au=20= wrote: > Of course, a monetary penalty for an appeal > without merit is a load of coprolites. Main Entry: cop=B7ro=B7lite Pronunciation: 'k=E4-pr&-"lIt Function: noun Date: 1829 : fossilized excrement Sometimes this list is quite educational. Thanks, Richard. :-) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Dec 2 00:52:44 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:52:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] Perfect pronouns (was Dummy play) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Monday, Dec 1, 2003, at 19:01 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > One of the glories of English is that the > language is continually in flux, so what > was "correct" English 50 years ago is no > longer "correct" English today. It is true the language is in flux. It is true that the more vocal members (and supporters) of the "feminist" movement would like it if current "correct" English (as opposed to "politically correct" English) did not include the use of "he" as a generic pronoun. I'm not convinced, however, that this is actually the case. Can you provide evidence for your position? From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Dec 2 01:13:03 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 01:13:03 -0000 Subject: [blml] Perfect pronouns (was Dummy play) References: Message-ID: <002701c3b871$70439b80$0b9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Richard Hills] When referring to a generic or unknown individual, the pronoun "they" is less offensive to 50% of homo sapiens than the pronoun "he". [Nigel] "They" is a crude, clumsy, woolly substitute for a singular pronoun. I prefer the poncy but grammatically correct "one". Why don't we just use "she" as generic? Then nobody would object :) --- 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 john@asimere.com Tue Dec 2 01:12:22 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 01:12:22 +0000 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000001c3b79f$7d596700$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c3b79f$7d596700$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000001c3b79f$7d596700$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >Tim West-Meads >> 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! This is rhetoric. cheers John >> >> 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. > >No this is NOT just speculation. > >This is plain, stupid slander unless you have solid evidence to corroborate >your allegations. You owe both Hamman, Damiani, the members of the AC and >WBF an unconditional apology for uttering anything like that without proof >to be shown. > >I can tell you this much: Had words to that same effect come from your mouth >at a tournament in Norway you would be given the choice between immediate >expulsion from the tournament (with a report to the NBO) and presenting a >humble and unconditional apology to everybody so insulted. > >And as for the AC not keeping the deposit, I have seen too many examples of >committees letting people get away with appeals without any merit to give >any weight to this fact. After all, the penalty on the Italian team became >severe enough don't you think? > >Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Tue Dec 2 01:17:29 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 01:17:29 +0000 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.0.20031130161258.04256800@incoming.verizon.net> References: <000701c3b6b4$b5d50170$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000b01c3b6c6$b999cc70$632f37d2@Desktop> <$Z8eajALnUy$Ewzk@asimere.com> <00ec01c3b6e8$98c5e5c0$3938e150@endicott> <00da01c3b759$048986c0$e6053dd4@c6l8v1> <8+DujMC2Pjy$EwAQ@asimere.com> <6.0.1.1.0.20031130161258.04256800@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <1TU8YVApg+y$Ewzn@asimere.com> In article <6.0.1.1.0.20031130161258.04256800@incoming.verizon.net>, Walt writes >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"? because it would suggest that my interpretation of the Law was incorrect, at least from the point of view of that AC. > >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 -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Tue Dec 2 01:23:37 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 01:23:37 +0000 Subject: [blml] Information gained through partner's action - AI or UI? In-Reply-To: <000101c3b7af$16f6f8f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c3b7af$16f6f8f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <+To+YiAZm+y$Ewzo@asimere.com> In article <000101c3b7af$16f6f8f0$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >Ed Reppert >> On Sunday, Nov 30, 2003, at 18:53 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au >> wrote: >> >> > However, only Laws 9B and 16A permit the summoning of the TD. >> >> And Law 75D requires it. Are there other instances? > >There is nothing in the laws that prevent a player who feels he can use the >director's assistance or just his presence from summoning him. > >However Law 74B5 has something to say on the manner in which the director >may be summoned and/or addressed. I was, on an occasion when the bear pit was being particularly rowdy, summoned with a cry of "We need the pigs". I fined the culprit a beer and ruled in his favour, which seemed to satisfy everyone. > >Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Dec 2 01:47:14 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:47:14 +1000 Subject: [blml] Perfect pronouns (was Dummy play) Message-ID: Adam Beneschan asserted: >>it's grammatically correct English to use >>masculine pronouns when the sex of the >>antecedent is unknown, so they wouldn't >>likely be offended In the book Metamagical Themas, William Satire (alias Douglas R. Hofstadter) satirised: [snip] >Most of the clamor,as you certainly know by now, >revolves around the age-old usage of the noun >"white" and words built from it, such as >chairwhite, mailwhite, repairwhite, clergywhite, >middlewhite, Frenchwhite, forewhite, whitepower, >whiteslaughter, oneupuwhiteship, straw white, >whitehandle, and so on. The negrists claim that >using the word "white," either on its own or as >a component, to talk about all the members of >the human species is somehow degrading to blacks >and reinforces racism. Therefore the libbers >propose that we substitute "person" everywhere >where "white" now occurs. Sensitive speakers of >our secretary tongue of course find this >preposterous. There is great beauty to a phrase >such as "All whites are created equal." Our >forebosses who framed the Declaration of >Independence well understood the poetry of our >language. Think how ugly it would be to say "All >persons are created equal," or "All whites and >blacks are created equal." Besides, as any >schoolwhitey can tell you, such phrases are >redundant. In most contexts, it is self-evident >when "white" is being used in an inclusive sense, >in which case it subsumes members of the darker >race just as much as fairskins. [big snip] -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- 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 Chris@Pisarra.com Tue Dec 2 01:37:18 2003 From: Chris@Pisarra.com (Chris Pisarra) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:37:18 -0800 Subject: [blml] Perfect pronouns (was Dummy play) References: Message-ID: <035f01c3b874$d362f1e0$1401a8c0@COMPUTER> > Richard James Hills: > > I disagree. When referring to a generic > or unknown individual, the pronoun "they" > is less offensive to 50% of homo sapiens > than the pronoun "he". I would hate to think that 50% of the populace could possibly prefer a clumsy and graceless, though politically correct, neologism to proper usage. Chris From Steve Willner" Message-ID: <001f01c3b878$5d83a240$43054e41@cable.rcn.com> From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ I was asked by one of the European Federations > about a system in the Red category in all respects other > than the 1D opener, which essentially was to show a > hand single suited in clubs or diamonds (i.e. there could > be no other suit of four or more cards). This had been > categorized locally as HUM, While we would need more details to be sure, I find it amusing that this opening would probably be allowed under the ACBL's GCC (provided it promises 10 HCP). Excerpt from GCC: 1. ONE CLUB OR ONE DIAMOND may be used as an all-purpose opening bid (artificial or natural) promising a minimum of 10 high-card points. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Dec 2 02:03:15 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:03:15 -0800 Subject: [blml] Perfect pronouns (was Dummy play) References: Message-ID: <002901c3b878$7443e9e0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Gordon Bower" > > Use of the generic "he" was still taught as a simple rule of correct usage > without further comment until the late 1980s here, and it remains a > correct usage today though newer books will also have a section on > nonsexist alternatives. One of which is to use "they" when use of a singular pronoun would be awkward, as in There must be opportunity for the individual boy or girl to go as far as their keenness and ability will take them. "His" and "him" would look funny in this sentence, and would be resented by about 1/2 of the population (grammarians excepted). > > The use of "they" to refer to a singular antecedent, by contrast, was not > accepted as correct in the 1950s, not accepted as correct in the late > 1980s, and is not accepted as correct today. ("Nonstandard," they > euphemistically call it, not "wrong" -- just as "ain't" and "leave me be" > and "don't got none" are "nonstandard.") Are we to take your word for this, Gordon? No one in their right senses would believe that. The OED quotes examples from Fielding (Everyone in the house were in their beds), Goldsmith, Thackeray (A person can't help their birth, Sydney Smith, Bagehot ("Nobody in their senses"), and Bernard Shaw. It says nothing more severe of the use than that it is "Not favoured by grammarians." H. W. Fowler does say that few modern writers would flout the rules as conspicuously as Fielding and Thackeray did in the sentences quoted, or as Ruskin did in saying "I am never angry with anyone unless they deserve it." The use of "they" is handy when the speaker does not want to highlight the sex of a person, which could happen with "correct" usage. A very genteel woman (an English teacher!)said to me once, "I had company last night and they didn't leave until after midnight." I knew, and she knew that I knew, that the company was a man. She avoided "he" to show that the sex of her company was not a factor in the late-night visit. "Someone from the school called and wants you to call back." "What did they say?" This is such common usage that it must be considered correct, as in many situations where the sex of a person is unimportant and using "he" would be confusing. I don't think anyone says "What did he or she say?" If a singular male pronoun can be used to refer to a man or a woman, why is using "their" with a singular antecedent so bad? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From adam@irvine.com Tue Dec 2 02:07:28 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:07:28 -0800 Subject: [blml] Perfect pronouns (was Dummy play) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:47:14 +1000." Message-ID: <200312020207.SAA27958@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard wrote: > Adam Beneschan asserted: > > >>it's grammatically correct English to use > >>masculine pronouns when the sex of the > >>antecedent is unknown, so they wouldn't > >>likely be offended > > In the book Metamagical Themas, William Satire > (alias Douglas R. Hofstadter) satirised: > > [snip] > > >Most of the clamor,as you certainly know by now, > >revolves around the age-old usage of the noun > >"white" and words built from it, such as > >chairwhite, mailwhite, repairwhite, clergywhite, > >middlewhite, Frenchwhite, forewhite, whitepower, > >whiteslaughter, oneupuwhiteship, straw white, > >whitehandle, and so on. The negrists claim that > >using the word "white," either on its own or as > >a component, to talk about all the members of > >the human species is somehow degrading to blacks > >and reinforces racism. Therefore the libbers > >propose that we substitute "person" everywhere > >where "white" now occurs. Sensitive speakers of > >our secretary tongue of course find this > >preposterous. There is great beauty to a phrase > >such as "All whites are created equal." Our > >forebosses who framed the Declaration of > >Independence well understood the poetry of our > >language. Think how ugly it would be to say "All > >persons are created equal," or "All whites and > >blacks are created equal." Besides, as any > >schoolwhitey can tell you, such phrases are > >redundant. In most contexts, it is self-evident > >when "white" is being used in an inclusive sense, > >in which case it subsumes members of the darker > >race just as much as fairskins. I am unimpressed. If, for some God-forsaken reason, the English language had evolved in such a way that the term "white" had been used as a generic term representing all people for a thousand years, everyone would accept this as "just the way the language is", and no one would notice that it was an exclusive term or would consider it offensive---at least until some "enlightened" person told them to. Think about it. Germans use a masculine article to refer to dogs and a feminine article to refer to cats, but does this mean that Germans think of female dogs and male cats as some sort of inferior subspecies? Do they automatically assume when their friend talks about their cat that the cat must be female, because it's referred to with feminine articles and pronouns? Certainly not. This dividing of words into "masculine", "feminine", and "neuter" is simply an artifact of the language that has long been divorced from whatever meaning it may have had centuries ago---and the same is the case for the use of masculine pronouns to refer to persons of unknown sex. -- Adam From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Dec 2 09:12:40 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 10:12:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Information gained through partner's action - AI or UI? In-Reply-To: References: <3FC4B4FD.90608@hdw.be> <4obasv8g96b1mkgkpmnr3e9m2ehtngc9p6@nuser.dybdal.dk> <3FC5B888.1040806@hdw.be> Message-ID: <3FCC5788.9050204@hdw.be> Jesper Dybdal wrote: > On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 09:40:40 +0100, Herman De Wael > wrote: > > > >>>>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). > > > I.e., by the opening leader's partner, illegally? > indeed. > >>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. > > > 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? > I don't think so. You are looking for an exception to the rule I was giving the standard answer to. When East is on opening lead, in general, questions asked by West are UI to east. Especially when East has not asked those same questions himself. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Tue Dec 2 10:12:05 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:12:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Information gained through partner's action - AI or UI? In-Reply-To: <3FCC5788.9050204@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c3b8bc$bcc7a9b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael .............. > >>The example I was using was about questions asked after the final = pass > >>and *before* the opening lead (face down or otherwise). > > > > > > I.e., by the opening leader's partner, illegally? > > >=20 > indeed. Illegally? I suppose that applies to questions asked by the opening = leader's partner before he has made his selected opening lead face down? >=20 > > > >>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. Just to clear up any possible confusion here: After the final pass and before the opening lead is faced any question = asked by and answered to the opening leader's partner is UI to the opening = leader when he is selecting his opening lead, but it must be AI to both = defenders for their subsequent plays? Right? The exception to this is if such questions and their answers reveal = previous misinformation from declarer or dummy. In that case the selected opening lead which should now be lying face down on the table may be retracted = and even the auction may be permitted to continue (after the last pass by defenders being retracted). Regards Sven From roger-eymard@wanadoo.fr Tue Dec 2 11:51:27 2003 From: roger-eymard@wanadoo.fr (Roger Eymard) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 12:51:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Perfect pronouns (was Dummy play) References: <200312020207.SAA27958@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <002801c3b8ca$9ebf2f20$6400a8c0@supersuperbe> And for angels, what pronoun should we use? Roger ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Beneschan" To: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 3:07 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Perfect pronouns (was Dummy play) > > Richard wrote: > > > Adam Beneschan asserted: > > > > >>it's grammatically correct English to use > > >>masculine pronouns when the sex of the > > >>antecedent is unknown, so they wouldn't > > >>likely be offended > > > > In the book Metamagical Themas, William Satire > > (alias Douglas R. Hofstadter) satirised: > > > > [snip] > > > > >Most of the clamor,as you certainly know by now, > > >revolves around the age-old usage of the noun > > >"white" and words built from it, such as > > >chairwhite, mailwhite, repairwhite, clergywhite, > > >middlewhite, Frenchwhite, forewhite, whitepower, > > >whiteslaughter, oneupuwhiteship, straw white, > > >whitehandle, and so on. The negrists claim that > > >using the word "white," either on its own or as > > >a component, to talk about all the members of > > >the human species is somehow degrading to blacks > > >and reinforces racism. Therefore the libbers > > >propose that we substitute "person" everywhere > > >where "white" now occurs. Sensitive speakers of > > >our secretary tongue of course find this > > >preposterous. There is great beauty to a phrase > > >such as "All whites are created equal." Our > > >forebosses who framed the Declaration of > > >Independence well understood the poetry of our > > >language. Think how ugly it would be to say "All > > >persons are created equal," or "All whites and > > >blacks are created equal." Besides, as any > > >schoolwhitey can tell you, such phrases are > > >redundant. In most contexts, it is self-evident > > >when "white" is being used in an inclusive sense, > > >in which case it subsumes members of the darker > > >race just as much as fairskins. > > I am unimpressed. If, for some God-forsaken reason, the English > language had evolved in such a way that the term "white" had been used > as a generic term representing all people for a thousand years, > everyone would accept this as "just the way the language is", and no > one would notice that it was an exclusive term or would consider it > offensive---at least until some "enlightened" person told them to. > Think about it. Germans use a masculine article to refer to dogs and > a feminine article to refer to cats, but does this mean that Germans > think of female dogs and male cats as some sort of inferior > subspecies? Do they automatically assume when their friend talks > about their cat that the cat must be female, because it's referred to > with feminine articles and pronouns? Certainly not. This dividing of > words into "masculine", "feminine", and "neuter" is simply an artifact > of the language that has long been divorced from whatever meaning it > may have had centuries ago---and the same is the case for the use of > masculine pronouns to refer to persons of unknown sex. > > -- Adam > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Dec 2 13:11:01 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 08:11:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <008501c3b84f$df60b510$2b23e150@endicott> References: <000501c3b670$720e7b90$b8b337d2@Desktop> <5.2.0.9.0.20031201082957.00a2dec0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031202080405.009f0870@pop.starpower.net> At 04:11 PM 12/1/03, Grattan wrote: >Grattan Endicott(also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > and gesta@tiscali.co.uk) >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >"What gear were you in at the moment of > the impact?" > "Gucci sweats and Reeboks". > [US Court transcript] >================================== > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Eric Landau" >To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" >Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 1:40 PM >Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy play > > > > > > > And I still consider the AC very tolerant when they > > > returned the deposit. > > >+=+ ;-) ... perhaps it was foreseen that on blml someone > would find cause to challenge the application > of the law? > How could they have imagined it? +=+ JFTR, that wasn't me (Sven, IIRC?), and I do not agree. Any ruling that generates significant debate in this forum is prima facie not clear-cut enough to warrant a penalty for a frivolous appeal. I believe quite strongly that penalties are warranted only for appeals that are genuinely frivolous, not merely misguided, and support them less frequently than most here. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Tue Dec 2 09:53:55 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 10:53:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] 51 cards and 53 References: <3FCB325A.6050402@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000201c3b8d5$f7f577b0$85faf1c3@LNV> > Declarer (here placed in South) is in 2NT and has made a few tricks > when he tackles this club suit (dummy on top) > > K10943 > J765 52 > AQ8 > > Yes indeed, a fourteenth club - the five in East is superfluous, he > has 14 cards in total. > > Declarer plays ace-queen, and when both opponents follow suit (he has > not remarked they both played a 5) he claims a total of eight tricks, > stating among others that dummy's clubs are high. > West says "no, they're not" and shows his two remaining clubs. > > The TD ruled 60/40. > I believe this is correct, but it is totally unfair on declarer, whose > claim is completely correct (he can claim the same, including a club > finesse, after East shows out). > To make matters worse, +120 is a shared top. 60% (corrected to 61% > because of their total score) brought them 4th place, a top would make > that third. > Should they have appealed? Strange question. L 13 is completely clear and no TD should accept any decision by an AC other than the statement that it doesn't have the authority to overrule him. Frivolous appeal. And why 'completely unfair'? The law is the law, as spades are spades and 14 is too much. ton From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Dec 2 13:21:30 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 08:21:30 -0500 Subject: [blml] Perfect pronouns (was Dummy play) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031202081603.009efac0@pop.starpower.net> At 07:45 PM 12/1/03, Ed wrote: >On Monday, Dec 1, 2003, at 17:59 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au >wrote: > >>I disagree. When referring to a generic >>or unknown individual, the pronoun "they" >>is less offensive to 50% of homo sapiens >>than the pronoun "he". > >The question is not one of "offense", whether real or imagined, but of >the rules of English grammar. Those rules do change with time, but as >far as I know, currently they are as Herman described, however loudly >some may rail against them. It depends on where you look. The Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Second Edition, was the first to recognize the singular "they" as standard usage (citing the example, "Everyone should do their own thing"), and some other dictionaries have followed. Those who are really interested might want to check out the alt.usage.english archives. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Dec 2 13:28:47 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:28:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] 51 cards and 53 In-Reply-To: <000201c3b8d5$f7f577b0$85faf1c3@LNV> References: <3FCB325A.6050402@hdw.be> <000201c3b8d5$f7f577b0$85faf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <3FCC938F.2000109@hdw.be> Hello Ton, Ton Kooijman wrote: >>Declarer (here placed in South) is in 2NT and has made a few tricks >>when he tackles this club suit (dummy on top) >> >> K10943 >>J765 52 >> AQ8 >> >>Yes indeed, a fourteenth club - the five in East is superfluous, he >>has 14 cards in total. >> >>Declarer plays ace-queen, and when both opponents follow suit (he has >>not remarked they both played a 5) he claims a total of eight tricks, >>stating among others that dummy's clubs are high. >>West says "no, they're not" and shows his two remaining clubs. >> >>The TD ruled 60/40. >>I believe this is correct, but it is totally unfair on declarer, whose >>claim is completely correct (he can claim the same, including a club >>finesse, after East shows out). >>To make matters worse, +120 is a shared top. 60% (corrected to 61% >>because of their total score) brought them 4th place, a top would make >>that third. >>Should they have appealed? > > > > Strange question. L 13 is completely clear. ehmm - L13C is very clear indeed. And it does not apply here. L13C talks of "with another player holding correspondingly fewer", which is not the case here. L13B does not apply. L13A only applies "if no such calls have been made". The start of L13 states "when the director deems that the deal can be corrected and played normally". I think it can. So actually I don't think the appeal could be considered frivolous. Think of this "trick". NS bid to 7NT, and claim 13 tricks after the opening lead. Now East "discovers" a 14th card (in his hand or from where?). Should the deal be declared void? I don't think it should. > and no TD should accept any > decision by an AC other than the statement that it doesn't have the > authority to overrule him. Frivolous appeal. > And why 'completely unfair'? The law is the law, as spades are spades and 14 > is too much. > Well, even a result under the law can be unfair in some higher sense. My friends had done nothing wrong for their top, yet they receive only 60% because of some infraction that did not hinder, nor even benefit them. > ton > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Dec 2 15:27:41 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 10:27:41 -0500 Subject: [blml] Information gained through partner's action - AI or UI? In-Reply-To: <3FCC5788.9050204@hdw.be> Message-ID: <11EB5583-24DC-11D8-8A53-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Dec 2, 2003, at 04:12 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > I don't think so. You are looking for an exception to the rule I was > giving the standard answer to. When East is on opening lead, in > general, questions asked by West are UI to east. Especially when East > has not asked those same questions himself. Catch-22. If East asks, the answers are UI to West. So if either defender asks questions about the auction, his partner will have UI which will constrain his actions. IOW, if a pair needs to know certain things in order to properly defend the hand, they have to ask questions, which will prevent the pair from using the needed information to defend the hand. This situation sucks. You know, when the ACBL recently came out with a policy that the declaring side should offer to explain certain auctions before the opening lead, I thought it was a bad idea. On second thought, I wonder if such explanations shouldn't be *required* in *all* auctions, probably by the laws rather than by regulation. Ah, well, perhaps the Drafting Committee will consider the question. From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Tue Dec 2 15:57:01 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 16:57:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] 51 cards and 53 References: <3FCB325A.6050402@hdw.be> <000201c3b8d5$f7f577b0$85faf1c3@LNV> <3FCC938F.2000109@hdw.be> Message-ID: <00b201c3b8ed$18a51da0$85faf1c3@LNV> Herman: > > >>Declarer (here placed in South) is in 2NT and has made a few tricks > >>when he tackles this club suit (dummy on top) > >> > >> K10943 > >>J765 52 > >> AQ8 > >> > >>Yes indeed, a fourteenth club - the five in East is superfluous, he > >>has 14 cards in total. > >> > >>Declarer plays ace-queen, and when both opponents follow suit (he has > >>not remarked they both played a 5) he claims a total of eight tricks, > >>stating among others that dummy's clubs are high. > >>West says "no, they're not" and shows his two remaining clubs. > >> > >>The TD ruled 60/40. > >>I believe this is correct, but it is totally unfair on declarer, whose > >>claim is completely correct (he can claim the same, including a club > >>finesse, after East shows out). Should they have appealed? ton: >> Strange question. L 13 is completely clear. Herman: > ehmm - L13C is very clear indeed. And it does not apply here. right > L13C talks of "with another player holding correspondingly fewer", > which is not the case here. > L13B does not apply. right > L13A only applies "if no such calls have been made". right > The start of L13 states "when the director deems that the deal can be > corrected and played normally". I think it can. That then is the mistake. It should be common interpretation that the heading of L13 only applies during the auction. Bridge can't be played with 53 cards. > > So actually I don't think the appeal could be considered frivolous. > > Think of this "trick". NS bid to 7NT, and claim 13 tricks after the > opening lead. Now East "discovers" a 14th card (in his hand or from > where?). Should the deal be declared void? I don't think it should. We have discussed this 'trick' in blml more than once.Yes it the duty of the TD to decide where the 53rd card came from. And he has the power to award a penalty of 24 imps to the offending side (not having counted the cards). Hopefully this is in a k.o match then. > > > and no TD should accept any > > decision by an AC other than the statement that it doesn't have the > > authority to overrule him. Frivolous appeal. > > And why 'completely unfair'? The law is the law, as spades are spades and 14 > > is too much. > > > > Well, even a result under the law can be unfair in some higher sense. what is higher than laws? ton From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Dec 2 16:21:44 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 17:21:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Information gained through partner's action - AI or UI? In-Reply-To: <11EB5583-24DC-11D8-8A53-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <11EB5583-24DC-11D8-8A53-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <3FCCBC18.3070200@hdw.be> No Ed, absolutely not. Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Tuesday, Dec 2, 2003, at 04:12 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> I don't think so. You are looking for an exception to the rule I was >> giving the standard answer to. When East is on opening lead, in >> general, questions asked by West are UI to east. Especially when East >> has not asked those same questions himself. > > > Catch-22. If East asks, the answers are UI to West. So if either > defender asks questions about the auction, his partner will have UI > which will constrain his actions. IOW, if a pair needs to know certain > things in order to properly defend the hand, they have to ask questions, > which will prevent the pair from using the needed information to defend > the hand. > > This situation sucks. > This was precisely what I wanted to address in my first post to this thread. When partner asks something which you have not yet had the chance to enquire about, but would later have an opportunity to, this is SEI (Subsequently Enquirable Information), which is usually AI, but can be UI if you had a reason and an opportunity to have asked before. The above is an example of NEI, Non-Enquirable Information, which is always UI, as it is information you could have enquired about, but did not, and for which you have no further occasion of enquiring about. If you have not asked about the meaning of certain bids, and your partner (illegally) asks about that meaning after the closing pass but before you have selected your lead, surely that is UI. And equally surely, you do not believe that situation sucks. So please spare your comments for some more opportune place. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From fsb@ip-worldcom.ch Tue Dec 2 17:58:53 2003 From: fsb@ip-worldcom.ch (Yvan Calame) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 18:58:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Systems Policy In-Reply-To: <001f01c3b878$5d83a240$43054e41@cable.rcn.com> References: <200311280302.hAS32xmf017674@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20031202185853.011f8030@ip-worldcom.ch> At 21:02 01/12/2003 -0500, Steve wrote: >From: "Grattan Endicott" >> +=3D+ I was asked by one of the European Federations >> about a system in the Red category in all respects other >> than the 1D opener, which essentially was to show a >> hand single suited in clubs or diamonds (i.e. there could >> be no other suit of four or more cards). This had been >> categorized locally as HUM, > >While we would need more details to be sure, I find it amusing that this >opening would probably be allowed under the ACBL's GCC (provided it >promises 10 HCP). The system is called "Le Canap=E9 Majeure d'abord" (Major first, canap=E9) see: http://www.hegerm.ch/textes/cmd.html (in french) This system is essentially a red system: =20 - 1C means any hand with exactly 4 Spades - 1D means any 12-22 hand with NO 4 card major (can be a club or diamond single-suiter, a minor 2-suiter, or some balanced hands with no 4 cards major) - other openings are nat or forcing (1H=3D4, 1S=3D5) The only problem is the 1D opening, WBF system policy reads: >2.2 HUM Systems >[...] >d) By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length in one >specified suit or length in another. >EXCEPTION: one of a minor in a strong club or strong diamond system For me, it means that you can play neboulous diamond ONLY if you play strong club. You cant play neboulous diamond if you play Polish Club, MDC, or whatever. Yvan =20 From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Dec 2 18:10:23 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 10:10:23 -0800 Subject: [blml] Information gained through partner's action - AI or UI? References: <11EB5583-24DC-11D8-8A53-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <001901c3b8ff$8f1b2d00$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Ed Reppert" > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > You know, when the ACBL recently came out with a policy that the > declaring side should offer to explain certain auctions before the > opening lead, I thought it was a bad idea. On second thought, I wonder > if such explanations shouldn't be *required* in *all* auctions, > probably by the laws rather than by regulation. Ah, well, perhaps the > Drafting Committee will consider the question. > Yes, but what about defenders? Michael Rosenberg cites the case wherein the defenders' auction had included two natural-sounding bids above the level of 3NT that were actually part of Kickback. Declarer Bobby Levin took finesses in those suits the wrong way, going down. The defenders could neither Alert nor "Post-Alert" those bids until play was over, too late. I guess the only solution is to to require declarer to not only disclose information about his auction, but to ask for information about the opposing auction. Failure to do the former should constitute MI, while failure to do the latter is merely self-damaging. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Dec 2 09:01:56 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 09:01:56 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dummy play - English usage References: <000001c3b79f$7d596700$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000501c3b912$508a0bc0$863ae150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 1:12 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy play > >Tim West-Meads > >> 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! > > This is rhetoric. cheers John > >> +=+ This word 'rhetoric', a bit like 'they' is it? +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Dec 2 09:17:31 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 09:17:31 -0000 Subject: [blml] Perfect pronouns (was Dummy play) References: <002901c3b878$7443e9e0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000601c3b912$51a5b4f0$863ae150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 2:03 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Perfect pronouns (was Dummy play) > ------------- \x/ -------------- > > The use of "they" is handy when the speaker does not want to > highlight the sex of a person, which could happen with > "correct" usage. A very genteel woman (an English teacher!) > said to me once, "I had company last night and they didn't > leave until after midnight." I knew, and she knew that I knew, > that the company was a man. She avoided "he" to show that > the sex of her company was not a factor in the late-night visit. > +=+ Just so. Or again, being 'genteel' not to show that the sex of her company was a factor and that the company was a woman? +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Dec 2 09:42:20 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 09:42:20 -0000 Subject: [blml] Re: Systems Policy References: <200311280302.hAS32xmf017674@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <001f01c3b878$5d83a240$43054e41@cable.rcn.com> Message-ID: <000701c3b912$52b57740$863ae150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 2:02 AM Subject: [blml] Re: Systems Policy > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > +=+ I was asked by one of the European Federations > > about a system in the Red category in all respects other > > than the 1D opener, which essentially was to show a > > hand single suited in clubs or diamonds (i.e. there could > > be no other suit of four or more cards). This had been > > categorized locally as HUM, > > While we would need more details to be sure, I find it amusing > that this opening would probably be allowed under the ACBL's > GCC (provided it promises 10 HCP). > > Excerpt from GCC: > 1. ONE CLUB OR ONE DIAMOND may be used as an > all-purpose opening bid (artificial or natural) promising a > minimum of 10 high-card points. > +=+ And the corollary would be that the other minor opening shows hands that could include 4-4-5 shapes with maybe a void in the suit named and 10+ HCP. Both the Zone 1 and the Zone 2 members who were most vociferous disliked the thought of this. I quote from my report: "" 1. I placed your question before the World Bridge Federation Systems Committee at its meeting in Monaco on Saturday, 8th November 2003. 2. The Committee confirmed that the only exception to section 2.2(e) of the Systems Policy is in respect of One of a minor suit in a strong club or strong diamond system. 3. It follows that the system you propose is HUM. 4. The committee considered whether it would be willing to make a further exception to accommodate your system. It decided that it would not do so. 5. Central to the decision was the committee's recognition of the very wide variety of hands of 11-15 HCP that might potentially be opened One Club (in your proposed system) if they were to allow it. Among these hands were such possibilities as hands with two four card majors and a void; the committee was not attracted by such possibilities. Whilst I recognize that you will be disappointed by the outcome of the committee's discussion, you may at least have the satisfaction that I have taken the matter to the highest authority."" ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Dec 2 09:55:09 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 09:55:09 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dummy play References: <000701c3b6b4$b5d50170$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000b01c3b6c6$b999cc70$632f37d2@Desktop> <$Z8eajALnUy$Ewzk@asimere.com> <00ec01c3b6e8$98c5e5c0$3938e150@endicott> <00da01c3b759$048986c0$e6053dd4@c6l8v1> <8+DujMC2Pjy$EwAQ@asimere.com> <6.0.1.1.0.20031130161258.04256800@incoming.verizon.net> <1TU8YVApg+y$Ewzn@asimere.com> Message-ID: <000801c3b912$53e1e950$863ae150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 1:17 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Dummy play > In article <6.0.1.1.0.20031130161258.04256800@incoming.verizon.net>, > Walt writes > > > >What consequences do you envision (or have > > you seen) from a TD not changing his ruling > > under those circumstances? > > +=+ If the AC is convinced it is right it may exercise its Law 81C9 right to refer the question to the national authority. +=+ From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon Dec 1 00:58:54 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:58:54 +0000 Subject: [blml] Board 32, from Grattan Endicott (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <88EF5AEA-2399-11D8-9F95-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> --Apple-Mail-2--408662642 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On Sunday, November 30, 2003, at 06:38 am, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > You gotta be joking. I wouldn't dream of sitting at a table and turning > cards. Funny. I could have sworn I've seen you do this. On several occasions. > 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 > -- Gordon Rainsford London UK --Apple-Mail-2--408662642 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=US-ASCII On Sunday, November 30, 2003, at 06:38 am, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: You gotta be joking. I wouldn't dream of sitting at a table and turning cards. Funny. I could have sworn I've seen you do this. On several occasions. 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 -- Gordon Rainsford London UK --Apple-Mail-2--408662642-- From cibor@poczta.fm Mon Dec 1 20:54:14 2003 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 21:54:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Welcome back from the grave Message-ID: <00dc01c3b851$9674bac0$1fd363d9@c5s5d3> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0072_01C3B855.A9359D60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, It's been a long time since I wrote a word to BLML but being encouraged by Danny's come back I decided that I'll try to find some time to post a message from time to time. So here we go: Team match, Love All, screens xxx KJ9xx \\ xxx \\ AK 10 \\ AKxxxx A10xx W \\ E xx Q \\ Jxxx Q109xxxx \\ J QJx \\ Qx \\ AKxxx=20 xxx N E S W 1 H 2 S x! pass pass pass =20 South explained his own double as "negative" while North's explanation was "penalties".=20 East went three down in 2Sx for -500 while his teammates played the North-South cards in 3NT and scored 430 for 10 tricks. West called the TD claiming that he had been misinformed. Had he known that systemically South's double was for penalties, he reasoned, he would have bid 3C over the double. North - South were unable to demostrate that either=20 explanation of the double was correct. What is your rulling and why? Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ------=_NextPart_000_0072_01C3B855.A9359D60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
Hi,
 
It's been a long time since I wrote a = word to=20 BLML
but being encouraged by Danny's come=20 back
I decided that I'll try to find some = time=20 to
post a message from time to = time.
So here we go:
 
 
Team match, Love All, = screens

         = ;           =20 xxx
           =          =20 KJ9xx
          &nbs= p; =20 \\     =20 xxx
           =     =20 \\  =20 AK
10           = ;   =20 \\            = ;       =20 AKxxxx
A10xx       W =20 \\          =20 E   =20 xx
Q           =           =20 \\            = ; =20 Jxxx
Q109xxxx         &nb= sp;   =20 \\          =20 J
           &n= bsp;       =20 QJx   =20 \\
           &= nbsp;       =20 Qx          =20 \\
           &= nbsp;       =20 AKxxx=20
           &nb= sp;       =20 xxx
 
 
N          &nb= sp;=20 E            = =20 S            = =20 W
1 H    =    =20 2 S           =20 x!           =20 pass
pass      pass   &n= bsp;   
 
 
South explained his own double as = "negative"=20 while
North's explanation was "penalties". =
East went three down in 2Sx for -500=20 while
his teammates played the = North-South
cards in 3NT and scored 430 for 10=20 tricks.
 
West called the TD claiming that he had = been=20 misinformed.
Had he known that systemically South's=20 double
was for penalties, he reasoned, he = would=20 have
bid 3C over the double.
 
North - South were unable to demostrate = that either=20
explanation of the double was = correct.
 
What is your rulling and = why?
 
 
          &nbs= p;  =20 Konrad Ciborowski
          &nbs= p;  =20 Krakow, Poland
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_0072_01C3B855.A9359D60-- From adam@irvine.com Tue Dec 2 21:01:00 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 13:01:00 -0800 Subject: [blml] Welcome back from the grave In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:54:14 +0100." <00dc01c3b851$9674bac0$1fd363d9@c5s5d3> Message-ID: <200312022100.NAA06832@mailhub.irvine.com> Konrad wrote: > Hi, > > It's been a long time since I wrote a word to BLML > but being encouraged by Danny's come back > I decided that I'll try to find some time to > post a message from time to time. > So here we go: > > > Team match, Love All, screens > > xxx > KJ9xx > \\ xxx > \\ AK > 10 \\ AKxxxx > A10xx W \\ E xx > Q \\ Jxxx > Q109xxxx \\ J > QJx \\ > Qx \\ > AKxxx=20 > xxx > > > N E S W > 1 H 2 S x! pass > pass pass =20 > > > South explained his own double as "negative" while > North's explanation was "penalties".=20 > East went three down in 2Sx for -500 while > his teammates played the North-South > cards in 3NT and scored 430 for 10 tricks. With the friendly trump break, how did E-W manage to avoid taking five trump tricks and the heart ace???? -- Adam From richard_willey@symantec.com Tue Dec 2 21:14:33 2003 From: richard_willey@symantec.com (Richard Willey) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:14:33 -0800 Subject: [blml] Re: Systems Policy In-Reply-To: <000701c3b912$52b57740$863ae150@endicott> Message-ID: First things first: I agree with the Committe's eventual decision. The WBF's System's Policy clearly indicates that "By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length in one specificed suit or length in another" is sufficient to define a system as a HUM. On these grounds, it is a clear that a 1D opening that shows either a single suited hand with Clubs or a single suited hand with Diamonds is a HUM. What I find absolutely horrific is the following: Grattan states that the definition of the 1C opening was crucial to the eventual ruling "Central to the decision was the committee's recognition of the very wide variety of hands of 11-15 HCP that might potentially be opened One Club (in your proposed system) if they were to allow it. Among these hands were such possibilities as hands with two four card majors and a void; the committee was not attracted by such possibilities" [For the record Yvan states that the definition of the 1C opening is any hand with exactly 4 spades which seems rather trivial] I want rulings to be based on objective laws rather than subjective judgments regarding whether or not they find other elements of the system esthetically pleasing. Distorting regulations based on extraneous information is one of the quickest ways to destroy the credibility of the legal structure. From john@asimere.com Tue Dec 2 22:31:00 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 22:31:00 +0000 Subject: [blml] Board 32, from Grattan Endicott (fwd) In-Reply-To: <88EF5AEA-2399-11D8-9F95-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <88EF5AEA-2399-11D8-9F95-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: In article <88EF5AEA-2399-11D8-9F95-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk>, Gordon Rainsford writes > > >On Sunday, November 30, 2003, at 06:38 am, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > > >You gotta be joking. I wouldn't dream of sitting at a >table and turning > >cards. > > > > >Funny. I could have sworn I've seen you do this. On several occasions. not when the SO is the EBU, we're taught not to. ... but I will fetch the water :) -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Dec 2 23:29:06 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 09:29:06 +1000 Subject: [blml] 51 cards and 53 Message-ID: Herman De Wael: [snip] >So actually I don't think the appeal could be >considered frivolous. > >Think of this "trick". NS bid to 7NT, and claim >13 tricks after the opening lead. Now East >"discovers" a 14th card (in his hand or from >where?). Should the deal be declared void? I >don't think it should. [snip] Richard James Hills: "Should" butters no parsnips. A similar situation happened a number of years ago in the final of the Aussie national open teams. At one table game was bid, at the other table more accurate bidding methods reached a cold slam. The board was flat, because poor dealing meant that the irrelevant defenders' cards were divided 14-12. It "should" have been a slam swing to the better bidders, but under Law those better bidders had to be satisfied with a mere moral victory. 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 cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Dec 2 22:42:05 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 22:42:05 -0000 Subject: [blml] Re: Systems Policy References: Message-ID: <000401c3b926$0a3ea7c0$2b1ce150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 9:14 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Systems Policy > What I find absolutely horrific is the following: > > Grattan states that the definition of the 1C opening was crucial to the > eventual ruling > +=+ 'Crucial' is too strong. It played a significant part in the discussion. It was not all they talked about. They were concerned with the total effect of allowing the method. ~ G ~ +=+ From john@asimere.com Tue Dec 2 22:47:05 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 22:47:05 +0000 Subject: [blml] Welcome back from the grave In-Reply-To: <00dc01c3b851$9674bac0$1fd363d9@c5s5d3> References: <00dc01c3b851$9674bac0$1fd363d9@c5s5d3> Message-ID: SW4gYXJ0aWNsZSA8MDBkYzAxYzNiODUxJDk2NzRiYWMwJDFmZDM2M2Q5QGM1czVkMz4sIEtv bnJhZCBDaWJvcm93c2tpDQo8Y2lib3JAcG9jenRhLmZtPiB3cml0ZXMNCj4gICAgoA0KPiAg ICBIaSwNCj4gICAgoA0KPiAgICBJdCdzIGJlZW4gYSBsb25nIHRpbWUgc2luY2UgSSB3cm90 ZSBhIHdvcmQgdG8gQkxNTA0KPiAgICBidXQgYmVpbmcgZW5jb3VyYWdlZCBieSBEYW5ueSdz IGNvbWUgYmFjaw0KPiAgICBJIGRlY2lkZWQgdGhhdCBJJ2xsIHRyeSB0byBmaW5kIHNvbWUg dGltZSB0bw0KPiAgICBwb3N0IGEgbWVzc2FnZSBmcm9tIHRpbWUgdG8gdGltZS4NCj4gICAg U28gaGVyZSB3ZSBnbzoNCj4NCkluIHRoaXMgcG9zaXRpb24gd2Ugd29yayBvdXQgd2hhdCB3 aWxsIGJlIGJlc3QgZm9yIE5PJ3MgSSB0aGluay4gTm9ydGgncw0KZXhwbGFuYXRpb24gaXMg aXJyZWxldmFudCBhcyBFYXN0IGhhcyBub3doZXJlIHRvIGdvLCBzbyBsZXRzIGFzc3VtZQ0K c291dGggZ2F2ZSBNSS4gIEFzIGZvciB0aGUgM0MgY2FsbCBpdCdzIGEgYml0IGhpbmQtc2ln aHQtaXNoLg0KDQpsZXQncyBzZWUsIGl0J3MganVzdCBvbmUgZG93biBvbiBhbG1vc3QgYW55 IGRlZmVuY2UuIEknbGwgZ2l2ZSB0aGVtIGhhbGYNCm9mIGl0LiAoMTJjMykuIEl0J2xsIGJl IGRvdWJsZWQgYnkgTm9ydGgsIGFmdGVyIFNvdXRoJ3MgcGVuYWx0eSBkb3VibGUuDQoNCiA1 MCUgb2YgLSAyOyA1MCUgb2YgKyA4OyAgTmV0dCArMywgc3dpbmcgb2YgNSBpbXBzLiAgZmVl bHMgYWJvdXQgcmlnaHQNCnRvby4NCj4gICAgoA0KPiAgICCgDQo+ICAgIFRlYW0gbWF0Y2gs IExvdmUgQWxsLCBzY3JlZW5zDQo+DQo+ICAgIKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgIHh4eA0K PiAgICCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoCBLSjl4eA0KPiAgICCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKAgXFyg oKCgoCB4eHgNCj4gICAgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgIFxcoKAgQUsNCj4gICAgMTCgoKCgoKCg oKCgoKCgoCBcXKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoCBBS3h4eHgNCj4gICAgQTEweHigoKCgoKAgV6Ag ICAgXFygoKCgoKCgoKAgRaCgoCB4eA0KPiAgICBRoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKAgXFygoKCg oKCgoKCgoKCgIEp4eHgNCj4gICAgUTEwOXh4eHigoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgIFxcoKCgoKCgoKCg oCBKDQo+ICAgIKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKAgUUp4oKCgIFxcDQo+ICAgIKCgoKCgoKCg oKCgoKCgoKCgoKAgUXigoKCgoKCgoKCgIFxcDQo+ICAgIKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKAg QUt4eHggDQo+ICAgIKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKAgeHh4DQo+ICAgIKANCj4gICAgoA0K PiAgICBOoKCgoKCgoKCgoKAgRaCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoCBToKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgIFcNCj4gICAg MaBIoKCgIKCgoCAyoFMgoKCgoKCgoKCgoCB4IaCgoKCgoKCgoKCgIHBhc3MNCj4gICAgcGFz c6CgoKCgoHBhc3OgoKCgoKCgDQo+ICAgIKANCj4gICAgoA0KPiAgICBTb3V0aCBleHBsYWlu ZWQgaGlzIG93biBkb3VibGUgYXMgIm5lZ2F0aXZlIiB3aGlsZQ0KPiAgICBOb3J0aCdzIGV4 cGxhbmF0aW9uIHdhcyAicGVuYWx0aWVzIi4gDQo+ICAgIEVhc3Qgd2VudCB0aHJlZSBkb3du IGluIDJTeCBmb3IgLTUwMCB3aGlsZQ0KPiAgICBoaXMgdGVhbW1hdGVzIHBsYXllZCB0aGUg Tm9ydGgtU291dGgNCj4gICAgY2FyZHMgaW4gM05UIGFuZCBzY29yZWQgNDMwIGZvciAxMCB0 cmlja3MuDQo+ICAgIKANCj4gICAgV2VzdCBjYWxsZWQgdGhlIFREIGNsYWltaW5nIHRoYXQg aGUgaGFkIGJlZW4gbWlzaW5mb3JtZWQuDQo+ICAgIEhhZCBoZSBrbm93biB0aGF0IHN5c3Rl bWljYWxseSBTb3V0aCdzIGRvdWJsZQ0KPiAgICB3YXMgZm9yIHBlbmFsdGllcywgaGUgcmVh c29uZWQsIGhlIHdvdWxkIGhhdmUNCj4gICAgYmlkIDNDIG92ZXIgdGhlIGRvdWJsZS4NCj4g ICAgoA0KPiAgICBOb3J0aCAtIFNvdXRoIHdlcmUgdW5hYmxlIHRvIGRlbW9zdHJhdGUgdGhh dCBlaXRoZXIgDQo+ICAgIGV4cGxhbmF0aW9uIG9mIHRoZSBkb3VibGUgd2FzIGNvcnJlY3Qu DQo+ICAgIKANCj4gICAgV2hhdCBpcyB5b3VyIHJ1bGxpbmcgYW5kIHdoeT8NCj4gICAgoA0K PiAgICCgDQo+ICAgIKCgoKCgoKCgoKCgoKAgS29ucmFkIENpYm9yb3dza2kNCj4gICAgoKCg oKCgoKCgoKCgoCBLcmFrb3csIFBvbGFuZA0KPiAgICCgDQo+ICAgIKANCg0KLS0gDQpKb2hu IChNYWREb2cpIFByb2JzdHwgICAgICAuICEgICAgIC1eLSAgfGljcSAxMDgxMDc5OA0KNDUx IE1pbGUgRW5kIFJvYWQgICB8ICAgICAvfF9fLiAgICBcOi8gIHxPS2IgQ2hpZW5Gb3UNCkxv bmRvbiBFMyA0UEEgICAgICAgfCAgICAvIEAgX18pICAgLXwtICB8am9obkBhc2ltZXJlLmNv bQ0KKzQ0LSgwKTIwIDg5ODMgNTgxOCB8ICAgL1wgICAtLV4gICAgfCAgIHx3d3cuYXNpbWVy ZS5jb20vfmpvaG4NCg== From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Dec 2 23:40:00 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 09:40:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] Information gained through partner's action - AI or UI? Message-ID: Ed Reppert: [snip] >You know, when the ACBL recently came out >with a policy that the declaring side should >offer to explain certain auctions before the >opening lead, I thought it was a bad idea. On >second thought, I wonder if such explanations >shouldn't be *required* in *all* auctions, >probably by the laws rather than by regulation. >Ah, well, perhaps the Drafting Committee will >consider the question. Richard James Hills: I suggest that Ed migrates to Australia. The ABF recently revised its Alerting regs, which now highlight the importance of pre-Alerting and post-Alerting. Post-Alerting *obliges* the declarer to offer to explain *any* auction which has subtleties of which the defenders may be unaware. I agree with Ed and Nigel that post-Alerting is such a useful principle, that it could profitably be included in the 2005 Laws, rather than be left to the initiative of individual NCBOs. 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 Tue Dec 2 23:02:59 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 18:02:59 -0500 Subject: [blml] Information gained through partner's action - AI or UI? In-Reply-To: <001901c3b8ff$8f1b2d00$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: On Tuesday, Dec 2, 2003, at 13:10 US/Eastern, Marvin French wrote: > Yes, but what about defenders? Michael Rosenberg cites the case > wherein the > defenders' auction had included two natural-sounding bids above the > level of > 3NT that were actually part of Kickback. Declarer Bobby Levin took > finesses > in those suits the wrong way, going down. The defenders could neither > Alert > nor "Post-Alert" those bids until play was over, too late. Erm. From the ACBL Alert Procedure: "Delayed Alerts Alerts given after the auction is completed for Alertable calls above the level of 3NT starting with the opening bidder's second turn to call. The dummy or declarer Alerts the defenders before the opening lead. The defenders Alert after the opening lead has been made but before it is faced." Note the last sentence. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Dec 2 23:07:51 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 18:07:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <000401c3b912$4fa9e4f0$863ae150@endicott> Message-ID: <5A5C6900-251C-11D8-88A2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Dec 2, 2003, at 03:50 US/Eastern, Grattan Endicott wrote: > This is much different from what I gather > of ACBL appeals, where Kojak and Rich Colker both > say the AC retries the case from scratch, and - again > if I understand correctly - ignoring the Director's > input. I have no experience of high level appeals here, but this seems... odd. > Perhaps the English understanding of the verb > 'to review' (Law 92A) is different from the American. Hm. Wish I could find my "Concise OED" right now. :-) I do recall being confused by an Englishman's stated intent to "revise" something, by which I thought he meant "change", but actually meant what I would have understand by "review". > As to what you would do, personally, perhaps > you should think carefully henceforward about this > law before you touch a card in dummy for any > purpose at all! Indeed. :-) From svenpran@online.no Tue Dec 2 23:30:51 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 00:30:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <5A5C6900-251C-11D8-88A2-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c3b92c$52c9c3c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > > This is much different from what I gather > > of ACBL appeals, where Kojak and Rich Colker both > > say the AC retries the case from scratch, and - again > > if I understand correctly - ignoring the Director's > > input. > > I have no experience of high level appeals here, but this seems... odd. > > > Perhaps the English understanding of the verb > > 'to review' (Law 92A) is different from the American. > > Hm. Wish I could find my "Concise OED" right now. :-) I do recall being > confused by an Englishman's stated intent to "revise" something, by > which I thought he meant "change", but actually meant what I would have > understand by "review". >From my library - Lookup on the word "Review": The Oxford Guide to the English Language (1988): Noun: General survey of events or a subject; reconsideration; ceremonial inspection of troops etc.; report assessing the merits of a book or play etc. Verb (t): make or write a review. Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language (1982): Noun: 1. A looking at or looking over again 2. a general survey or report 3. a looking back on (past events etc.) 4. a reexamination, as of the decision of a lower court 5. a critical evaluation of a book, play etc. 6. a formal inspection, as of troops on parade Verb (t): 1. to look back on 2.to survey in thought, speech etc. 3. to inspect (troops, etc.) formally 4. to give a critical evaluation of (a book, etc.) 5. to study again Did this make anything clearer? (There seems to be some differences?) Regards Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Dec 3 00:10:40 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 10:10:40 +1000 Subject: [blml] Welcome back from the grave Message-ID: Konrad Ciborowski asked: >Team match, Love All, screens > >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 xxx >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 KJ9xx >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 \\=A0=A0=A0 xxx >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 \\=A0=A0 AK >10=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 \\=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 AKxxxx >A10xx=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =A0 \\=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = =A0=A0=A0 xx >Q=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =A0 \\=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Jxxx >Q109xxxx=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =A0=A0=A0=A0 \\=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0 x >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 QJx=A0 \\ >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Qx=A0=A0 = \\ >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 AKxxx >=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 xxx > >N=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 E=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0 S W >1=A0H=A0=A0=A0 =A0=A0=A0 2=A0S =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 x!=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0pass >pass=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 pass > >South explained his own double as "negative" while >North's explanation was "penalties". >East went three down in 2Sx for -500 while >his teammates played the North-South >cards in 3NT and scored 430 for 10 tricks. > >West called the TD claiming that he had been misinformed. >Had he known that systemically South's double >was for penalties, he reasoned, he would have >bid 3C over the double. > >North - South were unable to demonstrate that either >explanation of the double was correct. > >What is your ruling and why? Richard James Hills: 1. I rule that the correct explanation of the double would have been "undiscussed". 2. I rule no adjustment under Law 12C2, on the grounds that West would almost certainly have Passed if the correct "undiscussed" explanation had been given. 3. I fine North a 3 imp PP for their misinformation infraction. 4. I fine South a 3 imp PP for their misinformation infraction. 5. I await with interest Herman De Wael's ruling on this question, since a pillar of the De Wael School is that the TD may never rule that "undiscussed" is true. 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 Wed Dec 3 00:31:16 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 10:31:16 +1000 Subject: [blml] Re: Systems Policy Message-ID: Richard Willey: >>What I find absolutely horrific is the following: >> >>Grattan states that the definition of the 1C opening was >>crucial to the eventual ruling Grattan Endicott: >+=3D+ 'Crucial' is too strong. It played a significant part >in the discussion. It was not all they talked about. They >were concerned with the total effect of allowing the >method. ~ G ~ +=3D+ Richard James Hills: What I find absolutely horrific is that the WBF defines as HUM, many systems which are routinely permitted by the ACBL General Convention Chart, or are routinely played in Aussie clubs. The ABF classifies systems by colour, ranging from Green (most natural), through Blue, Red, and Yellow (HUM). Systems with amorphous 1C and 1D openings are classified in the second-most basic Blue category. Blue category systems are permitted in almost all Aussie events. Why do WBF World events use a system corset, which is unstrung in much less prestigious events in the ACBL and Australia? 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 Wed Dec 3 00:54:48 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 10:54:48 +1000 Subject: [blml] Information gained through partner's action - AI or UI? Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >Erm. From the ACBL Alert Procedure: > >"Delayed Alerts > >Alerts given after the auction is completed for >Alertable calls above the level of 3NT starting >with the opening bidder's second turn to call. The >dummy or declarer Alerts the defenders before the >opening lead. The defenders Alert after the >opening lead has been made but before it is >faced." > >Note the last sentence. Richard James Hills: Noted. At least an explanation or misexplanation no longer gives the defenders UI during the bidding, but the last sentence of this reg still gives the defenders UI during most of the defence. The last sentence of this reg, while technically Lawful, is contrary to the spirit of Law 75D2: ".....a defender may not correct the error until play ends....." Furthermore, the labyrithine ACBL Alert reg is so complicated that it appears that declarer Bobby Levin and his opposing expert defenders were unaware of this sentence in the reg. There is no point in designing a pluperfect Alert regulation which is impossible for an expert to memorise. Instead, an Alert reg should be intuitively obvious to the average bunny. See also: November 2003 Bridge World Editorial 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 Wed Dec 3 01:20:15 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 11:20:15 +1000 Subject: [blml] Review (was Dummy play) Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>This is much different from what I gather of ACBL appeals, >>where Kojak and Rich Colker both say the AC retries the >>case from scratch, and - again if I understand correctly - >>ignoring the Director's input. >> >>Perhaps the English understanding of the verb 'to review' >>(Law 92A) is different from the American. Sven Pran: >From my library - Lookup on the word "Review": > >The Oxford Guide to the English Language (1988): >Noun: General survey of events or a subject; reconsideration; >ceremonial inspection of troops etc.; report assessing the >merits of a book or play etc. >Verb (t): make or write a review. > >Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language (1982): >Noun: 1. A looking at or looking over again >2. a general survey or report >3. a looking back on (past events etc.) >4. a reexamination, as of the decision of a lower court >5. a critical evaluation of a book, play etc. >6. a formal inspection, as of troops on parade >Verb (t): 1. to look back on >2.to survey in thought, speech etc. >3. to inspect (troops, etc.) formally >4. to give a critical evaluation of (a book, etc.) >5. to study again > >Did this make anything clearer? (There seems to be some >differences?) Richard James Hills: The critical difference seems to be between the second English definition "reconsideration", and the fourth American definition "a reexamination, as of the decision of a lower court". Appellate courts in America and many other jurisdictions ignore the decision of a lower court, and make up their own minds about what the law is or now will be. WBF Code of Practice: "The expectation is that each appeal committee will presume initially that the Director's ruling is correct." The American dictionary definition of "review" may have played a factor in the ACBL Laws Commission rejecting a particular draft clause for the 2005 Laws, which was based upon the above sentence from the WBF CoP. 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 Anne Jones" A timed Individual Online game. It is played in an EBU affiliated club but Masterpoints are not involved 3 players arrive late and TD makes up table. 9 boards to be played in available 45 mins. All 4 players (including the TD) agree amongst themselves to pass out 2 boards in order to achieve the play of 8 boards needed to qualify for presence in event. This event is a sponsored charity event. Sponsor has agreed to donate £1 per player to the winner's charity. (17/18 boards to be played over 2 sessions) As 2 boards were passed out - this means that the players qualify for the sponsorship If they had played the boards, they would not have managed to complete 8, and would have been excluded It was the TD's suggestion to pass boards out. (The players complied with this) Is this in breach of the Laws of Online Bridge? Is the TD decision defrauding the benefactor? Comments please. From nancy@dressing.org Wed Dec 3 04:57:30 2003 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 23:57:30 -0500 Subject: [blml] 51 cards and 53 References: <3FCB325A.6050402@hdw.be> <000201c3b8d5$f7f577b0$85faf1c3@LNV> <3FCC938F.2000109@hdw.be> <00b201c3b8ed$18a51da0$85faf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <009801c3b959$f5216420$6501a8c0@hare> How about law 7B1 and law 90B7. I would apply both in this case. Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 10:57 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 51 cards and 53 > Herman: > > > > >>Declarer (here placed in South) is in 2NT and has made a few tricks > > >>when he tackles this club suit (dummy on top) > > >> > > >> K10943 > > >>J765 52 > > >> AQ8 > > >> > > >>Yes indeed, a fourteenth club - the five in East is superfluous, he > > >>has 14 cards in total. > > >> > > >>Declarer plays ace-queen, and when both opponents follow suit (he has > > >>not remarked they both played a 5) he claims a total of eight tricks, > > >>stating among others that dummy's clubs are high. > > >>West says "no, they're not" and shows his two remaining clubs. > > >> > > >>The TD ruled 60/40. > > >>I believe this is correct, but it is totally unfair on declarer, whose > > >>claim is completely correct (he can claim the same, including a club > > >>finesse, after East shows out). Should they have appealed? > > > ton: > > >> Strange question. L 13 is completely clear. > > > Herman: > > ehmm - L13C is very clear indeed. And it does not apply here. > > right > > > L13C talks of "with another player holding correspondingly fewer", > > which is not the case here. > > L13B does not apply. > > right > > L13A only applies "if no such calls have been made". > > > right > > > > The start of L13 states "when the director deems that the deal can be > > corrected and played normally". I think it can. > > That then is the mistake. It should be common interpretation that the > heading of L13 only applies during the auction. Bridge can't be played with > 53 cards. > > > > > > So actually I don't think the appeal could be considered frivolous. > > > > Think of this "trick". NS bid to 7NT, and claim 13 tricks after the > > opening lead. Now East "discovers" a 14th card (in his hand or from > > where?). Should the deal be declared void? I don't think it should. > > We have discussed this 'trick' in blml more than once.Yes it the duty of the > TD to decide where the 53rd card came from. > And he has the power to award a penalty of 24 imps to the offending side > (not having counted the cards). Hopefully this is in a k.o match then. > > > > > > and no TD should accept any > > > decision by an AC other than the statement that it doesn't have the > > > authority to overrule him. Frivolous appeal. > > > And why 'completely unfair'? The law is the law, as spades are spades > and 14 > > > is too much. > > > > > > > Well, even a result under the law can be unfair in some higher sense. > > what is higher than laws? > > ton > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Dec 3 05:45:26 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 15:45:26 +1000 Subject: [blml] Something different! Message-ID: Anne Jones: [snip] >All 4 players (including the TD) agree amongst >themselves to pass out 2 boards [snip] Richard James Hills: The Law 40A right of players to make any call - in this case Pass - is constrained by being "not based on a partnership understanding." If I was Chief Director, I would rule that the four players' predetermined Passes also infracted Law 74B1, "paying insufficient attention to the game". If I was Chief Director, I would also use Law 81C9 to refer the TD's conduct to the governing committee of their employing SO, with a recommendation that the TD's employment be terminated. 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 Wed Dec 3 08:05:57 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 09:05:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] 51 cards and 53 In-Reply-To: <009801c3b959$f5216420$6501a8c0@hare> References: <3FCB325A.6050402@hdw.be> <000201c3b8d5$f7f577b0$85faf1c3@LNV> <3FCC938F.2000109@hdw.be> <00b201c3b8ed$18a51da0$85faf1c3@LNV> <009801c3b959$f5216420$6501a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <3FCD9965.5060802@hdw.be> Nancy T Dressing wrote: > How about law 7B1 and law 90B7. I would apply both in this case. > Nancy > Yes Nancy, quite right. And totally unhelpful. Do either of these laws tell us to use 12A or 12C to determine the final result on the board? > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Dec 3 08:20:00 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 09:20:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Welcome back from the grave In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3FCD9CB0.1020104@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Konrad Ciborowski asked: > > >>Team match, Love All, screens >> >> >>North - South were unable to demonstrate that either >>explanation of the double was correct. >> >>What is your ruling and why? > > > Richard James Hills: > > 1. I rule that the correct explanation of the double > would have been "undiscussed". > That may be correct. > 2. I rule no adjustment under Law 12C2, on the grounds > that West would almost certainly have Passed if the > correct "undiscussed" explanation had been given. > That is your opinion. I note that John has a different opinion (he thinks West might bid 50% of the time). I am more inclined to go along with John. > 3. I fine North a 3 imp PP for their misinformation > infraction. > OK. If you want to be harsh, quite all right. > 4. I fine South a 3 imp PP for their misinformation > infraction. > This is where you'll be slammed with an appeal if you do this to me. I believe I've given the correct explanation. So does my partner. At least one of us is wrong. So I'll accept one PP. But only the TD hes ruled that the real explanation should be a third one. I don't accept that. No second PP. > 5. I await with interest Herman De Wael's ruling on this > question, since a pillar of the De Wael School is > that the TD may never rule that "undiscussed" is true. > You have misunderstood the De Wael School completely. I have never said that "undiscussed" is untrue. I have always stated that it is better for a player to give his opinion, since "undiscussed" will almost certainly result in a ruling against. > Best wishes > > RJH > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Wed Dec 3 08:45:10 2003 From: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 09:45:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Re=3A_[blml]_Re=3A_Systems_Policy?= Message-ID: "Grattan Endicott" Envoy=E9 par : blml-admin@rtflb.org 02/12/2003 10:42 =20 Pour : "blml" cc :=20 Objet : Re: [blml] Re: Systems Policy Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 2:02 AM Subject: [blml] Re: Systems Policy > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > +=3D+ I was asked by one of the European Federations > > about a system in the Red category in all respects other > > than the 1D opener, which essentially was to show a > > hand single suited in clubs or diamonds (i.e. there could > > be no other suit of four or more cards). This had been > > categorized locally as HUM, > > While we would need more details to be sure, I find it amusing > that this opening would probably be allowed under the ACBL's > GCC (provided it promises 10 HCP). > > Excerpt from GCC: > 1. ONE CLUB OR ONE DIAMOND may be used as an > all-purpose opening bid (artificial or natural) promising a > minimum of 10 high-card points. > +=3D+ And the corollary would be that the other minor opening shows hands that could include 4-4-5 shapes with maybe a void in the suit named and 10+ HCP. Both the Zone 1 and the Zone 2 members who were most vociferous disliked the thought of this. I quote from my report: "" 1. I placed your question before the World Bridge Federation Systems Committee at its meeting in Monaco on Saturday, 8th November 2003. 2. The Committee confirmed that the only exception to section 2.2(e) of the Systems Policy is in respect of One of a minor suit in a strong club or strong diamond system. 3. It follows that the system you propose is HUM. 4. The committee considered whether it would be willing to make a further exception to accommodate your system. It decided that it would not do so. 5. Central to the decision was the committee's recognition of the very wide variety of hands of 11-15 HCP that might potentially be opened One Club (in your proposed system) if they were to allow it. Among these hands were such possibilities as hands with two four card majors and a void; the committee was not attracted by such possibilities. *** i am puzzled. are you still speaking of the system (canape majeure=20 d'abord) previously refered in this discussion? had the comitee a=20 description of the system when deciding that a 1C opening (meaning 4 cards = in spades) was too indefinite an opening?=20 incidentally, the exception for 1 minor openings in strong club systems=20 has the paradoxal effect of allowing a 1D "precision" opening (maybe any=20 balanced hand) which is more random than the 1D "majeure d'abord" opening=20 (no 4 hearts or spades when a balanced hand). on another side, my reading of the wbf 5th HUM condition:"By partnership ag= reement an opening bid at the one level shows either=20 length in one specified suit or length in another." could as easily be=20 used to classify HUM any system using a single bid (1NT for example) to=20 show a balanced hand, if we follow the comitee's interpretation. jp rocafort *** Whilst I recognize that you will be disappointed by the outcome of the committee's discussion, you may at least have the satisfaction that I have taken the matter to the highest authority."" ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/SC/D 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Dec 3 09:09:50 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 10:09:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Welcome back from the grave In-Reply-To: <3FCD9CB0.1020104@hdw.be> References: <3FCD9CB0.1020104@hdw.be> Message-ID: <3FCDA85E.1060609@hdw.be> I've thought about this some more: Herman De Wael wrote: > richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Konrad Ciborowski asked: >> >> >>> Team match, Love All, screens >>> >>> >>> North - South were unable to demonstrate that either >>> explanation of the double was correct. >>> >>> What is your ruling and why? >> >> >> >> Richard James Hills: >> > >> 5. I await with interest Herman De Wael's ruling on this >> question, since a pillar of the De Wael School is >> that the TD may never rule that "undiscussed" is true. >> > > You have misunderstood the De Wael School completely. I have never said > that "undiscussed" is untrue. I have always stated that it is better for > a player to give his opinion, since "undiscussed" will almost certainly > result in a ruling against. > When faced with the "undiscussed" problem, I try to imagine what would happen if the same partnership were playing on the other side of the world. Many of the things that complete the sentence "undiscussed, but ..." would then have to be said, whereas they are understood in the own club by opponents familiar with the methods in general use. So let's see what the correct explanation should be in this case: "undiscussed, but we have agreed to play negative doubles over 1Sp, and penalty doubles are usually played in our club only on the three level, so I would imagine this is negative". Or some other similar explanation. Now it is my contention that the above explanation will lead to the same ruling as would an explanation "negative". Which is BTW why I would be so against either of the 3IMPs PP that Richard gave. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Wed Dec 3 09:53:37 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 10:53:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Correct" misinformation. (Offspring from "Welcome back from the grave") Message-ID: <000001c3b983$52ffdc60$6900a8c0@WINXP> When a disclosure happens to fit the actual hand although it is misinformation related to agreements, under what circumstances can = opponents claim damage? Not because they have received the wrong information on what the = questioned hand should be expected to look like? Not because they had called differently had they known the true = agreements? (In that case it would have been a clear misbid rather than a question = of misinformation) So what remains is alleged damage on the ground that the player giving = the information would himself have called differently from what he did had = he "remembered" the true agreements? So when screens are used and West hears a disclosure from South on the = call South just made; is there any situation where West can claim damage on = the ground that he (West) would have called differently on this round had he been told the true agreements?=20 I have a problem with that. Regards Sven=20 From blml@wellsborocomputing.com Wed Dec 3 11:33:34 2003 From: blml@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 06:33:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: Systems Policy In-Reply-To: <000701c3b912$52b57740$863ae150@endicott> References: <200311280302.hAS32xmf017674@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <001f01c3b878$5d83a240$43054e41@cable.rcn.com> <000701c3b912$52b57740$863ae150@endicott> Message-ID: On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 09:42:20 -0000, Grattan wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Steve Willner" > >> From: "Grattan Endicott" >> > +=+ I was asked by one of the European Federations >> > about a system in the Red category in all respects other >> > than the 1D opener, which essentially was to show a >> > hand single suited in clubs or diamonds (i.e. there could >> > be no other suit of four or more cards). This had been >> > categorized locally as HUM, >> >> While we would need more details to be sure, I find it amusing >> that this opening would probably be allowed under the ACBL's >> GCC (provided it promises 10 HCP). >> >> Excerpt from GCC: >> 1. ONE CLUB OR ONE DIAMOND may be used as an >> all-purpose opening bid (artificial or natural) promising a >> minimum of 10 high-card points. >> >+=+ And the corollary would be that the other minor opening >shows hands that could include 4-4-5 shapes with maybe a >void in the suit named and 10+ HCP. Both the Zone 1 and the >Zone 2 members who were most vociferous disliked the >thought of this. I quote from my report: >"" >1. I placed your question before the World Bridge Federation Systems >Committee at its meeting in Monaco on Saturday, 8th November 2003. >2. The Committee confirmed that the only exception to section 2.2(e) >of the Systems Policy is in respect of One of a minor suit in a >strong club or strong diamond system. 3. It follows that the system >you propose is HUM. 4. The committee considered whether it would >be willing to make a further exception to accommodate your system. > It decided that it would not do so. 5. Central to the decision was >the committee's recognition of the very wide variety of hands of >11-15 HCP that might potentially be opened One Club (in your >proposed system) if they were to allow it. Among these hands >were such possibilities as hands with two four card majors and >a void; the committee was not attracted by such possibilities. > >Whilst I recognize that you will be disappointed by the >outcome of the committee's discussion, you may at least >have the satisfaction that I have taken the matter to the highest >authority."" And now that you've had a decision from the highest authority, and given that we accept that the current ACBL GCC allows the system, I'm tempted to wonder how long it will be before the ACBL manages to get this WBF decision out to the membership at large. I'll be surprised if the GCC details on their WWW site are changed in time for next Xmas - and I don't mean the one that happens later this month. Brian. From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Dec 3 11:49:33 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 12:49:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Correct" misinformation. (Offspring from "Welcome back from the grave") In-Reply-To: <000001c3b983$52ffdc60$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c3b983$52ffdc60$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3FCDCDCD.1090704@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: > When a disclosure happens to fit the actual hand although it is > misinformation related to agreements, under what circumstances can opponents > claim damage? > L16? > Not because they have received the wrong information on what the questioned > hand should be expected to look like? > no. > Not because they had called differently had they known the true agreements? > (In that case it would have been a clear misbid rather than a question of > misinformation) > yes? > So what remains is alleged damage on the ground that the player giving the > information would himself have called differently from what he did had he > "remembered" the true agreements? > > So when screens are used and West hears a disclosure from South on the call > South just made; is there any situation where West can claim damage on the > ground that he (West) would have called differently on this round had he > been told the true agreements? > Of course - and since East has heard a different (although correct) explanation of South's call, he interprets West's call differently. So East-West are damaged because West did not receive the correct explanation of the true meaning. > I have a problem with that. > I don't. > Regards Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Wed Dec 3 12:29:42 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 13:29:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Correct" misinformation. (Offspring from "Welcome back from the grave") In-Reply-To: <3FCDCDCD.1090704@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c3b999$211169b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > > When a disclosure happens to fit the actual hand although=20 > > it is misinformation related to agreements, under what=20 > > circumstances can opponents claim damage? >=20 > L16? Certainly not L16? Where is the UI and use of it???=20 >=20 > > Not because they have received the wrong information on=20 > > what the questioned hand should be expected to look like? >=20 > no. So we agree on that. >=20 > > Not because they had called differently had they known=20 > > the true agreements? (In that case it would have been a > > clear misbid rather than a question of misinformation) >=20 > yes? Sorry: Yes what? (Yes misbid, or yes called differently) >=20 > > So what remains is alleged damage on the ground that the=20 > > player giving the information would himself have called=20 > > differently from what he did had he "remembered" the true > > agreements? > > > > So when screens are used and West hears a disclosure from=20 > > South on the call South just made; is there any situation > > where West can claim damage on the ground that he (West) > > would have called differently on this round had he been > > told the true agreements? > > >=20 > Of course - and since East has heard a different (although > correct) explanation of South's call, he interprets West's > call differently. So East-West are damaged because West did > not receive the correct explanation of the true meaning. Yes, that is a true possibility. (Except of course that whether = East/West have been damaged must be judged separately from establishing misinformation) >=20 > > I have a problem with that. > > >=20 > I don't. So to add it up: (With reference to the original thread) West could have called differently on a correct disclosure of = agreements. His different call could easily have been worse for him: If South's "negative" double had been with a better club suit then a club bid in = West would not necessarily have been advantageous. However, if this had caused East to call differently in the remainder of = the auction, AND IF this different auction would (more or less likely) have resulted in a better score for EW then they can claim damage. Yes, I can follow that line. It leaves a lot of judgment for the = director. So to the final question: If North and South had been able to show that negative double was in fact the correct disclosure then East was misinformed. Could East in this case have had any escape to avoid being = set 500? Regards Sven From blml@blakjak.com Wed Dec 3 14:01:37 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 14:01:37 +0000 Subject: [blml] EBU 2001 Casebook, appeal 7 In-Reply-To: References: <4aWCG1BaK4s$EwiR@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst wrote >In article <4aWCG1BaK4s$EwiR@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson > writes >>Richard Hills: >> >>>E/W were so-called "damaged" because N/S did >>>not have a partnership agreement about the >>>meaning of a double after a strong 1C and a >>>negative 1D response. Tough. N/S are not >>>required to have a comprehensive defence to >>>E/W's unusual artificial methods. >> >> Sure - but are they not required to say so? > >I think they did (well I heard it anyway) I have lost the original post, but I believe that this case involved giving A+/A- in the OS's favour according to the write-up. I have checked up, and this was an error in the write-up on the original appeal form. Agree, I should have caught it earlier. The AC actually gave A+/A- to the NOS - which was still an illegal ruling! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Dec 3 14:34:56 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 14:34:56 -0000 Subject: [blml] Uncertainty References: <3FCD9CB0.1020104@hdw.be> Message-ID: <008c01c3b9aa$a1108860$119868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Richard James Hills] > I await with interest Herman De Wael's ruling > on this question, since a pillar of the De > Wael School is that the TD may never rule that > "undiscussed" is true. [Nigel] Herman is much less cruel than this :) You are getting at me, Richard :( You refer to one of my proposed new laws... If an opponent wants to know the most likely systemic meaning of partner's call and you don't know, then you *must* guess. If you misguess, then the TD will penalize you if he judges that opponents suffer damage as a consequence of your misguess. In complex auctions, you are rarely certain of the meaning of each call. The current law punishes you, if you try to be helpful, when you aren't completely sure of the meaning of a call. Your guess will usually be better than theirs. If you explain that you are unsure, make your best stab at your agreement, guess wrong, and as a result opponents suffer damage, then the TD will rule against you. The current law protects and encourages prevaricators who, instead, explain "no agreement", whenever there is any doubt. The new rule is crude but simple and objective; hence easier to enforce, and much fairer than the current law. Please note carefully: The new law never "forces you to lie". The whole point is that you are *not* asked to be certain! You are simply asked for the most probable systemic meaning, given your discussions, experience, and related agreements. Furthermore, partner may still psyche. You divulge the likely theoretic meaning of a bid, from related discussions, experience and so on. That may be inconsistent with your holdings and need bear no resemblance to partner's actual hand. (Although, if in doubt, the TD should still rule misinformation rather than psyche or misbid) This new law encourages partnerships to learn conventions before adopting them. Learners of an untrammelled simple standard system should, however, be exempt from its penalties. Perhaps there should also be a special exemption so as not to spoil the fun of Ghestem players :). --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.547 / Virus Database: 340 - Release Date: 02/12/2003 From jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Wed Dec 3 14:30:21 2003 From: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 15:30:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_[blml]_=22Correct=22_misinformation=2E_=28?= =?us-ascii?Q?Offspring?= from "Welcome back from the grave") Message-ID: "Sven Pran" Envoy=E9 par : blml-admin@rtflb.org 03/12/2003 10:53 =20 Pour : "blml" cc :=20 Objet : [blml] "Correct" misinformation. (Offspring from "Welcome b= ack from the=20 grave") When a disclosure happens to fit the actual hand although it is misinformation related to agreements, under what circumstances can=20 opponents claim damage? Not because they have received the wrong information on what the=20 questioned hand should be expected to look like? Not because they had called differently had they known the true=20 agreements? (In that case it would have been a clear misbid rather than a question of misinformation) So what remains is alleged damage on the ground that the player giving the information would himself have called differently from what he did had he "remembered" the true agreements? So when screens are used and West hears a disclosure from South on the=20 call South just made; is there any situation where West can claim damage on the ground that he (West) would have called differently on this round had he been told the true agreements?=20 *** any situation in which the exact agreement could induce west to select a=20 different and more successful call; it's easy to find many exemples: - south holds 4 spades and explains his agreement as 4 spades when it is 3 = or 4 spades - south says his bid is forcing when it is not. - south, holding 10 hcp, says his range is 3-10 when it is 10-30 - south, holding CA explains his bid shows CA when the true agreement is=20 HA (holding HA, west could infer a bidding misunderstanding and refrain=20 from saving) ... ***=20 I have a problem with that. *** i think it's curable jpr *** Regards Sven=20 =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=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 richard_willey@symantec.com Wed Dec 3 14:34:57 2003 From: richard_willey@symantec.com (Richard Willey) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 06:34:57 -0800 Subject: [blml] Re: Systems Policy In-Reply-To: <000401c3b926$0a3ea7c0$2b1ce150@endicott> Message-ID: Richard Willey said: >> What I find absolutely horrific is the following: >> >> Grattan states that the definition of the 1C opening was crucial >> to the eventual ruling Grattan responded >+=+ 'Crucial' is too strong. It played a significant part >in the discussion. It was not all they talked about. They >were concerned with the total effect of allowing the method I apologize for initially misquoting Grattan: In actuality, the precise quote was: "Central to the decision was the committee's recognition of the very wide variety of hands of 11-15 HCP that might potentially be opened One Club" Still, my basic point stands. Personal biases regarding the nature of the 1C opening are irrelevant to whether the 1D opening is considered to be a HUM. Personally, I am thankful that you noted this point. It provides some very useful perspective on how the Committee operates. However, this gives me little faith in the process. From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Dec 3 14:46:48 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 15:46:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Correct" misinformation. (Offspring from "Welcome back from the grave") In-Reply-To: <000001c3b999$211169b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c3b999$211169b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3FCDF758.10702@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael >>Sven Pran wrote: >> >>>When a disclosure happens to fit the actual hand although >>>it is misinformation related to agreements, under what >>>circumstances can opponents claim damage? >> >>L16? > > Certainly not L16? Where is the UI and use of it??? > ooops. L40,75 and 12 sorry. What I meant was: simply the laws as we all know them so well that we refer to them by just their numbers (and then get those numbers wrong) One virtual pint to you, Sven. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Dec 3 14:53:01 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 15:53:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Correct" misinformation. (Offspring from "Welcome back from the grave") In-Reply-To: <000001c3b999$211169b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c3b999$211169b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3FCDF8CD.1010505@hdw.be> Sven touches on something quite common behind screens: Sven Pran wrote: > >>>Not because they had called differently had they known >>>the true agreements? (In that case it would have been a >>>clear misbid rather than a question of misinformation) >> >>yes? > > Sorry: Yes what? (Yes misbid, or yes called differently) > yes, called differently. Quite often, behind screens, one or other of the opponents has received an explanation that, although wrong (because of an accepted misbid), correctly describes the hand. In that case, the opponent is often better off when believing the correct description than if he had received the wrong information. His partner has received correct information and has no recourse. So their will be no ruling, despite the misbid. I don't believe this is important. >>>So what remains is alleged damage on the ground that the >>>player giving the information would himself have called >>>differently from what he did had he "remembered" the true >>>agreements? >>> >>>So when screens are used and West hears a disclosure from >>>South on the call South just made; is there any situation >>>where West can claim damage on the ground that he (West) >>>would have called differently on this round had he been >>>told the true agreements? >>> >> >>Of course - and since East has heard a different (although >>correct) explanation of South's call, he interprets West's >>call differently. So East-West are damaged because West did >>not receive the correct explanation of the true meaning. > > Yes, that is a true possibility. (Except of course that whether East/West > have been damaged must be judged separately from establishing > misinformation) > > >>>I have a problem with that. >>> >> >>I don't. > > > So to add it up: (With reference to the original thread) > West could have called differently on a correct disclosure of agreements. > His different call could easily have been worse for him: If South's > "negative" double had been with a better club suit then a club bid in West > would not necessarily have been advantageous. Indeed. There are many lay-outs where 3C is far worse than 2S. But then EW are not damaged. Now they are. > However, if this had caused East to call differently in the remainder of the > auction, AND IF this different auction would (more or less likely) have > resulted in a better score for EW then they can claim damage. > > Yes, I can follow that line. It leaves a lot of judgment for the director. > It always does. > So to the final question: If North and South had been able to show that > negative double was in fact the correct disclosure then East was > misinformed. Could East in this case have had any escape to avoid being set > 500? > No, since he received the correct explanation, and he has no recourse for the misbid. > Regards Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Dec 3 15:07:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 15:07 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Perfect pronouns (was Dummy play) In-Reply-To: <002901c3b878$7443e9e0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marv wrote: > There must be opportunity for the individual boy or girl to go as far as > their keenness and ability will take them. There must be opportunities for individual boys and girls to go as far as their keenness and abilities will take them. It is almost always possible to avoid sentences using a non gender specific "he". Better to put a little effort in than to accept "they" as being singular. "They was..." sorry, it grates too much. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Dec 3 15:07:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 15:07 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Something different! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Anne Jones: > > [snip] Anne wrote: > >All 4 players (including the TD) agree amongst > >themselves to pass out 2 boards Since this occurred on BCL I doubt there was a TD present (although there were at least two qualified TDs on line at the time it is not club policy to have a TD officiating over events). Of course any call for a ruling would have delayed the game sufficiently to disqualify all 4 players. > Richard James Hills: > > The Law 40A right of players to make any call - in > this case Pass - is constrained by being "not based > on a partnership understanding." So what? They are perfectly entitled to agree that all hands should be systemically passed and disclose it to their opponents. Sure it makes the hands a bit of a lottery but on the other hand the system is probably at least as sound as Benji Acol (the main system played in the event). > If I was Chief Director, I would rule that the four > players' predetermined Passes also infracted Law > 74B1, "paying insufficient attention to the game". They paid attention. The mechanism they used was not ideal but anything else would have conflicted with their obligation to try and win the event (had they not passed out they would not qualify). Now we can all say "the software should be more flexible" but it isn't/wasn't and all 4 players knew that at the time of their agreement. > If I was Chief Director, I would also use Law 81C9 > to refer the TD's conduct to the governing committee > of their employing SO, with a recommendation that the > TD's employment be terminated. Well although the TD wasn't there the club's operations director was and I seriously doubt he will consider terminating his own employment:) Of course were I CTD I would recognise that on-line bridge is different to f2f bridge and congratulate the "TD" on finding a way to allow all concerned to compete to the end of the event despite the software preventing awarding adjusted scores within the time constraints imposed. Of course a TD should probably offer the players a chance to appeal his ruling had they felt damaged (something which could be handled outside the time allocated to the competition. However since the result was (somewhat serendipitously) 47/53 between the only two players in contention I doubt an appeal would have been forthcoming (well had the "TD" appealed his own ruling and had the score adjusted to 50/50 he would have finished 1 place above the other contender instead of 1 place below!). > > Is the TD decision defrauding the benefactor? This is a very strange question. Surely the benefactor wants as many people to complete the competition as possible? Tim From blml@blakjak.com Wed Dec 3 15:51:59 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 15:51:59 +0000 Subject: [blml] Coprolites (was Dummy play) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote >>There is a footnote that allows for "penalties >>without merit" however in my mind a penalty for >>an appeal without merit is quite different than >>a deposit that must be paid before a meritorious >>appeal is heard. >Fossilised money deposited before an appeal is >merely a mechanism for ensuring that a penalty >for an appeal without merit is actually paid. > >Of course, a monetary penalty for an appeal >without merit is a load of coprolites. > >Impoverished players already have difficulty >financing their bridge addiction. Impoverished >players should not be further disadvantaged by >monetary penalties discouraging them from >successfully appealing, due to an unacceptable >risk of losing their dinner money. Pshaw! Appeals with merit have no risk. There is no simple solution to frivolous appeals: there are several sensible alternatives, but none works for all players. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Dec 3 19:21:53 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 19:21:53 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dummy play References: <000001c3b92c$52c9c3c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001701c3b9d3$a4a1c8d0$ce22e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 11:30 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy play > Ed Reppert > > > > Hm. Wish I could find my "Concise OED" right > > now. :-) I do recall being confused by an > > Englishman's stated intent to "revise" something, > > by which I thought he meant "change", but > > actually meant what I would have understand > > by "review". > +=+ In school revising a lesson was going over it again, refreshing one's familiarity with it, not changing it. I've no idea what it is now :-) Revise: to examine and correct, make a fresh improved version of, study afresh, look at again. (This last 'obs'.) ~ G ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Dec 3 19:27:34 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 19:27:34 -0000 Subject: [blml] Re: Systems Policy References: Message-ID: <001801c3b9d3$a5b64610$ce22e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 12:31 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Systems Policy Richard Willey: >>What I find absolutely horrific is the following: >> >>Grattan states that the definition of the 1C opening was >>crucial to the eventual ruling Grattan Endicott: >+=+ 'Crucial' is too strong. It played a significant part >in the discussion. It was not all they talked about. They >were concerned with the total effect of allowing the >method. ~ G ~ +=+ Richard James Hills: What I find absolutely horrific is that the WBF defines as HUM, many systems which are routinely permitted by the ACBL General Convention Chart, or are routinely played in Aussie clubs. The ABF classifies systems by colour, ranging from Green (most natural), through Blue, Red, and Yellow (HUM). Systems with amorphous 1C and 1D openings are classified in the second-most basic Blue category. Blue category systems are permitted in almost all Aussie events. Why do WBF World events use a system corset, which is unstrung in much less prestigious events in the ACBL and Australia? +=+ 1. Those present on Nov 8th, my memory says, Wignall (Chair), Gerard, d'Orsi, Sundelin, Kokish, Kirkham, Endicott, Colker, and as an observer Kojak. 2. 'Blue' in WBF and in EBL means strong club or strong diamond. Systems with not strong variable one club openers are red (the club covers several kinds of green openers - but not single suited in suit 'a' or suit 'b' - plus,often, a strong club). 3. The 2.2(e) HUM classification is where one of a suit shows suit 'a' or suit 'b'. It is this clause in relation to the 1D opener that made the system discussed in Monaco HUM. There is no 'second most basic Blue category'. 4. The EBL Systems Policy for Zonal events follows the. WBF policy. Individual European NBOs have their own policies. but many (most? nearly all?) are likely to adopt or adapt the EBL Systems Policy. 5. Finally beware of misunderstanding. The presence of any one of the triggers makes the *whole system* HUM. The committee looks at what knock on effects the existence of the trigger will have on the system as a whole and its opinion is not solely related to the actual listed call that defines it as HUM. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Dec 3 19:34:38 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 19:34:38 -0000 Subject: [blml] =?Windows-1252?Q?Re:_=5Bblml=5D_R=E9f._:_Re:_=5Bblml=5D_Re:_Systems_Policy?= References: Message-ID: <002001c3b9d4$a20b7110$ce22e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 8:45 AM Subject: [blml] Réf. : Re: [blml] Re: Systems Policy "Grattan Endicott" Envoyé par : blml-admin@rtflb.org 02/12/2003 10:42 Pour : "blml" cc : Objet : Re: [blml] Re: Systems Policy Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 2:02 AM Subject: [blml] Re: Systems Policy *** i am puzzled. are you still speaking of the system (canape majeure d'abord) previously refered in this discussion? +=+ No. I refer to the principle of the restriction. The system put to me had a 1D opener that was single suited either clubs or diamonds, but the 1C opener was not strong 10 or 11 plus HCP, and could be various things not catered for at the one level by other bids. No 4-card major, HCP outside of the 1NT range in a balanced hand, that sort of thing. ~ G ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Dec 3 22:24:06 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 08:24:06 +1000 Subject: [blml] Something different! Message-ID: Tim: [snip] >They are perfectly entitled to agree that all hands should be >systemically passed and disclose it to their opponents. Sure >it makes the hands a bit of a lottery but on the other hand >the system is probably at least as sound as Benji Acol (the >main system played in the event). RJH: >>If I was Chief Director, I would rule that the four >>players' predetermined Passes also infracted Law >>74B1, "paying insufficient attention to the game". Tim: >They paid attention. [snip] RJH: I disagree. I would argue that making "the hands a bit of a lottery" is a prime criterion for ruling an infraction of Law 74B1's "paying insufficient attention to the game". Law 7B1 also seems relevant to this situation: ".....before making a call, he must inspect the face of his cards." Law 7B1 implies that a player deciding to Pass *before* that player has inspected their cards has committed an infraction. Best wishes Richard James Hills -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please ad= vise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and= /or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any= views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, excep= t where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the v= iew of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affai= rs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the P= rivacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Dec 3 21:25:21 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:25:21 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: Systems Policy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3372FE03-25D7-11D8-82EA-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Dec 3, 2003, at 06:33 US/Eastern, Brian Meadows wrote: > And now that you've had a decision from the highest authority, > and given that we accept that the current ACBL GCC allows the > system, I'm tempted to wonder how long it will be before the ACBL > manages to get this WBF decision out to the membership at large. > > I'll be surprised if the GCC details on their WWW site are > changed in time for next Xmas - and I don't mean the one that > happens later this month. I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying that the ACBL must change the GCC because of this decision by the WBF? If so, I disagree. The GCC applies to events for which the ACBL is the SO. The WBF decision, it seems to me, applies to events for which the WBF is SO. Apples and oranges. And it is the SO to whom Law 40 gives the power to regulate conventions. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Dec 3 21:36:56 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:36:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] "Correct" misinformation. (Offspring from "Welcome back from the grave") In-Reply-To: <3FCDF8CD.1010505@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Wednesday, Dec 3, 2003, at 09:53 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > Quite often, behind screens, one or other of the opponents has > received an explanation that, although wrong (because of an accepted > misbid), correctly describes the hand. In that case, the opponent is > often better off when believing the correct description than if he had > received the wrong information. His partner has received correct > information and has no recourse. So their will be no ruling, despite > the misbid. I don't believe this is important. I'm not at all sure I understand this discussion, but ... There most certainly will be a ruling. For a TD to walk away from a table where he has been asked to give a ruling, refusing to do so, is dereliction of duty. The ruling may not favor the NOS, of course. It appears that what you're saying is that because the player who received misinformation was not damaged thereby, one of the conditions required to adjust the score in his side's favor is not met, and so the score will not be adjusted. However, it seems to me that when the two members of a pair are given *different* information, this is likely to lead to miscommunication between them. So it seems likely that they *would* be damaged. Perhaps there is nothing in the law which addresses this question. If not, IMO, there should be. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Dec 3 22:39:16 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 08:39:16 +1000 Subject: [blml] Coprolites (was Dummy play) Message-ID: DWS: >Pshaw! Appeals with merit have no risk. RJH: What never? No, never! What never? Hardly ever. After the parousia, all members of all ACs will be competent. But until then, an appeal with merit may well be deemed meritless by an incompetent AC. And an impoverished player may not be willing to gamble their dinner money on the competence of a particular AC. 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 ehaa@starpower.net Wed Dec 3 21:46:01 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 16:46:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] Perfect pronouns (was Dummy play) In-Reply-To: References: <002901c3b878$7443e9e0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031203163933.00a68cf0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:07 AM 12/3/03, twm wrote: >Marv wrote: > > > There must be opportunity for the individual boy or girl to go as > far as > > their keenness and ability will take them. > >There must be opportunities for individual boys and girls to go as far as >their keenness and abilities will take them. > >It is almost always possible to avoid sentences using a non gender >specific "he". Better to put a little effort in than to accept "they" as >being singular. "They was..." sorry, it grates too much. It does indeed grate. Which is why "they", even if used in the singular, always takes a plural verb form. "Someone posting here tried using 'they was'. They were sorry they did that." Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Dec 3 22:11:08 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 17:11:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] Something different! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <985238A1-25DD-11D8-82EA-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Dec 3, 2003, at 17:24 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Law 7B1 implies that a player deciding to Pass *before* that > player has inspected their cards has committed an infraction. I disagree. If he *calls* before looking at his cards, that's one thing. Deciding what call to make before looking, looking, and then calling may be an infraction, but not of Law 7B1. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Dec 3 22:16:57 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 17:16:57 -0500 Subject: [blml] Coprolites (was Dummy play) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <688729CE-25DE-11D8-82EA-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> First "coprolites", now "parousia". Sometimes I really love this list. :-) Thanks, Richard. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Dec 3 23:03:11 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 09:03:11 +1000 Subject: [blml] "Correct" misinformation. (Offspring from "Welcome back from the grave") Message-ID: Sven Pran asked: >When a disclosure happens to fit the actual hand >although it is misinformation related to agreements, >under what circumstances can opponents claim damage? Australian Directors' Bulletin panel discussion, May 2002, Hand 3: Grand National Teams, Knockout Quarter-Final Bd. 11 / S / Nil 84 Q 7653 AQT963 QT9752 J3 J8 AKT97 KT98 AQJ42 4 K AK6 65432 --- J8752 West North East South 2H(1) 2S(2) 3D(3) Dbl Pass Pass Pass (1) Multi: 21-22 Bal or 8PT in hearts or 5-5 minors (intermediate or strong) or 5-5 in the "odd" suits (weak). (2) Systemically shows clubs, but not alerted by East. (3) Intended as correctable. Result: N/S - 1100 North maintains that if 2S had been alerted, then he would have passed, thus avoiding the inelegant final contract. In response E/W suggest that N/S's problems were due solely to an inability to cope with simple intervention. How would you rule? Best wishes Richard James Hills -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please ad= vise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and= /or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any= views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, excep= t where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the v= iew of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affai= rs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the P= rivacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Wed Dec 3 21:57:35 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 12:57:35 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] Something different! In-Reply-To: <000d01c3b941$969eace0$ba2d6651@annespc> Message-ID: On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Anne Jones wrote: > A timed Individual Online game. > > 3 players arrive late and TD makes up table. > > 9 boards to be played in available 45 mins. I suppose there is something we haven't been told here, about why it is impossible to assign lateplays, and why you expect the players to keep such a pace? (After directing some few hundred online tournaments, I have seen a number of 3-board rounds completed in 15 minutes at all tables, but never seen it happen twice during the same tournament.) Normally a director doesn't allow players to join an event once it is too late to complete the minimum number of boards. (The format most familiar to me is playing 12 boards, 9 required to qualify, late players added only after the first and second boards.) Barring some really bizarre circumstances, this looks like a case of the director not doing his job, plain and simple. (Was it a case of NEEDING this table to be filled in order to make a movement work?) > [2 boards were passed out to speed up the game] > It was the TD's suggestion to pass boards out. > (The players complied with this) It's one of the more terrible things I have ever heard of a director doing. You can be assured that I *would* have refused had I been one of the players. Geez - people so desperate to qualify they would rather qualify than play bridge... > Is this in breach of the Laws of Online Bridge? That is less obvious. A few candidate laws have already been suggested. Let me suggest a few more: The director has suggested calls or plays to the players. What gives him the right to do so? It takes a very extreme reading of 81C3 to say that this TD was "announcing suitable conditions of play" to his players. What about the footnote to 40E2? The players are forbidden any outside help in selecting their calls and plays - don't they have a duty to refuse the director's suggested passes? The laws themselves leave the specifics of how an event is conducted fairly open-ended. I think we're really in the area of regulations. But, in any jurisdiction I can think of, a whole passel of regulations have been violated, on which basis I think we can claim that 81B2 has been breached. For instance: Most jurisdictions require players to use the same system throughout a session, which these players did not. Most jurisdictions impose severe penalties under a frivolous psyching regulation on players who do things like open 7NT on garbage, for skewing the scores with a "non-bridge result." Passing out a board everyone else is in 4H+5 on is much the same. And, if this were an event of any importance, most jurisdictions would be putting both players and director in front of an ethics committee for deliberately evading the qualification requirement. (A similar situation arises in the ACBL's North American Pairs: if a game is scheduled but insufficient players show up, the players who do show up automatically qualify as long as they allow their entry fee to be mailed in. There have been cases were two or three pairs from an area wanted to go to the district finals, and conspired with a club director to hold a phony non-advertised "event" carefully arranged to make sure noone else showed up. The letter of the regulation has been followed, sort of, but the people involved were still suspended as cheats.) > Is the TD decision defrauding the benefactor? This one, at least, is crystal clear: Yes. Though I'd be surprised if the benefactor actually sues for his 4 pounds back. GRB From blml@wellsborocomputing.com Wed Dec 3 22:53:02 2003 From: blml@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 17:53:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: Systems Policy In-Reply-To: <3372FE03-25D7-11D8-82EA-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <3372FE03-25D7-11D8-82EA-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:25:21 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: > >I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying that the ACBL must >change the GCC because of this decision by the WBF? If so, I disagree. > >The GCC applies to events for which the ACBL is the SO. The WBF >decision, it seems to me, applies to events for which the WBF is SO. >Apples and oranges. And it is the SO to whom Law 40 gives the power to >regulate conventions. > Yes, you're right. My apologies, I was assuming that some element of common sense applied to systems regulation for a minute. The "highest authority" (quoting Grattan) can declare a system to be a *HUM*, but an NCBO (or ZO, depending which hat the ACBL is wearing) can decide that it's suitable for normal club play. What a mess. No wonder the Olympics gave bridge the thumbs down. Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com From svenpran@online.no Wed Dec 3 23:09:40 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 00:09:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Correct" misinformation. (Offspring from "Welcome back from the grave") In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3b9f2$887614d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sven Pran asked: >=20 > >When a disclosure happens to fit the actual hand > >although it is misinformation related to agreements, > >under what circumstances can opponents claim damage? >=20 > Australian Directors' Bulletin panel discussion, > May 2002, Hand 3: >=20 > Grand National Teams, Knockout Quarter-Final > Bd. 11 / S / Nil > 84 > Q > 7653 > AQT963 > QT9752 J3 > J8 AKT97 > KT98 AQJ42 > 4 K > AK6 > 65432 > --- > J8752 >=20 > West North East South > 2H(1) > 2S(2) 3D(3) Dbl Pass > Pass Pass >=20 > (1) Multi: 21-22 Bal or 8PT in hearts or 5-5 minors > (intermediate or strong) or 5-5 in the "odd" > suits (weak). >=20 > (2) Systemically shows clubs, but not alerted by > East. >=20 > (3) Intended as correctable. >=20 > Result: N/S - 1100 >=20 > North maintains that if 2S had been alerted, then he > would have passed, thus avoiding the inelegant final > contract. In response E/W suggest that N/S's problems > were due solely to an inability to cope with simple > intervention. >=20 > How would you rule? Well, first of all we resolved my question in a discussion with Herman. But on your example my first question is why North bid diamonds instead = of clubs for pass or correct? Would his reason by any chance be intent to = go for game if South had Clubs and Hearts? (I suppose Clubs and Hearts or Diamonds and Spades is what is meant by "odd suits"?) What bid does North expect from South if Diamonds is not one of his = suites? And why on earth did South pass to 3DX? Without going further into the misinformation question my prime reaction = is that North/South "asked for it"; no adjustment. (My ruling might be different if I have misunderstood the system used by N/S - ref my = questions above). And incidentally, they can be glad they were let off the hook with only 1100, East and West should be able to cash ten red tricks and then leave = the last three to declaring side for 1400 down. Regards Sven From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Wed Dec 3 22:39:18 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 13:39:18 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] Re: Systems Policy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: There was a time this latest incident would have amazed me, given how tightly the ACBL restricts some conventions. I am not as amazed as I once would have been -- for I spent some few years playing GCC-legal Polish Club variants. And I first learned what a "Red system" was when a European player saw my system notes on the web and expressed surprise it was legal in club games in my area. Perhaps the whole incident has served a purpose, if it has helped a few more people understand how the Europeans feel when they come to North America and learn that our experts can't handle the Multi 2D even though their LOLs can -- or how the Poles feel when they come to western Europe and find everyone is scared stiff of Wilkosz 2D (which, in all seriousness, I think is easier to defend against that some Multis are!) I only wish that it inspired a trend in the direction of increasing freedom. Playing in a WBF event is supposed to mean you're willing to play against someone from anywhere in the world. You can't very well expect everyone else to play exactly the same way you do. Tune in to this station next week and watch International No Curveballs Fastballs Or Stealing Baseball Championship. Should be an exciting game. Yawn. GRB From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Dec 3 23:51:57 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 09:51:57 +1000 Subject: [blml] Re: Systems Policy Message-ID: World Bridge Federation systems committee: [snip] >Central to the decision was the committee's recognition of >the very wide variety of hands of 11-15 HCP that might >potentially be opened One Club (in your proposed system) if >they were to allow it. Among these hands were such >possibilities as hands with two four card majors and a >void; the committee was not attracted by such >possibilities. Richard James Hills: So the WBF defined a particular system as HUM. While a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, it appears that the alternative system below would *not* be classified HUM by the WBF. -> 1C =3D 16+ 1D =3D 11-15 amorphous, could be two four card majors and a void in diamonds. If the WBF is "not attracted by such possibilities" for a 1C opening, why is the 1D opening in the alternative system *not* a trigger for HUM classification? Could this merely be due to CC Wei being lucky enough to invent a radical new system *before* the current WBF mania for corseting new bidding systems? Should experimentation in bidding systems be cosseted rather than corseted? 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 toddz@att.net Wed Dec 3 23:25:30 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 18:25:30 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dummy play In-Reply-To: <001701c3b9d3$a4a1c8d0$ce22e150@endicott> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Grattan Endicott > > +=+ In school revising a lesson was going over it again, > refreshing one's familiarity with it, not changing it. I've > no idea what it is now :-) > Revise: to examine and correct, make a fresh > improved version of, study afresh, look at again. (This > last 'obs'.) > ~ G ~ +=+ That is a purely British use of the word. Americans and Canadians would both use review and occasionally misuse revisit. -Todd From john@asimere.com Thu Dec 4 00:33:19 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 00:33:19 +0000 Subject: [blml] Perfect pronouns (was Dummy play) In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031203163933.00a68cf0@pop.starpower.net> References: <002901c3b878$7443e9e0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20031203163933.00a68cf0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: In article <5.2.0.9.0.20031203163933.00a68cf0@pop.starpower.net>, Eric Landau writes >At 10:07 AM 12/3/03, twm wrote: > >>Marv wrote: >> >> > There must be opportunity for the individual boy or girl to go as >> far as >> > their keenness and ability will take them. >> >>There must be opportunities for individual boys and girls to go as far as >>their keenness and abilities will take them. >> >>It is almost always possible to avoid sentences using a non gender >>specific "he". Better to put a little effort in than to accept "they" as >>being singular. "They was..." sorry, it grates too much. > >It does indeed grate. Which is why "they", even if used in the >singular, always takes a plural verb form. > >"Someone posting here tried using 'they was'. They were sorry they did >that." They was obviously the wrong pronoun :) john > > >Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Thu Dec 4 00:35:17 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 00:35:17 +0000 Subject: [blml] Coprolites (was Dummy play) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , David Stevenson writes >RJH wrote > >>>There is a footnote that allows for "penalties >>>without merit" however in my mind a penalty for >>>an appeal without merit is quite different than >>>a deposit that must be paid before a meritorious >>>appeal is heard. > >>Fossilised money deposited before an appeal is >>merely a mechanism for ensuring that a penalty >>for an appeal without merit is actually paid. >> >>Of course, a monetary penalty for an appeal >>without merit is a load of coprolites. >> >>Impoverished players already have difficulty >>financing their bridge addiction. Impoverished >>players should not be further disadvantaged by >>monetary penalties discouraging them from >>successfully appealing, due to an unacceptable >>risk of losing their dinner money. > > Pshaw! Appeals with merit have no risk. > > There is no simple solution to frivolous appeals: there are several >sensible alternatives, but none works for all players. A PP on the final method of scoring seems fairest to me. You attempt to improve your score; you fail; you are deemed frivolous; you catch a PP. ok, we'll get a few more appeals, but I can live with that. > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Dec 4 00:58:05 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:58:05 -0800 Subject: [blml] Club Rules Suggestions Message-ID: <004e01c3ba01$af6a0380$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> We in ACBL-land seem to have an epidemic of non-compliance with the Laws and ACBL regs in many club games. It seems that those players cannot tolerate having to follow the rules and will quit bridge if they must. Seeking approval for deviations at club levels, the LC has been asked (by an ad hoc Club Rules Committee) to look into the following possibilities: 1. Permit looking at one's own CC during the auction 2. No penalty for MI associated with Announcement or Alert mistakes 3. Reviewing the just-completed trick even after one's card is turned 4. Ignoring revokes that do no harm 5. Allow intended actions after partner hesitates (i.e., even with an LA). 6. Lighten up the rules regarding penalty cards 7. Eliminate CC regs (two identical cards, on the table, fully completed) 8. Punish rudeness 9. Restrict psyches This list makes me sick, and I'm wondering if other zones are being subjected to such requests. I would say fine, do what you want in your club, but don't award masterpoints. Thought: If players cannot remember the conventions on their CC, why in hell are they playing them? What wasn't realized by anyone at the LC meeting is that the ACBL administration currently has an unofficial policy of not enforcing the Laws or regs for club games. They can do what they want right now with no problem. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From john@asimere.com Thu Dec 4 00:56:35 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 00:56:35 +0000 Subject: [blml] Something different! In-Reply-To: <000d01c3b941$969eace0$ba2d6651@annespc> References: <000d01c3b941$969eace0$ba2d6651@annespc> Message-ID: In article <000d01c3b941$969eace0$ba2d6651@annespc>, Anne Jones writes >A timed Individual Online game. > >It is played in an EBU affiliated club but > >Masterpoints are not involved > > > >3 players arrive late and TD makes up table. > >9 boards to be played in available 45 mins. > >All 4 players (including the TD) agree amongst > >themselves to pass out 2 boards in > >order to achieve the play of 8 boards > >needed to qualify for presence in event. > >This event is a sponsored charity event. > >Sponsor has agreed to donate =A31 per player > >to the winner's charity. > >(17/18 boards to be played over 2 sessions) > > > >As 2 boards were passed out - this means that > >the players qualify for the sponsorship > >If they had played the boards, they would not have > >managed to complete 8, and would have been excluded > > > >It was the TD's suggestion to pass boards out. > >(The players complied with this) > >Is this in breach of the Laws of Online Bridge? It's very tough to decide. The EBU TD's get very suspicious of 10-10 scores when this result will allow both teams to progress to the next round whereas 11-9 would keep one team out. If we were to discover that the result of the match were 7 flat boards, all passed out, we'd find a way to make sure neither side progressed (although I'd have to think long and hard about how). Maybe "pass throughout" is not a licensed bidding system, although I can't quite spot why it's illegal. However, in this case, players are required to comply with reasonable requests of the TD; and it's clearly not unreasonable, even if we deem it illegal, so I can attach no blame to the players. > >Is the TD decision defrauding the benefactor? Yes, since you are knowingly changing the CoC to gain a pecuniary advantage, but I'll happily put up the 2 quid and ask that we progress from discussing bicycle sheds. > > > >Comments please. > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --=20 John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Thu Dec 4 01:01:05 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 01:01:05 +0000 Subject: [blml] Something different! In-Reply-To: <985238A1-25DD-11D8-82EA-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <985238A1-25DD-11D8-82EA-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: In article <985238A1-25DD-11D8-82EA-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com>, Ed Reppert writes > >On Wednesday, Dec 3, 2003, at 17:24 US/Eastern, >richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Law 7B1 implies that a player deciding to Pass *before* that >> player has inspected their cards has committed an infraction. > >I disagree. If he *calls* before looking at his cards, that's one >thing. Deciding what call to make before looking, looking, and then >calling may be an infraction, but not of Law 7B1. IIRC we have discussed is 'pass throughout' a legal system here before; I can't remember when. Tim and I, of course, play this all the time as we're rubber bridge players. > > >_______________________________________________ >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 grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Thu Dec 4 01:28:14 2003 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 20:28:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] Club Rules Suggestions In-Reply-To: <004e01c3ba01$af6a0380$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20031203201425.01df4ce8@mail.vzavenue.net> At 07:58 PM 12/3/2003, Marvin French wrote: >We in ACBL-land seem to have an epidemic of non-compliance with the Laws and >ACBL regs in many club games. It seems that those players cannot tolerate >having to follow the rules and will quit bridge if they must. Seeking >approval for deviations at club levels, the LC has been asked (by an ad hoc >Club Rules Committee) to look into the following possibilities: > >1. Permit looking at one's own CC during the auction >2. No penalty for MI associated with Announcement or Alert mistakes Do they mean no adjustment? That would force players to ask about every potentially alertable call: I have to ask whenever I might want to raise partner after (1C)-1S-(X) because the usual meaning of the double is not alertable, and I have no redress if it turns out to be penalty. I could see a ruling that there is no procedural penalty. >3. Reviewing the just-completed trick even after one's card is turned This tends to happen at clubs anyway, with the consent of the players at the table. However, if it is changed, it should be changed at all levels to avoid creating bad habits. >4. Ignoring revokes that do no harm >5. Allow intended actions after partner hesitates (i.e., even with an LA). I understand the rationale, since players don't usually understand the principle, but this invites abuse. >6. Lighten up the rules regarding penalty cards This is really the same idea as #5; players want to play bridge, and they don't like penalties which cause the game not to follow its fundamental course. However, the basic rules need to be the same at all levels, and ethics is best learned at the club. >7. Eliminate CC regs (two identical cards, on the table, fully completed) Nobody cares about this regulation anyway; it might as well not be there. I have played in regional tournaments at which there is no CC on the table, and one in a purse or on the player's lap. The only time I have actually called a TD was when my opponents, in the third round of a Swiss, had no CC's; they must have won their first two matches without any complaints. (The TD didn't even enforce the law properly; he ruled that they could play no altertable conventions, but he should have imposed a procedural penalty.) >8. Punish rudeness Well, one good idea out of nine. >9. Restrict psyches Some clubs already ban these without ACBL permission. From kaima13@hotmail.com Thu Dec 4 01:30:44 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (Raija Davis) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 17:30:44 -0800 Subject: [blml] Club Rules Suggestions References: <004e01c3ba01$af6a0380$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 4:58 PM Subject: [blml] Club Rules Suggestions > We in ACBL-land seem to have an epidemic of non-compliance with the Laws and > ACBL regs in many club games. It seems that those players cannot tolerate > having to follow the rules and will quit bridge if they must. Seeking > approval for deviations at club levels, the LC has been asked (by an ad hoc > Club Rules Committee) to look into the following possibilities: > > 1. Permit looking at one's own CC during the auction > 2. No penalty for MI associated with Announcement or Alert mistakes > 3. Reviewing the just-completed trick even after one's card is turned > 4. Ignoring revokes that do no harm > 5. Allow intended actions after partner hesitates (i.e., even with an LA). > 6. Lighten up the rules regarding penalty cards > 7. Eliminate CC regs (two identical cards, on the table, fully completed) > 8. Punish rudeness > 9. Restrict psyches > > This list makes me sick, and I'm wondering if other zones are being > subjected to such requests. > > I would say fine, do what you want in your club, but don't award > masterpoints. > > Thought: If players cannot remember the conventions on their CC, why in hell > are they playing them? > > What wasn't realized by anyone at the LC meeting is that the ACBL > administration currently has an unofficial policy of not enforcing the Laws > or regs for club games. They can do what they want right now with no > problem. And they surely do!! That is why I prefer to NOT play in the clubs. They can keep their right to give and use UI and bid by body language etc. I prefer online bridge, or the more structured regional/sectional tournaments where most of the Laws are upheld. Raija Davis > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Dec 4 01:22:38 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 01:22:38 -0000 Subject: [blml] =?Windows-1252?Q?Re:_=5Bblml=5D_R=E9f._:_=5Bblml=5D_=22Correct=22_mis?= =?Windows-1252?Q?information._=28Offspring_from_=22Welcome_back_from_the_?= =?Windows-1252?Q?grave=22=29?= References: Message-ID: <00bd01c3ba09$f36a5550$3734e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 2:30 PM Subject: [blml] Réf. : [blml] "Correct" misinformation. (Offspring from "Welcome back from the grave") "Sven Pran" Envoyé par : blml-admin@rtflb.org 03/12/2003 10:53 Pour : "blml" cc : Objet : [blml] "Correct" misinformation. (Offspring from "Welcome back from the grave") When a disclosure happens to fit the actual hand although it is misinformation related to agreements, under what circumstances can opponents claim damage? *** any situation in which the exact agreement could induce west to select a different and more successful call +=+ or play ~ G ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Dec 4 01:48:56 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 01:48:56 -0000 Subject: [blml] "Correct" misinformation. (Offspring from "Welcome back from the grave") References: Message-ID: <00be01c3ba09$f4376950$3734e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 9:36 PM Subject: Re: [blml] "Correct" misinformation. (Offspring from "Welcome back from the grave") > > > It appears that what you're saying is that because > the player who received misinformation was not > damaged thereby, one of the conditions required > to adjust the score in his side's favor is not met, > and so the score will not be adjusted. However, > it seems to me that when the two members of a > pair are given *different* information, this is likely > to lead to miscommunication between them. So > it seems likely that they *would* be damaged. > Perhaps there is nothing in the law which addresses > this question. If not, IMO, there should be. > +=+ It is damage* and there are examples of score adjustment in those circumstances from past international occasions and probably others. One I recall was in a Venice Cup match some years ago where an incorrect number of aces was given in response to an ace asking enquiry - but the responder told her screen mate her response showed the number she had. Her screenmate was on lead to a slam and argued she would have made a different (and more successful) lead if correctly informed. My copy of the EBL Commentary of 1992 is not handy, but the case is quoted in there. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ [*the Law merely refers to a side being damaged; it is a matter of bridge judgement whether they are in fact damaged.] From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Dec 4 01:40:31 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 11:40:31 +1000 Subject: [blml] Re: Systems Policy Message-ID: GRB: [big snip] >Tune in to this station next week and watch International >No Curveballs Fastballs Or Stealing Baseball Championship. >Should be an exciting game. > >Yawn. RJH: To be fair to SO system regulators, banning "Fastballs" or HUM systems in events populated by bunnies is a Good Idea. But it is peculiar that the WBF apparently assumes that international championships are riddled with bunnies. There is also a Catch-22 in HUM system restrictions. HUM is an acronym for Highly Unusual Method. If an unusual system is restricted to a minute number of events, the restrictions will ensure that the system always remains unusual, and can never escape from its HUM ghetto. Historical perspective: -> Eighty years ago, the takeout double was an unusual method, and the then powers-that-be wrote diatribes against the takeout double. Fifty years ago, the Roth-Stone system was an unusual system, and the then powers-that-be wrote diatribes against Roth-Stone. If eighty years ago or fifty years ago the then powers- that-be had been clever enough to think of a HUM rule to enforce their antediluvian prejudices, then bridge today would be a paltry game. Best wishes Richard James Hills -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please ad= vise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and= /or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any= views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, excep= t where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the v= iew of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affai= rs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the P= rivacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Dec 4 01:53:53 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 01:53:53 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dummy play References: Message-ID: <00bf01c3ba09$f54270b0$3734e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 11:25 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Dummy play > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Grattan Endicott > > > > +=+ In school revising a lesson was going over it again, > > refreshing one's familiarity with it, not changing it. I've > > no idea what it is now :-) > > Revise: to examine and correct, make a fresh > > improved version of, study afresh, look at again. (This > > last 'obs'.) > > ~ G ~ +=+ > > That is a purely British use of the word. Americans and > Canadians would both use review and occasionally > misuse revisit. > +=+ Interesting. Some old WBF minutes refer to 'revisiting' a subject.+=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Dec 4 03:38:41 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:38:41 +1000 Subject: [blml] Club Rules Suggestions Message-ID: Marvin L. French objected: [big snip] >>>8. Punish rudeness David J. Grabiner responded: >>Well, one good idea out of nine. Richard James Hills notes: I agree with David. Why should Law 74A2 be the only Law for which an infraction is cost-free? In my humble opinion, Law 74A2 is the *most* important of the Laws, and *all* TDs should be vigilant in ensuring that Law 74A2 is not converted to a dead-letter Law. Marvin L. French objected: >>>9. Restrict psyches David J. Grabiner responded: >>Some clubs already ban these without ACBL >>permission. Edgar Kaplan (June 1974) noted: >.....France has banned psychics altogether. >However, this draconian solution is both >unwise and illegal. It directly contravenes >the laws of duplicate bridge; it creates a >basic change in the game itself. [snip] >or, perhaps, "no one may open one spade with >fewer than five cards in the suit." Obviously, >this would be absurd. Maybe these rules would >make the game more pleasant for the average >player, but that player would not be playing >bridge any more. Richard James Hills notes: The ACBL already has an absurd rule that "no one may open one spade with fewer than four cards in the suit" - perhaps posthumous revenge on Adam "Plum" Meredith for his key role in the British defeat of America in the 1955 Bermuda Bowl. :-( 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 Dec 4 04:53:59 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:53:59 +1000 Subject: [blml] Beware of the Leopard Message-ID: >From the thread "Correct" misinformation: [snip] >My copy of the EBL Commentary of 1992 >is not handy, but the case is quoted in there. > ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ Yet another Beware of the Leopard situation. The European Bridge League has never bothered posting its Commentary on its website (or any other website). If the 1992 Commentary is supposed to be relevant to TDs in Zone 1 -> which the soon-to- be-replaced 2000 edition of the English White Book implies -> how is a European TD supposed to easily discover the contents of the Commentary? :-( Best wishes Richard James Hills -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please ad= vise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and= /or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any= views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, excep= t where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the v= iew of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affai= rs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the P= rivacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Dec 4 06:39:21 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 16:39:21 +1000 Subject: [blml] Re: Systems Policy Message-ID: >> Excerpt from GCC: >> 1. ONE CLUB OR ONE DIAMOND may be used as an >> all-purpose opening bid (artificial or natural) promising a >> minimum of 10 high-card points. >+=3D+ And the corollary would be that the other minor opening >shows hands that could include 4-4-5 shapes with maybe a >void in the suit named and 10+ HCP. Interesting. The quoted ACBL General Conditions of Contest regulation is ambiguous. Grattan is interpreting the meaning of the word "or" as the logical operator Exclusive Or - with an implicit "not both" in the GCC. Others have been interpreting the meaning of the word "or" as the logical operator Inclusive Or - with an implicit "and/or" in the GCC. This reiterates the point I have made previously, that Laws and regulations are instruction manuals, and should be carefully written explicitly - not implicitly. 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 Thu Dec 4 07:37:05 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 07:37:05 -0000 Subject: [blml] Beware of the Leopard References: Message-ID: <001e01c3ba39$7e2e4690$7825e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 4:53 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Beware of the Leopard >From the thread "Correct" misinformation: [snip] >My copy of the EBL Commentary of 1992 >is not handy, but the case is quoted in there. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Yet another Beware of the Leopard situation. The European Bridge League has never bothered posting its Commentary on its website (or any other website). If the 1992 Commentary is supposed to be relevant to TDs in Zone 1 -> which the soon-to- be-replaced 2000 edition of the English White Book implies -> how is a European TD supposed to easily discover the contents of the Commentary? :-( +=+ Only a handful of complimentary copies went outside of Europe. Maybe one or two purchased by freethinkers for purposes of comparison with what 'they' did. An EBL aid for EBL Directors. It had no authority outside of Zone 1, and, except for EBL championships, even there only sought to lead as more recently the WBF seeks to lead with its Jurisprudence. As for the White Book, the EBU offers that only for purposes of comparison - it is the product of hard work and careful discussion and - therefore - probably throws useful light on subjects. May stimulate thought. In Europe it was advertised for purchase, not given away. ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Dec 4 08:57:46 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 09:57:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Welcome back from the grave In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3FCEF70A.4090704@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > >>>a pillar of the De Wael School is >>>that the TD may never rule that "undiscussed" is true. > > >>You have misunderstood the De Wael School completely. I have never said >>that "undiscussed" is untrue. I have always stated that it is better for >>a player to give his opinion, since "undiscussed" will almost certainly >>result in a ruling against. > > > Sorry, I should have written, "a pillar of the De Wael School is that > the TD will never give a Law 85 ruling determining that 'undiscussed' > is factual". > > Sorry, I carelessly used "true" as a synonym for the word "facts" in > Law 85. > > Apologies, > none needed, Richard, But not yet correct. Maybe your statement above is correct in one sense, it is certainly not correct in one other. It is not my belief that "undiscussed" can never be true (I can imagine that it can exist), but that it is almost always incomplete. When I'm playing with three friends, "undiscussed" can be enough, but only because the implications are "general bridge knowledge" for my opponents. When I play with the same partner in your club, "undiscussed" will have to be followed by ", but in our club most probably ...". And there is one more incorrect thing in your statement above. The core of the DwS is not a school for directors, but a piece of advice to players. That advice is "don't say undiscussed, since the TD will most probably rule against you". > Richard > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Thu Dec 4 09:38:47 2003 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 09:38:47 -0000 Subject: [blml] Club Rules Suggestions Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB141D@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Club Rules Suggestions We in ACBL-land seem to have an epidemic of non-compliance with the Laws = and ACBL regs in many club games. It seems that those players cannot = tolerate having to follow the rules and will quit bridge if they must. Seeking approval for deviations at club levels, the LC has been asked (by an ad = hoc Club Rules Committee) to look into the following possibilities: [bizarre list follows] Frances: >From my English viewpoint I find this whole thing really strange. My = club=20 (Wimbledon) is higher standard than many local clubs I've played in, but the laws & regulations are violated repeatedly (my partner & I are = usually the only pair with convention cards though to be fair we probably play=20 the most system, UI is taken advantage all over the place, questions = asked at the wrong time, leads out of turn often retracted without penalty, = changing the card played, playing out claims etc). Revokes, penalty cards, bids = out of=20 turn etc are usually enforced correctly, though people revoke against me = so=20 often that I'm sure most are not noticed and sometimes I simply can't be = bothered=20 to get an adjustment if the revoke hasn't hurt me. I've played at clubs = where=20 the revoke rule would be enforced if someone called the director, but = usually=20 they wouldn't bother. So what? People turn up for a social evening's bridge at the club. = Very few of them play in anything other than the club or possibly some county = events. Those that do know the rules and generally stick to them. I can't imagine the = club writing to=20 the EBU and asking for special exemptions to the laws, they just get on = with it. As you play in more and more serious/high-level events, the rules are = applied more strictly. People expect that, and are happy with it.=20 =20 From blml@blakjak.com Thu Dec 4 12:23:56 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 12:23:56 +0000 Subject: [blml] Coprolites (was Dummy play) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst wrote >In article , David Stevenson > writes >>RJH wrote >> >>>>There is a footnote that allows for "penalties >>>>without merit" however in my mind a penalty for >>>>an appeal without merit is quite different than >>>>a deposit that must be paid before a meritorious >>>>appeal is heard. >> >>>Fossilised money deposited before an appeal is >>>merely a mechanism for ensuring that a penalty >>>for an appeal without merit is actually paid. >>> >>>Of course, a monetary penalty for an appeal >>>without merit is a load of coprolites. >>> >>>Impoverished players already have difficulty >>>financing their bridge addiction. Impoverished >>>players should not be further disadvantaged by >>>monetary penalties discouraging them from >>>successfully appealing, due to an unacceptable >>>risk of losing their dinner money. >> >> Pshaw! Appeals with merit have no risk. >> >> There is no simple solution to frivolous appeals: there are several >>sensible alternatives, but none works for all players. > >A PP on the final method of scoring seems fairest to me. You attempt to >improve your score; you fail; you are deemed frivolous; you catch a PP. >ok, we'll get a few more appeals, but I can live with that. I must remember this next time I direct the Spring Fours. All those lovely frivolous appeals with no risk attached whatever. For those who have missed the point the Spring Fours is knockout, so a PP makes no difference since the team would not be appealing if they had won the match. -- 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 normanscorbie@hotmail.com Thu Dec 4 12:36:20 2003 From: normanscorbie@hotmail.com (Norman Scorbie) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 12:36:20 +0000 Subject: [blml] Club Rules Suggestions Message-ID: Marvin French reported the serious consideration of the following inanities: >1. Permit looking at one's own CC during the auction >2. No penalty for MI associated with Announcement or Alert mistakes >3. Reviewing the just-completed trick even after one's card is turned >4. Ignoring revokes that do no harm >5. Allow intended actions after partner hesitates (i.e., even with an LA). >6. Lighten up the rules regarding penalty cards >7. Eliminate CC regs (two identical cards, on the table, fully completed) >8. Punish rudeness >9. Restrict psyches 1. Why draw the line at CCs? Why not allow reference to system notes, or books? 2. So, if my partner alerts, and by way of explanation I offer "trousers", there's no penalty? 3. No incentive to follow a trick, then, is there? How long is each hand going to take to play? 4. No incentive to follow suit. 5. And everyone will always tell the truth. 6. Hey, yeah, lighten up, man. 7. Yes, we don't want to put anyone to too much trouble, do we? 8. But allow, nay encourage laziness, stupidity and inattention by implementing 1-7 above. 9. I got a bad result once when someone opened a multi and I failed to bid what was in front of my face because I'm too stupid. So let's eliminate the multi as well. Punish those who follow the rules! Protect the idle and incompetent! Welcome to Hell. _________________________________________________________________ Tired of slow downloads and busy signals? Get a high-speed Internet connection! Comparison-shop your local high-speed providers here. https://broadband.msn.com From blml@blakjak.com Thu Dec 4 12:37:27 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 12:37:27 +0000 Subject: [blml] 51 cards and 53 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote: > >Herman De Wael: > >[snip] > >>So actually I don't think the appeal could be >>considered frivolous. >> >>Think of this "trick". NS bid to 7NT, and claim >>13 tricks after the opening lead. Now East >>"discovers" a 14th card (in his hand or from >>where?). Should the deal be declared void? I >>don't think it should. > >[snip] > >Richard James Hills: > >"Should" butters no parsnips. > >A similar situation happened a number of years >ago in the final of the Aussie national open >teams. At one table game was bid, at the other >table more accurate bidding methods reached a >cold slam. The board was flat, because poor >dealing meant that the irrelevant defenders' >cards were divided 14-12. > >It "should" have been a slam swing to the better >bidders, but under Law those better bidders had >to be satisfied with a mere moral victory. What about the penalties to the pair that did not count their cards? Pairs, even? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Dec 4 12:59:54 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 13:59:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] 51 cards and 53 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3FCF2FCA.5000604@hdw.be> David, you state the obvious: David Stevenson wrote: > > What about the penalties to the pair that did not count their cards? > Pairs, even? > Those penalties do nothing to assuage the pairs who have done nothing wrong, yet are forced to take a 60% score after working their way to a top. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Dec 4 13:04:33 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 08:04:33 -0500 Subject: [blml] "Correct" misinformation. (Offspring from "Welcome back from the grave") In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031204075113.0280aa20@pop.starpower.net> At 06:03 PM 12/3/03, richard.hills wrote: >Australian Directors' Bulletin panel discussion, >May 2002, Hand 3: > >Grand National Teams, Knockout Quarter-Final >Bd. 11 / S / Nil > 84 > Q > 7653 > AQT963 >QT9752 J3 >J8 AKT97 >KT98 AQJ42 >4 K > AK6 > 65432 > --- > J8752 > >West North East South > 2H(1) >2S(2) 3D(3) Dbl Pass >Pass Pass > >(1) Multi: 21-22 Bal or 8PT in hearts or 5-5 minors > (intermediate or strong) or 5-5 in the "odd" > suits (weak). > >(2) Systemically shows clubs, but not alerted by > East. > >(3) Intended as correctable. > >Result: N/S - 1100 > >North maintains that if 2S had been alerted, then he >would have passed, thus avoiding the inelegant final >contract. Accepted, no problem. >In response E/W suggest that N/S's problems >were due solely to an inability to cope with simple >intervention. Nonsense. No way is the 3D bid (over a presumably natural 2S) egregious or IWOG. Were E-W to make this claim to me, they would get a lecture on the Law. >How would you rule? I would adjust the score to some result (probably using L12C3 to give a weighted score if available) based on N passing 2S. I would question E as to whether he forgot his systemic agreement or remembered it but neglected to alert it. Wasn't there a recent top-level event where a result was changed after a misdescription of the opponents' systemic agreement that instead corresponded with what the bidder actually held was deemed to have damaged the NOS by affecting the opening lead? 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 Dec 4 13:34:07 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:34:07 +0000 Subject: [blml] 51 cards and 53 In-Reply-To: <3FCF2FCA.5000604@hdw.be> References: <3FCF2FCA.5000604@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote: >David, you state the obvious: > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> What about the penalties to the pair that did not count their >>cards? Pairs, even? >Those penalties do nothing to assuage the pairs who have done nothing >wrong, yet are forced to take a 60% score after working their way to a >top. It makes a difference if the pairs are both involved. Furthermore, it sounded like a match - maybe not, but the story did. Furthermore, how do you know that the top would have been obtained if the hand had been different? Unfortunate things happen, and sometimes people get poorly treated by luck. But in my view it is far less often than people think: they *like* having something to blame, and whether it is the ACBL, the EBU, the WBFLC, the TDs, an AC, the bad hands that they were dealt, or the fact that men get better treated, why should we want to take the excuses away? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Dec 4 14:00:03 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 15:00:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Correct" misinformation. (Offspring from "Welcome back from the grave") In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031204075113.0280aa20@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031204075113.0280aa20@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <3FCF3DE3.70504@hdw.be> This really is an interesting case, on which my gut feeling too is to leave the score, but the laws apparently do not agree with my gut feeling: Eric Landau wrote: > At 06:03 PM 12/3/03, richard.hills wrote: > [we know the problem already] >> >> North maintains that if 2S had been alerted, then he >> would have passed, thus avoiding the inelegant final >> contract. > > > Accepted, no problem. > Not necessarily without problem, but certainly with the benefit of the doubt going to NOS. >> In response E/W suggest that N/S's problems >> were due solely to an inability to cope with simple >> intervention. > > > Nonsense. No way is the 3D bid (over a presumably natural 2S) egregious > or IWOG. Were E-W to make this claim to me, they would get a lecture on > the Law. > I will agree with this statement for the sake of argument. I can find a few things wrong with it, but let's agree that none of these are "grave" errors. >> How would you rule? > > > I would adjust the score to some result (probably using L12C3 to give a > weighted score if available) based on N passing 2S. I would question E > as to whether he forgot his systemic agreement or remembered it but > neglected to alert it. > That seems to be the logical conclusion of the two previous statements. However, there remains the question as to whether NS were damaged _BY_ the MI. Is it sufficient to say "without the MI", this or that would have happened. Or do we need to attach some value to the word "through" in the sentence of L40C: "if ... side has been damaged through its opponents' failure to explain ..." Surely we understand that the damage came from NS' own actions, not directly from the infractions. But OTOH we have the CoP which says that only WIOG action should be discounted - which directly refers to the "through" in L40C. Can we consider this a fourth exception, one which the WBF did not envisage when writing the WIoG: an exception being "action totally unrelated to the infraction". But every description we can give for such an exception is that the action could also have happened without the infraction. Which this one cannot. > Wasn't there a recent top-level event where a result was changed after a > misdescription of the opponents' systemic agreement that instead > corresponded with what the bidder actually held was deemed to have > damaged the NOS by affecting the opening lead? > Maybe there was and somebody could provide a link. But does that mean the principle is sound, accepted and applicable to this case? > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Dec 4 14:20:34 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 15:20:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] 51 cards and 53 In-Reply-To: References: <3FCF2FCA.5000604@hdw.be> Message-ID: <3FCF42B2.9090601@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: > >> David, you state the obvious: >> >> David Stevenson wrote: >> >>> What about the penalties to the pair that did not count their >>> cards? Pairs, even? > > >> Those penalties do nothing to assuage the pairs who have done nothing >> wrong, yet are forced to take a 60% score after working their way to a >> top. > > > It makes a difference if the pairs are both involved. Furthermore, it > sounded like a match - maybe not, but the story did. Furthermore, how > do you know that the top would have been obtained if the hand had been > different? > Considering that I spoke about a top it should not surprise you that it was in fact a pairs' tournament. As to how I know the top woud also have been obtained - a player held a fourteenth card, the C5, and my friends had scored 8 tricks in 2NT before that card was -basically- needed. Indeed my friend could have claimed immediately after his LHO followed suit to the second club (either RHO follows suit and the clubs are good or he shows out and the finesse on the jack is proven) While I do admit that such an occurence is very rare, should we not talk about it? > Unfortunate things happen, and sometimes people get poorly treated by > luck. But in my view it is far less often than people think: they > *like* having something to blame, and whether it is the ACBL, the EBU, > the WBFLC, the TDs, an AC, the bad hands that they were dealt, or the > fact that men get better treated, why should we want to take the excuses > away? > I follow that sentiment. But is there any reason to declare a hand unplayable after we have just seen it being played out without interference? What do we do if the player discovers his 14th card before looking at them? we take the card away and let the board be played. What do we do if the player discovers his 14th card while the bidding is going on? We apply L13 and allow the board to continue (for which we need the concurrence of all 4 players, which we shall almost certainly get) What do we do if the player discovers his 14th card early in the play - while he still holds it? The same (13C applies only after the board) What do we do if the player discovers his 14th card after the hand has been played? ???? actually, 13C is not of application. I'm really uncertain as to whether Av+/Av- was the correct ruling here! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Dec 4 14:29:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:29 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Something different! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Gordon wrote: > I suppose there is something we haven't been told here, about why it is > impossible to assign lateplays, The software doesn't support it. Not ideal, but reality. Lateplays and adjusted scores being impossible (and all players knew it) is the key criterion by which the actions of those involved should be judged. While I am not happy with the inadequacy of the software in this respect I do recognise there was no technical solution available. > and why you expect the players to keep such a pace? The actual time allowance is 1hr12 mins for 9 boards (and being an individual event the movement is entirely internal to each table). Not unreasonable IMO. > Normally a director doesn't allow players to join an event once it is > too late to complete the minimum number of boards. There was no TD. There was a club representative whose role is to try and organise seating, fill in tables and answer questions but nobody to give rulings (the club does not provide on-line TDs). Nor were the circumstances entirely "normal". There were severe connectivity problems on the site at the scheduled starting time and some players were a bit upset about this. All players, on starting out, believed that they would have time to complete 8 hands (they were right but only just!). > > [2 boards were passed out to speed up the game] > > It was the TD's suggestion to pass boards out. > > (The players complied with this) There was no TD. The club host, as a player, asked the other players if they would rather take pot luck by passing out 2 hands or be out of the competition. The other 3 players at the table all wished to remain in competition and agreed, amongst themselves, to pass out the 2 hands. > It's one of the more terrible things I have ever heard of a director > doing. You can be assured that I *would* have refused had I been one of > the players. Had one of the players refused one of the hands would have been played normally but nobody from the table would have qualified since the other hand would not have been played at all. > Geez - people so desperate to qualify they would rather > qualify than play bridge... People wanted to "play bridge", they wanted to play the second 9 boards of the competition and found a perfectly legal way of so doing. > > Is this in breach of the Laws of Online Bridge? > > That is less obvious. > > A few candidate laws have already been suggested. Let me suggest a few > more: > > The director has suggested calls or plays to the players. There was no TD! One player suggested to the others that they play a system which passes on every hand. All the players agreed and the individual nature of the competition permits changing system from hand to hand. The suggestion was made before anybody looked at their hands on the boards concerned. > The laws themselves leave the specifics of how an event is conducted > fairly open-ended. I think we're really in the area of regulations. > > But, in any jurisdiction I can think of, a whole passel of regulations > have been violated, on which basis I think we can claim that 81B2 has > been breached. For instance: 81A maybe - if there is no TD it might be a breach of that (but then 99% of events in the club have no TD). Certainly can't be 81b2 since there is nobody to be "bound". > Most jurisdictions require players to use the same system > throughout a session, which these players did not. No such requirement in this jurisdiction (players are encouraged to start play fairly quickly and iron out their system as they go along) and such would be a silly requirement in an individual anyway. > Most jurisdictions impose severe penalties under a frivolous psyching > regulation on players who do things like open 7NT on garbage, for > skewing the scores with a "non-bridge result." > Passing out a board everyone else is in 4H+5 on is much the same. Many jurisdictions require players to make their best efforts to win events in which they play. Agreeing to pass out was the *only* chance these players had of staying in contention. I would never describe making a best effort to win as being "frivolous". > And, if this were an event of any importance, most jurisdictions would > be putting both players and director in front of an ethics committee for > deliberately evading the qualification requirement. They did not "evade" anything. They played the requisite number of boards. > > Is the TD decision defrauding the benefactor? > > This one, at least, is crystal clear: Yes. Though I'd be surprised if > the benefactor actually sues for his 4 pounds back. Why? The boards were played by four players in agreement and I can see nothing in the laws that would give a TD/AC (did one exist) the authority to adjust the results obtained at the table. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Dec 4 14:29:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:29 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Something different! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John wrote: > It's very tough to decide. The EBU TD's get very suspicious of 10-10 > scores when this result will allow both teams to progress to the next > round whereas 11-9 would keep one team out. If we were to discover that > the result of the match were 7 flat boards, all passed out, we'd find a > way to make sure neither side progressed (although I'd have to think > long and hard about how). If you want to stop it then put something in the CoC. If both teams can ensure qualification by agreeing a draw it would be crazy for them to do otherwise. Requiring an extra board followed by a toss of a coin if the teams remain tied should do it. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Dec 4 14:29:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:29 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Club Rules Suggestions In-Reply-To: <004e01c3ba01$af6a0380$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marv wrote: > 1. Permit looking at one's own CC during the auction This would, IMO, be suitable for "novice" games. > 2. No penalty for MI associated with Announcement or Alert mistakes Is there such a penalty at the moment? Personally I wouldn't recommend it and would just stick with adjusting if damage occurs. > 3. Reviewing the just-completed trick even after one's card is turned This is consistent with the laws of rubber bridge. I would have no objection to changing the law but I don't think the change can occur at club level. > 5. Allow intended actions after partner hesitates (i.e., even with an > LA). This is pretty close to the current UI law in the EBU - obvious actions are permitted despite the existence of what would, in the ACBL, be LAs. Not sure but I think clubs could adopt their own definition of LAs under the current laws. > 4. Ignoring revokes that do no harm > 6. Lighten up the rules regarding penalty cards Clubs can, should they choose, foster an environment where players request a waiver of such penalties in "harmless" situations. They cannot enforce such waiver requests but I doubt they will need to. > 7. Eliminate CC regs (two identical cards, on the table, fully > completed) I think a regulation that "Any pair without CCs must play club standard as posted on the noticeboard" would already be legal. Opponents would be permitted to carry and consult the standard CC as if it belonged to opponents. > 8. Punish rudeness This is completely outrageous. If bridge players stop being rude the game will change beyond all recognition. > 9. Restrict psyches Clubs can already restrict psyches of artificial calls according to WBF regulations. Tim From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Dec 4 14:57:32 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:57:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] Club Rules Suggestions References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB141D@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <00c401c3ba77$0d1ec220$309468d5@tinyhrieuyik> > [Frances Hinden] > My club (Wimbledon) is higher standard than > many local clubs I've played in, but the laws > and regulations are violated repeatedly (my > partner and I are usually the only pair with > convention cards though to be fair we probably > play the most system, UI is taken advantage > all over the place, questions asked at the wrong > time, leads out of turn often retracted without > penalty, changing the card played, playing out > claims etc). Revokes, penalty cards, bids out of > turn etc are usually enforced correctly, though > people revoke against me so often that I'm sure > most are not noticed and sometimes I simply can't > be bothered to get an adjustment if the revoke > hasn't hurt me. I've played at clubs where the > revoke rule would be enforced if someone called > the director, but usually they wouldn't bother. > So what? People turn up for a social evening's > bridge at the club.... [Nigel] IMO this attitude is common but wrong. Clubs that do not enforce the rules are training their members to break the law. As soon as the club allows some members to get away with infractions, it puts all other members under pressure to break the law, rather than suffer relative disadvantage. IMO, a game is its rules, so the game played at many clubs is nearer to "Cheat" than to "Bridge." A major problem is that so few players understand TFLB. It is hard to conform to incomprehensible laws. Players are particularly wary of spuriously subjective laws that encourage rogue TDs and ACs to rule in favour of friends and locals. WBFLC accelerates the slide to anarchy by... 1. Refusing to make urgent radical simplifications. 2. Refusing to publish regular new editions of TFLB to correct blatant anomalies and solecisms. 3. Publishing interpretations and minor corrections, sporadically, in obscure minutes and white-books, that players are never likely to read. 4. Leaving major sectors of law to the differing whims of local sponsors. WBFLC could encourage player's conformance by ensuring that TFLB is simple, consistent, complete, objective, and universal. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.547 / Virus Database: 340 - Release Date: 02/12/2003 From blml@blakjak.com Thu Dec 4 15:29:45 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 15:29:45 +0000 Subject: [blml] "Correct" misinformation. (Offspring from "Welcome back from the grave") In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031204075113.0280aa20@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031204075113.0280aa20@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote >Wasn't there a recent top-level event where a result was changed after >a misdescription of the opponents' systemic agreement that instead >corresponded with what the bidder actually held was deemed to have >damaged the NOS by affecting the opening lead? A bid was described as showing five hearts when actually it only showed four plus. Garozzo did not lead a heart because it showed five but a heart lead was best. Of course, declarer had five hearts! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From adam@irvine.com Thu Dec 4 16:53:56 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 08:53:56 -0800 Subject: [blml] Club Rules Suggestions In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 04 Dec 2003 09:38:47 GMT." <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB141D@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <200312041653.IAA14240@mailhub.irvine.com> Frances wrote: > So what? People turn up for a social evening's bridge at the club. "Social"??? Are you trying to contribute to the downfall of the game??? Surely, after participating on RGB and BLML for as long as you have, you must realize that the only way to increase interest in Bridge is to drive away all the players who play bridge to have fun and enjoy themselves . . . ;-) Sigh. > Very few of them play in anything other than the club or possibly > some county events. Those that do know the rules and generally > stick to them. I can't imagine the club writing to the EBU and > asking for special exemptions to the laws, they just get on with it. > As you play in more and more serious/high-level events, the rules > are applied more strictly. People expect that, and are happy with > it. I certainly am. When I play in a club, my main purpose is to get in some practice, which I get by having to bid, play, and defend interesting hands. My main enjoyment comes from getting those kinds of problems and getting them right. My purpose, and my enjoyment, are not compromised by the failure of the club to follow all of the rules strictly. When I'm playing in a Regional event, it's different because I'm trying harder to win. -- Adam From fsb@ip-worldcom.ch Thu Dec 4 18:12:41 2003 From: fsb@ip-worldcom.ch (Yvan Calame) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 19:12:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Monte-Carlo AC decisions Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20031204191241.01206748@ip-worldcom.ch> Here are the Monte-Carlo AC decisions (Thx Grattan). html version is at: http://fsbridge.nexenservices.com/2003/wtc/appeals.html Yvan =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Appeal No. 1 Approved for release Event: Bermuda Bowl Round: 4 Teams: Brazil versus Poland Board 25. E/W Vul. Dealer North.=20 S 9 7 5 H Q D K Q J 9 7 5 C 9 5 4 S A K Q 8 4 S J 6 3 H 9 7 4 H A 6 3 D - - - D T 6 3 2 C K Q 8 7 2 C A T 3 S T 2 H K J T 8 5 D A Q 4 C J 6 West North East South Zawislak Campos Krupowicz Aranha - 2D Pass 2NT* 3H Pass 4H Pass 4S Pass 5C Pass 5D Pass* 5H Pass 6C Pass 6S All Pass Lead: HQ Result: 6S down one, +100 for N/S Present: All four players and both team captains The Facts: 2D was weak; 2NT showed hearts. South explained the meaning of his 2NT bid to West but North forgot his agreement and failed to inform East that 2NT showed hearts. West intended 3H as spades and clubs. After the 5D bid North remembered that 2NT showed hearts and called the TD. The Director: The mix-up in the auction caused East to think that 3H was natural and 4S a cue-bid. Ruling: Score adjusted to 4S made five, +650 for E/W (Laws 75D1, 40C and 12C2). Appellants: N/S appealed saying that when North belatedly informed East of the meaning of 2NT it was obvious to East that he had already cue-bid twice (4H and 5C), so his further cue-bid (5H) would lead his partner to bid the slam. But he also knew that bidding the slam would have =93no risk=94 since if it went down the TD would adjust the score while if it made=85good. The players: East initially thought 3H and 4H were natural and 4S was a cue-bid, so he cue-bid 5C in return. West then cue-bid 5D, at which point he learned the 2NT bid's true meaning. Now he knew that 3H showed spades and another suit (likely clubs, but it was unclear whether E/W had that agreement; West claimed he explained 3H as spades and clubs but South said he never received any such explanation). Given the =93new=94 meaning of the auction East's 4H bid was not a cue-bid in their methods: it merely showed a =93good=94 4S bid. But West might have a good hand (as indeed he did), even if minimal in high cards: for example, he might be six-five. So given the confusion that existed East thought he should cue-bid his HA (knowing that he had previously only cue-bid his CA, from West's perspective) in case West needed specifically two aces for slam. E/W also pointed out that had the 2NT bid been properly explained to East immediately, as required, East would simply have bid 4S and they would never have even reached the five level. The Committee: The Committee members quickly agreed that the TD's ruling had been the proper one. North's failure to explain the meaning of 2NT as soon as it was bid created considerable confusion and E/W were due a fair amount of leeway in trying to recover from the misinformation. While some players holding the East cards might have signed off in 5S once the true meaning of the auction was made known and even this East might have done so on another day, the 5H cue-bid was not unreasonable (for example, give West a sixth card in one of his suits and slam would have been more-or-less cold) and even had it been less reasonable than it was N/S were clearly responsible for creating the confusion without which E/W would likely not have ventured beyond the four level. The Committee's Decision: The Committee upheld the TD's ruling to adjust the score to 4S made five, +650 for E/W. Deposit: In discussing the merit of the appeal it was pointed out that even if East's 5H bid had been judged to have been the proximal cause of his side's poor result, and had they consequently been left with the table result, N/S would still have been responsible for causing E/W to get beyond game, and so they could never expect to receive a more favorable score than the one assigned them by the TD. This is precisely the sort of appeal (where a pair causes damage and insists that their opponents should have recovered from it anyhow and that they, the offenders, should be allowed to keep their ill-gotten result) that we wish to inhibit. However, most of the Committee members believed that East's 5H bid appeared dubious enough to N/S to justify the appeal. Therefore, the deposit was returned. Appeals Committee: Joan Gerard (USA, chairman), Jens Auken (Denmark), Rich Colker (USA, scribe), Jean-Paul Meyer (France), John Wignall (New Zealand) =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Appeal No. 2 Event: Venice Cup Round: 5 Teams: Egypt versus Brazil Appeals Committee: Gerard, Auken, Endicott, Le Bendig, Rand. Board 11. None Vul. Dealer South.=20 S Q 7 2 H A Q 6 4 3 D A K 9 C 5 3 S T 5 3 S A K J H K 7 5 2 H T D 7 5 D Q J T 6 4 3 C J 9 7 6 C K Q T S 9 8 6 4 H J 9 8 D 8 2 C A 8 4 2 West North East South Doria Choukri Gottschalk Assouad - - - Pass Pass 1NT X* Pass 2H X Pass Pass 3C Pass 3D All Pass * clubs or diamonds or Hearts and Spades Result: NS - 110 Present: All four players, the Brazil Captain, and the Director. The Facts: After the opening lead the Director was called. North expected at least six Hearts in dummy, having been told by East that the possible responses were 2C (pass or correct) or 2NT (forcing one round, and asking for distribution), so that 2H (undiscussed) must be prepared to play there without a fit. The Director: Consulted the CC and reached the conclusion East's explanation was correct and that West had misbid. A 2H response was not listed on the CC. Ruling: Table score stands. Appellants: N-S appealed. The players: North explained that she had asked questions of East; the tray had been delayed returning to West's side of the screen and she felt West was influenced by the slow return of the tray. In that case North argued that West should not be allowed to make the club bid. East said that if West bids any other bid than 2C or 2NT she proposes to play in the suit. West said that with such poor Hearts and being aware of East's possible holdings she had considered she should retreat to clubs. The Committee: ascertained that nothing had been said to the Director during her visits to the table about the slow return of the tray, but in any case noted that it had been North who had caused the delay in returning the tray by her extended questions to East, so that there was no unauthorized information for West that had been created by East. The evidence showed that the Heart bid was a misbid and the explanation to North was correct. This is the kind of appeal that has no foundation and should not be brought to the committee. The Committee's Decision: Director's ruling upheld. Deposit: retained. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Appeal No. 3 Event: Bermuda Bowl Round: 12 Teams: Poland versus Sweden Board 3. E/W Vul. Dealer South.=20 S 9 H A 7 5 D A K J T 6 5 3 C J 5 S K 8 6 4 3 S A Q T 7 5 H J T 6 H K Q 9 8 4 D 7 2 D 4 C T 7 2 C K 8 S J 2 H 3 2 D Q 9 8 C A Q 9 6 4 3 West North East South Fredin Krupowicz Lindkvist Zawislak - - - 2S* Pass 2NT* Pass 3C* Pass 3D* Pass 4C Pass 5C All Pass =20 Lead: S3 Result: 5C made five, +400 for N/S. Present: All four players, both team captains and the coach for the Swedish team. The Facts: 2S showed a weak hand with either one minor or both majors. 2NT asked which and 3C showed a club one-suiter. North explained his 3D bid as showing values in diamonds, looking for 3NT; South said he explained the 3D bid as =93Natural, honors for notrump=94 but West heard only =93Natural=94 (see below). The play went: S3 to the ace (South playing the deuce); HK to the ace; CJ, K, A, 2; D9 to the ace; C5, 8, 9, 10. West then returned a diamond hoping to kill dummy's diamond suit but declarer won in hand, drew the last trump and claimed 11 tricks. The Director: West called the TD at the end of play claiming misinformation. He explained that with the explanation of North's 3D bid as =93Natural=94 he had defended assuming South would not have a diamond fit as good as queen-third (since he would have raised to 4D instead of rebidding his poor club suit, which he had already shown). In that case, playing a diamond would cut dummy off while playing a major was not completely safe in case South had bid this way with four small in either major, requiring West to guess which major to cash to defend successfully. South admitted he had said =93Natural=94 in describing North's 3D bid but after a while said he added =93honors for notrump.=94 Neither West nor the computer operator who was present on the S-W side of the screen heard the latter part of South's explanation, and neither the question nor the answer had been written. It was clear that West had not heard the last words of the explanation. Thus, the TD ruled misinformation: with the right information West should gowith the odds and play South not to hold a four-card major but with the wrong explanation playing a diamond covered all possibilities. Ruling: Score adjusted for both sides to 5C down two, ?100 for N/S (Laws 40, 75, 12C; WBF GCC 25.2a, b). Appellants: N/S appealed saying that South had correctly explained 3D as =93Natural, honors for notrump=94 and not just =93Natural.=94 In= addition, N/S said they systemically did not open 2S showing a weak minor one-suiter with a side four-card major, but even if South had done so this time he would have treated even four small in a major as a stopper and bid it over 3D. South was known to hold six clubs and if he had only two diamonds, as West assumed, he could not hold a singleton in either major since that would leave him with four cards in the other major. West could (and should) have asked if he needed this information. The players: West said he heard South explain 3D as =93Natural,=94 as did the computer operator. In fact, even the Polish captain who was present said he did not hear South's explanation. The explanation was not written. West said a player of South's caliber would not hold queen-third of North's =93naturally bid suit=94 and fail to support him, preferring instead to rebid a poor six-card club suit which he had already shown. He thought it was possible that South might hold a very weak four-card major and have chosen not to show it as a stopper, in which case he would have to guess which major to cash or South would ruff, draw his last trump, and run the diamonds. He chose instead to defend based on the inference that South would not hold queen-third of diamonds. In that case the diamond return would =93kill=94 the diamond suit while West still had a trump left. In addition, West said that guessing to cash a major-suit honor (such as the SK) could lose an extra undertrick in some cases (as, for example, if South started with SQxx). The Committee: While it is easy to see how misinformation can induce a player not to explore certain possibilities that seem unlikely or precluded, and though one Committee member had sympathy for the position West was placed in by the deficient explanation, the Committee majority believed that West's choice of defense had been inferior even given the misexplanation. First, while South was culpable for not writing his explanation of 3D (as is required in this competition), West had not written his question and had accepted South's oral explanation and so was considered by some Committee members to be responsible for initiating the problem. Second, West failed to ask whether N/S had any agreement about opening 2S (planning to show a minor one-suiter) holding a side four-card major, or bidding a weak four-card major as a stopper over 3D. (It was also noted that South might have bid 3S over 3D holding SQxx to show a stopper.) Third, if South held only two diamonds and a weak four-card major East would be marked with major-suit holdings that he very likely would have bid with (SAQJ1075 HKQx or SAQJ HKQ9842 --- plus the CK). And finally, most Committee members believed that West should have =93taken a sure set=94 by cashing a major-suit winner based on the substantial inference that South would not hold a four-card major rather than risk what happened. As far as N/S were concerned, the Committee members believed that regardless of any responsibility West might have had in this matter, South's oral explanation was deficient (even the Committee had to have him repeat it several times before they understood the =93honors for notrump=94 part of what he said) and N/S should not be permitted to profit from their infraction. The Committee's Decision: For N/S the score was adjusted to 5C down two, ?100; for E/W the table result of 5C made five, ?400, was allowed to stand. Deposit: The deposit was returned. Appeals Committee: John Wignall (New Zealand, chair), Rich Colker (USA, scribe), Joan Gerard (USA), Jean-Paul Meyer (France), Ernesto d'Orsi (Brazil) =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Appeal No. 5 Event: Bermuda Bowl Round: 16 Teams: USA I versus South Africa Appeals Committee: J. Auken J Gerard J Wignall G Endicott Board 26. Both Vul. Dealer East.=20 S A K H A K J 6 D T 8 4 C J 9 4 3 S Q 9 7 3 2 S T 8 4 H Q 7 4 3 2 H 8 D 6 2 D K 5 3 C Q C A K T 6 5 2 S J 6 5 H T 9 5 D A Q J 9 7 C 8 7 West North East South Sprong Rodwell Reynolds Meckstroth - - 2C Pass 2S dbl 3S 4D All Pass =20 Lead: CQ Result: 10 tricks =3D NS +130. The Facts: The Director was called by North at the end of the play. He protested that there had been different explanations of the 2S bid on either side of the screen. He had not been given to understand that it was simply a non-forcing bid whereas this had been made clear to South. He said that if he had been given this explanation he would have bid 2NT rather than double. The Director: Examined the EW convention card; it showed in response to 2C that 3C =3D game force with no interest in majors; 2D as an enquiry; 2NT forcing to 3C. The Director considered the explanation that 2S had a constructive connotation (but could be passed) convincing since the 2C opener can be passed. Ruling: Result to stand. Appellants: NS appealed. Present: All four players and the Captains. The players: Repeated what they had said to the Director. They considered the poor description of the two Spade bid had prejudiced North's position and that they would have arrived in 3NT if North had been given a more consistent explanation. EW produced their convention card for the committee's inspection upon request but did not wish to add to the discussion. The Committee: Agreed that the Convention Card failed to describe the 2S bid. Agreed North was entitled to the margin of doubt as to which explanation was correct, but considered North had contributed to the poor result for NS by his failure to make the 2NT bid that was supported by a number of the players consulted by the Director even if the 2S bid has a constructive element to it. The Committee's Decision: Award of a weighted score under Law 12C3. 50% of 3NT by North =3D 9 tricks. 50% of 4D by North =3D 10 tricks. Deposit: returned. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Appeal No. 6 Event: Bermuda Bowl Round: Q.F. Teams: USA II versus Poland Appeals Committee: John Wignall (Chair); Grattan Endicott; Jean-Paul Meyer; Nissand Rand; Barry Rigal. Board 8. None Vul. Dealer West.=20 S K 9 6 4 3 H A 2 D 8 6 4 C Q 6 5 S A J 7 2 S 8 5 H Q J 9 3 H K T 8 7 6 5 4 D J 9 D T 2 C J T 7 C 3 2 S Q T H - D A K Q 7 5 3 C A K 9 8 4 West North East South Jassem Wolff Gawrys Morse Pass Pass 1NT+ 2C* X^ Pass 2H 3D 3H 4D Pass 5D + 15-17 * ASTRO =3D minors ^ Staymanic Result: NS +420 The Facts: At the end of the session the USA Captain approached the Director and asked for a ruling on the basis that the odd 3H bid reflected an undisclosed habit of psyching. The Director: Consulted players and discussed the matter at length with the Chief Director and colleagues. Reached a conclusion that the 3H bid was sufficiently strange to suggest that the USA Captain's protest was justified. Noted however, that South had opportunity to recognize that with a strong No-trump on his right, a positive response on his left, and a free 4D bid from North, his own holding revealed remarkable total values distributed among the four hands. Ruling: Allowed NS only part of the benefit of the doubt, adjusting the score to allow Six Diamonds bid 25% of the time. For insufficient disclosure of partnership agreements EW to be penalized 3 imps in their score. Appellants: East-West appealed. Present: South and the US Captain; East-West and the Polish Captain. The players: Mr. Jassem (West) explained, in excellent English, that he thought that another board in the same match displayed inconsistent judgement by the Directors, the possibility of a three card holding in a suit that was expected to be short not having been indicated by opponents although known. (The US Captain agreed that, if so, this was a failure on the part of his pair.) As to his 3H bid West argued that it was entirely justified by bridge considerations. He held a hand where, on the bidding, there would be likely losers in the minor suits, and which contained nine losers; the question of point count was not the sole matter to be judged. Additionally there was no evidence to suggest that psyches had happened previously in his partnership with Mr.Gawrys (Mr. Gawrys acknowledged that it is not unknown for him to psyche in other partnerships). The convention card announced that they may psyche =91rarely', which is a fair statement, West suggested, since it is lawful to psyche even though there had been no past psyche in this particular partnership. East added that the Director had formed his opinion about their psyching experience without asking them. West added that, as is only human, he felt humiliated that the Directors had not believed their assertion that they had no understanding about psyching. The USA Captain stated that he had considered it proper to draw attention to the possible irregularity by entering a protest. The Committee: Enquired what had prompted East to psyche. He drew attention to the state of the match in which Poland was behind by 50 imps. Asked whether he might psyche again Mr. Gawrys responded that it is his right under the Laws to do so. The committee addressed itself to South's actions. He said that he had suspected there might have been a psyche and if over 4H North had bid 5D he would have raised to six. As it was he had thought of bidding 6D over North's 4D bid, but could picture hands where this would be wrong. The Committee's Decision: Considered that West had made an acceptable bridge judgement; agreed that there was no evidence of any understanding about psyching. Believed that there was no case for penalizing on disciplinary grounds with no history of psyching and no clear evidence in the particular instance. Considered that for West the auction carried no evidence that a psyche had occurred, although one member was of the opinion that West =91was smelling' a psyche. It was agreed unanimously to remove the penalty from East-West. One member of the committee wished to sustain the score adjustment but the remainder agreed to reinstate the table score. The majority was of the opinion that it was South's choice of 5D rather than the cue of 5H that was chiefly responsible for the failure to find the slam and the responsibility for this was his alone. Deposit: returned. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Appeal No. 7 Event: Transnational Teams Round: 9 Teams: Germany versus England (Closed Room) Board 29. Both Vul. Dealer North.=20 S T 8 6 5 H K Q 9 8 D A 8 3 2 C 5 S 9 4 S A J 7 H A T 7 4 3 2 H J 5 D T 4 D K Q J 9 7 6 C A 9 3 C 8 2 S K Q 3 2 H 6 D 5 C K Q J T 7 6 4 West North East South J Carroll T Gotard T Hanlon J Piekarek - Pass 1NT 3C 3H All Pass =20 Lead: C5 Result: 3H made three, +140 for E/W. Present: South, East and West. The Facts: 1NT was 14-16 HCP, 3C was preemptive and 3H was intended as forcing. The Director: South called the TD during the bidding of the next board (Board 30). He told him that he had asked West the meaning of his 3H bid when it was passed and West said that it was forcing. (East had neither alerted nor explained the 3H bid to North.) South said he did not want to help E/W if they were having a bidding misunderstanding and so he passed 3H. Later he told the TD that if he had been told that 3H was non-forcing (which he believed it was) he would have bid 3S. Ruling: No damage, table result stands (Law 40C). Appellants: N/S appealed. South said he believed that West's hand was evidence that 3H was not forcing as he would simply have bid 4H over 3C if he had wanted to force to game. Also, after the hand was over and E/W were discussing the bidding East said he thought 3H was non-forcing. The players: West said he intended 3H as forcing and believed his partnership notes supported that position. (E/W's notes said, in a section on interference over their 1NT openings: =93Double and rebid of a new suit are non-forcing except 3H over 2S.=94) East said that during the auction he had not been 100% sure that 3H was forcing (though he thought it probably was). But since he had opened light (strategically), had no convenient rebid (he lacked both a club stopper for 3NT and a third heart to bid 4H), and was uncertain whether 3H had been forcing he decided to pass and hope he was right. He agreed with West, after reviewing their system notes, that responder's 3H bid (over 2S, 2NT, 3C or 3D) was clearly forcing in their methods. The Committee: After considering the players' statements and reviewing E/W's system notes the Committee was convinced that West's 3H bid had been forcing and that East had simply deviated from his announced methods for the reasons stated. Thus, there had been no misinformation: South had been told the correct meaning of 3H according to E/W's agreements. The Committee's Decision: As there had been no infraction of misinformation the table result (3H made three, +140 for E/W) was allowed to stand. Deposit: The deposit was returned. (The Committee believed the appeal may well have been based on an erroneous statement on the Appeal Form that there had been =93No Damage=94 to N/S. In fact, N/|S had been damaged but only by East's decision to pass 3H and not from any misinformation. A more accurate statement would have been that the table result stood because there was no infraction --- i.e., no misinformation.) Appeals Committee: John Wignall (New Zealand, chair), Rich Colker (USA, scribe), Jean-Paul Meyer (France), Jeffrey Polisner (USA), Nissan Rand (Israel) =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Appeal No. 8 Event: Venice Cup Round: Final Teams: China versus USA I Appeals Committee: Auken, d'Orsi, Endicott, Rand, Wignall. Board 3. E/W Vul. Dealer South.=20 S Q J 6 H A T 7 3 2 D A J 5 C 8 5 S K 8 7 3 S T 9 5 4 2 H 5 H 6 4 D K 8 6 2 D Q 9 7 3 C A T 6 2 C 9 7 S A H K Q J 9 8 D T 4 C K Q J 4 3 West North East South Kennedy Zhang Wei-Sender Gu - - - 1C Pass 1H Pass 2H Pass 2NT Pass 3D Pass 3NT Pass 4NT Pass 5H Pass 6H All Pass =20 1C is strong; 2H sets the suit; 2H and 3D asking bids and 4NT Blackwood. Lead: Spade 10. Result: NS + 980 The Facts: The Director was called at the end of the play. East complained that she did not have the same information as South. North had alerted nothing except the opening bid; she had taken all the bids that were in fact asking bids as natural bids. With correct information she claimed she would have led a diamond.. The Director: The Director established that the partnership agreements were as South had explained. A number of players were consulted and with the correct information they were about equally inclined to lead a diamond or a spade. Ruling: Ruled misinformation. On the basis of the consultations with players awarded a weighted score under Law 12C3. NS + 980 and NS - 50 each 50% of the time. Appellants: E W appealed Present: All four players, both Captains, an interpreter for the Chinese team. The players: The Chinese Captain explained that his North player had forgotten her system during the auction but at the end had tried to explain to her screenmate that there had been a bidding misunderstanding and that there were asking bids. East said that she had understood only about the Heart bids and had not heard anything said about asking bids. Both pairs play Precision Club but the E-W pair do not use asking bids. East said that with correct information it stands out to lead a diamond, knowing that there is a missing key card leading from her Queen is the most likely way to establish a setting trick. East believed she was entitled to 100% of NS-50 but had decided to accept the Director's adjustment. She had believed 3D to be a natural bid. The Committee: Informed the EW players that it had the power to change the adjustment in either direction. Established that East had not thought it necessary to =93protect her back=94 by asking any questions at the end of the auction, however the onus is on North to ensure her opponent has full information. The Committee was not pleased that North and East had written down nothing of the explanation and that their conversation had been in Chinese; each was responsible for any confusion caused by this procedure. The Committee's Decision: Agreed unanimously that there had been misinformation by North to East. Considered the adjustment, based upon the balance obtained from consultations with players, was equitable and supported the Director's ruling and adjustment. Deposit: Returned upon a majority opinion of the committee. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Appeal No. 9 Approved for addition to the jurisprudence (CoP) 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. E/W Vul. Dealer West.=20 S 2 H A J 9 3 D K Q T 9 8 6 5 C 5 S J T S A 6 5 4 3 H 5 4 2 H K Q T 8 6 D A 7 D 4 2 C K T 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 Pass 1D 2D dbl 2H 3D Pass Pass 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 T 9 6 5 C - S T S 6 5 4 H - H Q T D A 6 D 4 2 C K T 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 =917 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 =93cover the King=94 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: =93 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.=94 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. From svenpran@online.no Thu Dec 4 21:01:38 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 22:01:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] "Correct" misinformation. (Offspring from "Welcome back from the grave") In-Reply-To: <3FCF3DE3.70504@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c3baa9$d15f02d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael > > Nonsense. No way is the 3D bid (over a presumably natural 2S) = egregious > > or IWOG. Were E-W to make this claim to me, they would get a = lecture on > > the Law. > > >=20 > I will agree with this statement for the sake of argument. I can find > a few things wrong with it, but let's agree that none of these are > "grave" errors. But how do you judge South passing 3D Doubled? If that is not wild or gambling I do not know one when I see it. Sven From HarrisR@missouri.edu Thu Dec 4 22:11:41 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 16:11:41 -0600 Subject: [blml] Club Rules Suggestions In-Reply-To: <004e01c3ba01$af6a0380$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <004e01c3ba01$af6a0380$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: >We in ACBL-land seem to have an epidemic of non-compliance with the Laws and >ACBL regs in many club games. It seems that those players cannot tolerate >having to follow the rules and will quit bridge if they must. Seeking >approval for deviations at club levels, the LC has been asked (by an ad hoc >Club Rules Committee) to look into the following possibilities: > >1. Permit looking at one's own CC during the auction >2. No penalty for MI associated with Announcement or Alert mistakes >3. Reviewing the just-completed trick even after one's card is turned >4. Ignoring revokes that do no harm >5. Allow intended actions after partner hesitates (i.e., even with an LA). >6. Lighten up the rules regarding penalty cards >7. Eliminate CC regs (two identical cards, on the table, fully completed) >8. Punish rudeness >9. Restrict psyches > >This list makes me sick, and I'm wondering if other zones are being >subjected to such requests. > >I would say fine, do what you want in your club, but don't award >masterpoints. > >Thought: If players cannot remember the conventions on their CC, why in hell >are they playing them? > >What wasn't realized by anyone at the LC meeting is that the ACBL >administration currently has an unofficial policy of not enforcing the Laws >or regs for club games. They can do what they want right now with no >problem. > >Marv >Marvin L. French >San Diego, California > 1-7 and 9 seem to be commonly allowed anyway, and #8 will never fly, as it's part of the Laws and nobody really wants Laws, do they? At the club level? (At least, getting the Laws actually followed seems to be nearly impossible unless one is actually the Director. Actual example from two weeks ago: 1H P 4H 4S 5H P(after long hesitation) P 5S. No ruling on UI.) REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Dec 4 22:14:10 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 17:14:10 -0500 Subject: [blml] Club Rules Suggestions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2F9EE88B-26A7-11D8-BB05-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Dec 4, 2003, at 09:29 US/Eastern, Tim West-Meads wrote: >> 2. No penalty for MI associated with Announcement or Alert mistakes > > Is there such a penalty at the moment? Personally I wouldn't > recommend it > and would just stick with adjusting if damage occurs. There is a player here locally who seems to be of the opinion that if opponents ask a question about his call, and the explanation is incorrect, he does not have to comply with Law 75. Today I was told by a TD that if he does it again, she's going to give him a PP - which would be very unusual for this club and this TD. From HarrisR@missouri.edu Thu Dec 4 22:15:11 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 16:15:11 -0600 Subject: [blml] Club Rules Suggestions In-Reply-To: References: <004e01c3ba01$af6a0380$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Marvin French" >To: >Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 4:58 PM >Subject: [blml] Club Rules Suggestions > > >> We in ACBL-land seem to have an epidemic of non-compliance with the Laws >and >> ACBL regs in many club games. It seems that those players cannot tolerate >> having to follow the rules and will quit bridge if they must. Seeking >> approval for deviations at club levels, the LC has been asked (by an ad >hoc >> Club Rules Committee) to look into the following possibilities: >> >> 1. Permit looking at one's own CC during the auction >> 2. No penalty for MI associated with Announcement or Alert mistakes >> 3. Reviewing the just-completed trick even after one's card is turned >> 4. Ignoring revokes that do no harm >> 5. Allow intended actions after partner hesitates (i.e., even with an LA). >> 6. Lighten up the rules regarding penalty cards >> 7. Eliminate CC regs (two identical cards, on the table, fully completed) >> 8. Punish rudeness >> 9. Restrict psyches >> >> This list makes me sick, and I'm wondering if other zones are being >> subjected to such requests. >> >> I would say fine, do what you want in your club, but don't award >> masterpoints. >> >> Thought: If players cannot remember the conventions on their CC, why in >hell >> are they playing them? >> >> What wasn't realized by anyone at the LC meeting is that the ACBL >> administration currently has an unofficial policy of not enforcing the >Laws >> or regs for club games. They can do what they want right now with no >> problem. > >And they surely do!! That is why I prefer to NOT play in the clubs. They >can keep their right to give and use UI and bid by body language etc. I >prefer online bridge, or the more structured regional/sectional tournaments >where most of the Laws are upheld. >Raija Davis What, you pass up one of the more amusing features of club-level dupolicate? It's more fun than TV comedy to see the wiggling and grimaces crossing the faces! REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Dec 4 22:17:49 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 17:17:49 -0500 Subject: [blml] Something different! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thursday, Dec 4, 2003, at 09:29 US/Eastern, Tim West-Meads wrote: > The software doesn't support it. Not ideal, but reality. Lateplays > and > adjusted scores being impossible (and all players knew it) is the key > criterion by which the actions of those involved should be judged. > While I am not happy with the inadequacy of the software in this > respect I > do recognise there was no technical solution available. Not soon enough to allow the planned event to proceed, no. What I deplore, though, is the attitude that goes "it's too hard/costs too much/takes too much time, so we're not gonna fix it - ever". If you want to provide an online bridge game fine. But if it doesn't conform to the rules of the game, the software is flawed, and once you're aware of that, you need to fix it, or quit claiming that the game you're providing is bridge. From HarrisR@missouri.edu Thu Dec 4 22:37:15 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 16:37:15 -0600 Subject: [blml] Club Rules Suggestions In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB141D@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB141D@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: Frances wrote: >Club Rules Suggestions > > >We in ACBL-land seem to have an epidemic of non-compliance with the Laws and >ACBL regs in many club games. It seems that those players cannot tolerate >having to follow the rules and will quit bridge if they must. Seeking >approval for deviations at club levels, the LC has been asked (by an ad hoc >Club Rules Committee) to look into the following possibilities: > >[bizarre list follows] > >Frances: >>From my English viewpoint I find this whole thing really strange. My club >(Wimbledon) is higher standard than many local clubs I've played in, but >the laws & regulations are violated repeatedly (my partner & I are usually >the only pair with convention cards though to be fair we probably play >the most system, UI is taken advantage all over the place, questions asked >at the wrong time, leads out of turn often retracted without penalty, changing >the card played, playing out claims etc). Revokes, penalty cards, bids out of >turn etc are usually enforced correctly, though people revoke against me so >often that I'm sure most are not noticed and sometimes I simply >can't be bothered >to get an adjustment if the revoke hasn't hurt me. I've played at clubs where >the revoke rule would be enforced if someone called the director, but usually >they wouldn't bother. > >So what? People turn up for a social evening's bridge at the club. >Very few of >them play in anything other than the club or possibly some county >events. Those >that do know the rules and generally stick to them. I can't imagine >the club writing to >the EBU and asking for special exemptions to the laws, they just get >on with it. As >you play in more and more serious/high-level events, the rules are >applied more >strictly. People expect that, and are happy with it. > About 90% of the players in the clubs I play in are ACBL Life Masters, for the little that is worth. They got there, most of them, playing exactly the same way they do at the clubs. Lots of body language, hesitations, use of UI, and so on. They mostly are polite, so #8 on Marv's list is nearly irrelevant, except for the rare times some really bad actor shows up. Directors mostly will do something about bad social behavior, overt rudeness and a few other things of that sort, though one of our regulars goes out to smoke about every round, after playing at a speed that makes one think of continental drift. Nothing can be done about him, it seems. Sorry to have so much to say on this subject, but it's where my bridge life is. I'd love it if the Laws were routinely enforced, psychs were as big a surprise to the psycher's partner as to others, and good behavior at the table was demanded. The ABA (the formerly Afro-American bridge league that flourished when the ACBL was segregated) had a reputation for demanding good behavior at tournaments. Maybe I should look into joining it. www.americanbridge.com REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Dec 4 23:41:12 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 09:41:12 +1000 Subject: [blml] Coprolites (was Dummy play) Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst: >>A PP on the final method of scoring seems fairest >>to me. You attempt to improve your score; you fail; >>you are deemed frivolous; you catch a PP. >> >>ok, we'll get a few more appeals, but I can live >>with that. David Stevenson: >I must remember this next time I direct the Spring >Fours. All those lovely frivolous appeals with no >risk attached whatever. > >For those who have missed the point the Spring Fours >is knockout, so a PP makes no difference since the >team would not be appealing if they had won the match. Richard James Hills: A creative modification of MadDog's suggestion would work. An ACBL Condition of Contest in some of its National Pairs events, is that an expert pair which violates slow play rules is prohibited from entering the following year's event. Therefore, the EBU could impose a Condition of Contest on the Spring Fours, whereby an expert team which frivolously appealed is prohibited from entering the following year's event. That might reduce appeals in the Spring Fours to zero. :-) 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 Dec 4 23:54:41 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 09:54:41 +1000 Subject: [blml] 51 cards and 53 Message-ID: RJH: >> The board was flat, because poor >>dealing meant that the irrelevant defenders' >>cards were divided 14-12. >> >>It "should" have been a slam swing to the better >>bidders, but under Law those better bidders had >>to be satisfied with a mere moral victory. DWS: >What about the penalties to the pair that did not >count their cards? Pairs, even? RJH: Agreed. In this two-team final, both teams should have scored -3 imps, instead of generously being granted a flat board. Many years ago, Edgar Kaplan had a triumphant first quarter in the final of the Vanderbilt or Spingold. Edgar scored more imps than his age over the first 16 boards, while the opposing team's score was *negative* imps, due to slow play penalties. :-) 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 Fri Dec 5 00:11:30 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 00:11:30 -0000 Subject: [blml] Re: Systems Policy References: Message-ID: <001401c3bac4$7f5fb180$8b35e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 6:39 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Systems Policy >> Excerpt from GCC: >> 1. ONE CLUB OR ONE DIAMOND may be used as an >> all-purpose opening bid (artificial or natural) promising a >> minimum of 10 high-card points. >+=+ And the corollary would be that the other minor opening >shows hands that could include 4-4-5 shapes with maybe a >void in the suit named and 10+ HCP. Interesting. The quoted ACBL General Conditions of Contest regulation is ambiguous. Grattan is interpreting the meaning of the word "or" as the logical operator Exclusive Or - with an implicit "not both" in the GCC. Others have been interpreting the meaning of the word "or" as the logical operator Inclusive Or - with an implicit "and/or" in the GCC. This reiterates the point I have made previously, that Laws and regulations are instruction manuals, and should be carefully written explicitly - not implicitly. +=+ I did not see it as "must" do, rather "may" do. The player gets to choose whether both 1C and 1D are amorphous in his system or only one of his choice. I read that wording as intended to allow him to go down either path. My superscriptions these last few days have been all about understanding language. Little homilies to myself as I continue putting into words instructions received in Monaco. (Now I wonder what those voices were saying?) :-) A diligent English correspondent points to 12.2.3(e) in the Orange Book. ~ G ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Dec 5 01:35:47 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 11:35:47 +1000 Subject: [blml] Something different! Message-ID: Tim: [big snip] >There was no TD! [big snip] RJH: In which case this *particular* Individual was run in violation of Law 80A, so cannot be called Duplicate Bridge, so discussions of the legality of actions taken at an individual table of this Individual are moot. Best wishes Richard James Hills -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please ad= vise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0This = email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and= /or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any= views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, excep= t where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the v= iew of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affai= rs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the P= rivacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Dec 5 04:05:17 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 14:05:17 +1000 Subject: [blml] Club Rules Suggestions Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie top-downs: [snip] >WBFLC accelerates the slide to anarchy by... [snip] >4. Leaving major sectors of law to the differing > whims of local sponsors. [snip] Richard James Hills federalises: Whims? I have recently been volunteered into the post of President of the Bridge Federation of the Australian Capital Territory. As President, I am stuck between a rock (the national power of the ABF) and a hard place (the local power of the Canberra-region clubs). No way can I enforce my kakistocratic whims. 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@wellsborocomputing.com Fri Dec 5 03:41:53 2003 From: blml@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 22:41:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] Something different! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 17:17:49 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: >On Thursday, Dec 4, 2003, at 09:29 US/Eastern, Tim West-Meads wrote: > >> The software doesn't support it. Not ideal, but reality. Lateplays >> and >> adjusted scores being impossible (and all players knew it) is the key >> criterion by which the actions of those involved should be judged. >> While I am not happy with the inadequacy of the software in this >> respect I >> do recognise there was no technical solution available. > >Not soon enough to allow the planned event to proceed, no. What I >deplore, though, is the attitude that goes "it's too hard/costs too >much/takes too much time, so we're not gonna fix it - ever". > Deplorable maybe, but it's an attitude that's here to stay for as long as the beancounters are in charge of software development, which unfortunately seems to be the norm these days. At least in my experience of writing commercial software, there is always a cost justification required before any feature is added. Programmers don't have to like it, and in my experience the vast majority of them don't, but these days you're lucky to be allowed the time to fix all known bugs before the software ships, let alone add extra features that might be needed. >If you want to provide an online bridge game fine. But if it doesn't >conform to the rules of the game, the software is flawed, and once >you're aware of that, you need to fix it, or quit claiming that the >game you're providing is bridge. > Speaking as someone who plays 95%+ of his bridge online, I have to say that this is the sort of thing which causes a significant number of online players to regard the various authorities controlling "face-to-face" bridge as irrelevant. Online bridge *is* here to stay, and whether the WBF likes it or not, at least the two bridge services with which I'm familiar (Bridge Base Online and OKBridge) have taken advantage of the online environment to introduce rules which they see as advantageous, or even necessary. If the Laws say it can't be done, well, that's just too bad. One of the most obvious examples is how claims are handled. If either opponent refuses a claim, declarer continues to play the hand out as normal, but with the defence able to see all four hands. Totally contrary to TFLB, of course, but the fact is that that's the way it happens, and online services aren't (IMO) going to employ a bunch of TDs for their non-tournament play anytime soon. You're perfectly entitled to regard this as "not bridge", Ed, but there are an ever-increasing number of online players, most of whom (IMO) would beg to differ. Suggesting that the online providers quit claiming that they game they're providing is bridge because it doesn't follow TFLB in every respect is the clearest example of p**sing into the wind that I've seen in a long time. Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Dec 5 05:15:17 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 15:15:17 +1000 Subject: [blml] Claim jumping (was Something different!) Message-ID: Brian Meadows: [snip] >One of the most obvious examples is how claims are handled. If >either opponent refuses a claim, declarer continues to play the >hand out as normal, but with the defence able to see all four >hands. Totally contrary to TFLB, of course, but the fact is that >that's the way it happens, and online services aren't (IMO) going >to employ a bunch of TDs for their non-tournament play anytime >soon. [snip] Richard James Hills: What a good idea! If the WBFLC can avoid the not-invented-here syndrome, that would (in my opinion) be an excellent claim option in the 2005 Laws. I would suggest that defenders have two options if either wished to dispute a claim by declarer. -> Option 1: (Default.) Defenders may exchange hands, have a good look at each other's cards before returning to sender, then both declarer's hand and dummy's are now exposed for the rest of the post-claim play. Option 2: (Alternative.) Either defender may instead opt to call "Director!" for a ruling, as the 1997 Laws currently provide. The average LOL *likes* playing cards as much as possible, so giving the average LOL the *option* to play cards after a claim makes sense. Also, some sharks try to take advantage of average LOLs with early dodgy claims that the average LOL is often too timid to dispute. (At a recent Aussie National, I caused some inadvertent angst to a previously victimised LOL, when I claimed 3NT at trick one.) Surely the rules should conform to average LOL's needs, rather than LOLs being shoehorned into conformance with arbitrary rules. 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 Fri Dec 5 04:43:15 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 23:43:15 -0500 Subject: [blml] Something different! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8A05B210-26DD-11D8-BB05-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Dec 4, 2003, at 22:41 US/Eastern, Brian Meadows wrote: > Online bridge > *is* here to stay, and whether the WBF likes it or not, at least > the two bridge services with which I'm familiar (Bridge Base > Online and OKBridge) have taken advantage of the online > environment to introduce rules which they see as advantageous, or > even necessary. If the Laws say it can't be done, well, that's > just too bad. OKBridge, and BBO, and the other online providers, will do whatever they like. If they want to call what they do bridge, I doubt anyone has the cojones (and probably not the power) to stop them. But I don't have to like it. Maybe that makes me a foolish purist. So be it. From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Dec 5 10:27:05 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 10:27:05 +0000 Subject: [blml] Something different! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <9276A275-270D-11D8-8D8A-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Friday, December 5, 2003, at 01:35 am, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > Tim: > > [big snip] > >> There was no TD! > > [big snip] > > RJH: > > In which case this *particular* Individual was run in > violation of Law 80A, so cannot be called Duplicate > Bridge, so discussions of the legality of actions > taken at an individual table of this Individual are > moot. > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills L80A: If there is no tournament Director, the players should designate one of their own number to perform his functions. Two points: 1) The Law says should, not must. 2) The wording of the Law allows a situation in which there is no TD; if the players then agree to designate one of their own to perform the TD's functions, that person need not be considered a TD. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From blml@wellsborocomputing.com Fri Dec 5 12:51:29 2003 From: blml@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 07:51:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] Something different! In-Reply-To: <8A05B210-26DD-11D8-BB05-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <8A05B210-26DD-11D8-BB05-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 23:43:15 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: > >OKBridge, and BBO, and the other online providers, will do whatever >they like. If they want to call what they do bridge, I doubt anyone has >the cojones (and probably not the power) to stop them. But I don't have >to like it. Maybe that makes me a foolish purist. So be it. > Well, the "foolish" is your own word, Ed, that's not something I implied. There are plenty of examples of people fighting a fight that (if they're realistic) they know they haven't got a snowball's chance in hell of winning, and I think this is one such. As you say, the online providers will do what they think best, not least because of the significant increase it would mean in their costs to have sufficient TDs available for their non-tourney play. Whether it's bridge or not, the fact is that the online game HAS meant changes, in just the same way as there are different rules between five-a-side football (soccer) and the full game. I've not seen anyone suggest that the five-a-side game isn't football, though. No-one is ever going to write a bridge server which fully complies with all the rules of the face-to-face game. It just isn't going to be seen as commercially viable to write the code to allow all the different things that can happen in face-to-face bridge. I know DWS thinks otherwise to some extent (no, David, I haven't forgotten about the bet), but to take a fairly silly example, no reputable online bridge provider is going to write code to occasionally add or subtract a card from the deal just to make sure that players have to count their hands at the start of play. Brian. From svenpran@online.no Fri Dec 5 13:07:49 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 14:07:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Something different! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3bb30$c8bcda30$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Brian Meadows .......... > No-one is ever going to write a bridge server which fully > complies with all the rules of the face-to-face game. It just > isn't going to be seen as commercially viable to write the code > to allow all the different things that can happen in face-to-face > bridge. I know DWS thinks otherwise to some extent (no, David, I > haven't forgotten about the bet), but to take a fairly silly > example, no reputable online bridge provider is going to write > code to occasionally add or subtract a card from the deal just to > make sure that players have to count their hands at the start of > play. My first reaction was "of course not" My follow-up reaction was: Does any on-line bridge server allow such errors that can be trapped by the server: Call out of turn, Illegal double or redouble, Insufficient bid, Lead out of turn, Revoke. Just to mention five that immediately came to my mind? I should be most surprised. Sven From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Fri Dec 5 13:33:17 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 14:33:17 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Something different! Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EBDC@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Sven Pran wrote: > Brian Meadows .......... > No-one is ever going to write a bridge server which fully > complies with all the rules of the face-to-face game. It just > isn't going to be seen as commercially viable to write the code > to allow all the different things that can happen in face-to-face > bridge. I know DWS thinks otherwise to some extent (no, David, I > haven't forgotten about the bet), but to take a fairly silly > example, no reputable online bridge provider is going to write > code to occasionally add or subtract a card from the deal just to > make sure that players have to count their hands at the start of > play. My first reaction was "of course not" My follow-up reaction was: Does any on-line bridge server allow such errors that can be trapped by the server: Call out of turn, Illegal double or redouble, Insufficient bid, Lead out of turn, Revoke. Just to mention five that immediately came to my mind? I should be most surprised. ------ As far as I know, no. As far as I know, no vugraph program allows this either. That's a major fau= lt, as these things happen at the table, and it should be possible to follo= w the play as it happens, in the vugraph theatre (or online). Regarda, Harald Skj=E6ran, Oslo ----- Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ************************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error=20 please notify NIF at postmaster@nif.idrett.no.=20 Abuse can be reported to abuse@nif.idrett.no This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports ************************************************************************** From SeniorKibitzer1@aol.com Fri Dec 5 14:37:44 2003 From: SeniorKibitzer1@aol.com (SeniorKibitzer1@aol.com) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 09:37:44 EST Subject: [blml] Something different! Message-ID: <11d.28e9a093.2d01f238@aol.com> In a message dated 05/12/03 13:10:50 GMT Standard Time, svenpran@online.no writes: > Subj: RE: [blml] Something different! > Date: 05/12/03 13:10:50 GMT Standard Time > From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) > Sender: blml-admin@rtflb.org > To: blml@rtflb.org (blml) > > > Brian Meadows > .......... > > No-one is ever going to write a bridge server which fully > > complies with all the rules of the face-to-face game. It just > > isn't going to be seen as commercially viable to write the code > > to allow all the different things that can happen in face-to-face > > bridge. I know DWS thinks otherwise to some extent (no, David, I > > haven't forgotten about the bet), but to take a fairly silly > > example, no reputable online bridge provider is going to write > > code to occasionally add or subtract a card from the deal just to > > make sure that players have to count their hands at the start of > > play. > > My first reaction was "of course not" > > My follow-up reaction was: > > Does any on-line bridge server allow such errors that can be trapped by the > server: > > Call out of turn, > Illegal double or redouble, > Insufficient bid, > Lead out of turn, > Revoke. > > Just to mention five that immediately came to my mind? > > I should be most surprised. > > Sven Certainly not Bridge Club Live, and I doubt anyone else. If I remember correctly, in the pre-amble to the Laws for Online Bridge, the WBF welcome the fact that software is able to prevent many of the mechanical irregularities. I would think that the fact that revokes can't be replicated on online vugraph is rather a minor issue. I've been following this thread with some considerable interest, not least because I was EBU Online Bridge Manager for nearly four years until BCL went independant a couple or more months ago, and I reckon that Brian Meadows has represented my views extremely well on this subject. While we tried to conform to the Laws of Online Bridge as closely as possible, there were inevitably areas where we were unable to do so for economic or practical reasons, but I don't think the online game suffers in any significant way as a result, and I'm sure this is also the case for the other online bridge providers as well. Best wishes from Barrie Partridge Derbyshire, England From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Fri Dec 5 15:24:20 2003 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 10:24:20 -0500 Subject: [blml] Club Rules Suggestions In-Reply-To: <004e01c3ba01$af6a0380$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marv wrote: We in ACBL-land seem to have an epidemic of non-compliance with the Laws and ACBL regs in many club games. It seems that those players cannot tolerate having to follow the rules and will quit bridge if they must. ___________________________________________________________________________ Thx Marv, I know very well what you are talking about and fully agree, but I think we must try to change things. When I opened my club, 10 years ago, after playing more then 20 years Laws was less and less enforced around here. I have been called some weeks later by a club owner who told me: "You are now a club director and have your own club. You should not call the TD so often when playing in my club. That disturbs other players. As directors, we must try to avoid problems to colleagues." I tried to explain that I first have to respect Laws, as player, en even more as director and have to call TD according to Law 9. But no use. Most clubs was run like this and I played less and less at this level. I already played on-line bridge more than 15 years ago. But my wife and I decided we try to change things. We first announced that our club will enforced Laws and ACBL regulations "as written in the book". We begin writing and display short information on Laws, case be case, as problems aroused. We ran one-hour seminars on Laws, just before afternoon sessions (the room was full every time...). From time to time I use the microphone and tell players they always must call us when something happens at table, and never let players do the job. And its works.... We have now the biggest club in Quebec City (30-40 tables). Players do not hate Laws. They just want to make sure they apply the same manner to every player. I often say: "bridge is unplayable without laws. Against me, it would be worse." I am sure our work had an impact on other clubs. Some owners hate that, but they had to pay more attention on laws. Players now ask for. I think that the main problem is club director's skill. The Laws are not so easy. I spent hundred of hours making my flow charts on laws and I still have some doubts after reading the text so many times. Some old ACBL club directors have less then the minimum knowledge (15 years ago, I tried the ACBL club director test, just for fun without opening the Law book. Very easy). The new test is better but this is not enough. They can run a club, but applying Laws is an other game. We need a real permanent education program for club directors (stronger that what is done from time to time by ACBL). To remain club director, a person would have to participate to this program and be tested at regular intervals (3 or 5 years ?). Information activities could be on districts and units responsibility so that every part of ACBL land be covered. We also need an education program for players. Why not have brief Law seminars at every regional? Quite easy to organise. Laval Du Breuil ACBL TD Quebec City _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jimfox00@cox.net Fri Dec 5 15:47:15 2003 From: jimfox00@cox.net (jimfox00@cox.net) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 10:47:15 -0500 Subject: [blml] Something different! Message-ID: <20031205154721.USKX5790.lakemtao08.cox.net@smtp.central.cox.net> > > From: "Sven Pran" > Date: 2003/12/05 Fri AM 08:07:49 EST > To: "blml" > Subject: RE: [blml] Something different! > > > Brian Meadows > .......... > > No-one is ever going to write a bridge server which fully > > complies with all the rules of the face-to-face game. It just > > isn't going to be seen as commercially viable to write the code > > to allow all the different things that can happen in face-to-face > > bridge. I know DWS thinks otherwise to some extent (no, David, I > > haven't forgotten about the bet), but to take a fairly silly > > example, no reputable online bridge provider is going to write > > code to occasionally add or subtract a card from the deal just to > > make sure that players have to count their hands at the start of > > play. > > My first reaction was "of course not" > > My follow-up reaction was: > > Does any on-line bridge server allow such errors that can be trapped by the > server: > > Call out of turn, > Illegal double or redouble, > Insufficient bid, > Lead out of turn, > Revoke. > > Just to mention five that immediately came to my mind? > > I should be most surprised. > > Sven Might I add one: Ambiguous indication of play from dummy. Mmbridge From kaima13@hotmail.com Fri Dec 5 17:00:30 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (Raija Davis) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 09:00:30 -0800 Subject: Fw: [blml] Club Rules Suggestions Message-ID: Sorry, my response went to Laval only, was meant for group also. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Raija Davis" To: "Laval Dubreuil" Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 8:58 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Club Rules Suggestions > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Laval Dubreuil" > To: ; > Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 7:24 AM > Subject: RE: [blml] Club Rules Suggestions > > > > Marv wrote: > > We in ACBL-land seem to have an epidemic of non-compliance with the Laws > and > > ACBL regs in many club games. It seems that those players cannot tolerate > > having to follow the rules and will quit bridge if they must. > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ > > Thx Marv, I know very well what you are talking about and fully agree, but > > I think we must try to change things. > > > > When I opened my club, 10 years ago, after playing more then 20 years > > Laws was less and less enforced around here. I have been called some weeks > > later by a club owner who told me: "You are now a club director and have > > your own club. You should not call the TD so often when playing in my > club. > > That disturbs other players. As directors, we must try to avoid problems > > to colleagues." > > > > I tried to explain that I first have to respect Laws, as player, en even > > more as director and have to call TD according to Law 9. But no use. Most > > clubs was run like this and I played less and less at this level. I > > already played on-line bridge more than 15 years ago. > > > > But my wife and I decided we try to change things. We first announced > > that our club will enforced Laws and ACBL regulations "as written in the > > book". We begin writing and display short information on Laws, case be > > case, as problems aroused. We ran one-hour seminars on Laws, just before > > afternoon sessions (the room was full every time...). From time to time > > I use the microphone and tell players they always must call us when > > something happens at table, and never let players do the job. > > > > And its works.... We have now the biggest club in Quebec City (30-40 > > tables). Players do not hate Laws. They just want to make sure they > > apply the same manner to every player. I often say: "bridge is unplayable > > without laws. Against me, it would be worse." I am sure our work had > > an impact on other clubs. Some owners hate that, but they had to pay > > more attention on laws. Players now ask for. > > > > I think that the main problem is club director's skill. The Laws are > > not so easy. I spent hundred of hours making my flow charts on laws > > and I still have some doubts after reading the text so many times. > > Some old ACBL club directors have less then the minimum knowledge > > (15 years ago, I tried the ACBL club director test, just for fun > > without opening the Law book. Very easy). The new test is better > > but this is not enough. They can run a club, but applying Laws is an > > other game. > > > > We need a real permanent education program for club directors > > (stronger that what is done from time to time by ACBL). To remain > > club director, a person would have to participate to this program > > and be tested at regular intervals (3 or 5 years ?). Information > > activities could be on districts and units responsibility so that > > every part of ACBL land be covered. We also need an education program > > for players. Why not have brief Law seminars at every regional? > > Quite easy to organise. > > > > Laval Du Breuil > > ACBL TD > > Quebec City > > > Laval, what an uplifting story, thank you. And your ideas are great, > especially the very easy part of law seminar for players. Practically > anyone could step in and volunteer to do the seminar. Time to get ACBL > moving on this subject in the right direction. > Raija Davis > > > From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Fri Dec 5 17:54:07 2003 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 12:54:07 -0500 Subject: [blml] Club Rules Suggestions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > We need a real permanent education program for club directors > > (stronger that what is done from time to time by ACBL). To remain > > club director, a person would have to participate to this program > > and be tested at regular intervals (3 or 5 years ?). Information > > activities could be on districts and units responsibility so that > > every part of ACBL land be covered. We also need an education program > > for players. Why not have brief Law seminars at every regional? > > Quite easy to organise. > > > > Laval Du Breuil > > ACBL TD > > Quebec City > > > Laval, what an uplifting story, thank you. And your ideas are great, > especially the very easy part of law seminar for players. Practically > anyone could step in and volunteer to do the seminar. Time to get ACBL > moving on this subject in the right direction. > Raija Davis > > > _________________________________________________________________________ ACBL already got permission to use my Powerpoint presentation of Laws. More than 30 flow charts illustrating chapters IV, V and VI. I already also have 5 one-hour seminars designed specialy for players (in French for now...) and will make 4 or 5 other ones. Laval Du Breuil Qubec City From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Dec 5 22:27:05 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 17:27:05 -0500 Subject: [blml] Something different! In-Reply-To: <9276A275-270D-11D8-8D8A-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <27B4F2D4-2772-11D8-95AF-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Dec 5, 2003, at 05:27 US/Eastern, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > if the players then agree to designate one of their own to perform the > TD's functions, that person need not be considered a TD. So what is he? Chopped liver? If the players don't like his ruling, can they ignore him? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Dec 5 22:33:18 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 17:33:18 -0500 Subject: [blml] Something different! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <05D58D5F-2773-11D8-95AF-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Dec 5, 2003, at 07:51 US/Eastern, Brian Meadows wrote: > to take a fairly silly example, no reputable online bridge provider is > going to write code to occasionally add or subtract a card from the > deal just to make sure that players have to count their hands at the > start of play. Nor would I expect it. The purpose of that law is to correct mistakes in dealing before they become a problem. On the assumption that the computer can't make a mistake in dealing, the law is superfluous. But that's a lot different from say, not allowing a table to finish a board because "the round has been called" and there's no provision in the software implementing Law 8B. From HarrisR@missouri.edu Fri Dec 5 23:07:30 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 17:07:30 -0600 Subject: [blml] EBU appeals 2001 number 26 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Richard Hills 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, after a lot of pondering, probable telling the whole world I don't really know what to do, but passing is out here, I think. >Question 2 - What other call do you consider Pass, and, very much less reasonable, double(clearly not penalty in most of my partnerships.) > making? >Question 3 - In the modern expert bridge world, > is Law 16 equivalent to the Law of > Total Tricks? Would someone be kind enough to explain this to me? I'm not part of the modern expert bridge world. (I sort of know about the Law of Total Tricks, to the extent I've read two books and a few articles about it, but just how it is related to UI is beyond me.) REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Fri Dec 5 23:33:35 2003 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 18:33:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] EBU appeals 2001 number 26 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20031205182809.00bb7a78@mail.vzavenue.net> At 06:07 PM 12/5/2003, Robert E. Harris wrote: >Richard Hills writes: > >>Question 3 - In the modern expert bridge world, >> is Law 16 equivalent to the Law of >> Total Tricks? > > >Would someone be kind enough to explain this to me? I'm not part of the >modern expert bridge world. (I sort of know about the Law of Total >Tricks, to the extent I've read two books and a few articles about it, but >just how it is related to UI is beyond me.) If an alternative call would violate the Law of Total Tricks (letting the opponents play in a known 8-card fit, not competing to the 3-level when you have a known 9-card fit, etc.), should it be ruled that the call is not a logical alternative? I would say no, because expert players do not make absolute decisions by the Law of Total Tricks; they always adjust for things like holding three small in the opposing suit, holding the queen of your own suit, having a secondary fit, playing IMPs where +140 vs. +100 isn't worth much, and so on. From blml@wellsborocomputing.com Sat Dec 6 00:03:35 2003 From: blml@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 19:03:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] Something different! In-Reply-To: <05D58D5F-2773-11D8-95AF-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <05D58D5F-2773-11D8-95AF-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 17:33:18 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: >On Friday, Dec 5, 2003, at 07:51 US/Eastern, Brian Meadows wrote: > >> to take a fairly silly example, no reputable online bridge provider is >> going to write code to occasionally add or subtract a card from the >> deal just to make sure that players have to count their hands at the >> start of play. > >Nor would I expect it. The purpose of that law is to correct mistakes >in dealing before they become a problem. On the assumption that the >computer can't make a mistake in dealing, the law is superfluous. But >that's a lot different from say, not allowing a table to finish a board >because "the round has been called" and there's no provision in the >software implementing Law 8B. > My online bridge experience is limited to two providers, OKBridge and Bridge Base Online. Neither of them do what you mention, and I agree with you that it would be a significant change if they did. However, there are a bunch of other laws that they break, some of them for reasons of practicality or cost saving, others apparently by popular demand of their membership. To take an example of the latter group, OKBridge will let you ask the TD to allow you to opt out of a round if you find your opponents are playing something really weird. There's also the (practical) feature in club play, with no TD, that if players come up against a problem which they can't handle, they can simply junk the board and move on to the next one. Once again, though, I don't think these changes change the basic game. It's still bridge. Brian. From georgemorris@indiatimes.com Sat Dec 6 02:00:08 2003 From: georgemorris@indiatimes.com (George Morris.) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 03:00:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] CONGRATULATIONS! Message-ID: <20031206020015.4A4152C05E@rhubarb.custard.org> GLOBAL STAKES LOTTERY SWITZERLAND=2E REF NUMBER=3A 039=2F054=2F336 BATCH NUMBER=3A 561701-DBQ117 Sir=2FMadam=2C We are pleased to inform you of the result of the Lottery Winners international programs held on the 13th of September=2C 2003=2E Your e-mail address attached to ticket number 27522465896-6453 with serial number 3772-554 drew lucky numbers 7-14-18-23-31-45 which consequently won in the 2nd category=2C you have therefore been approved for a lump sum pay out of 2=2C500=2C000 =28EUROS=29 =28TWO MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND EUROS=29 CONGRATULATIONS!!! For security purpose and clarity=2C we advise that you keep your winning information confidential until your claims have been processed and your money remitted to you=2E This is part of our security protocol to avoid double claiming and unwarranted abuse of this program by some participants=2E All participants were selected through a computer ballot system drawn from over 20=2C000 companies and 30=2C000=2C000 individual email addresses and names from all over the world=2E This program takes place every year=2E This lottery was promoted and sponsored by eminent personalities like Mr=2E Bill Gates and the Sultan of Brunei=2C we look forward to your active participation in our next year USD50 million slot=2E You are requested to come personally to file in your winning=2C however if you are unable to make it to switzerland=2C please contact our clearance office to assist you with the claim and transfer of your winnings fund into your instructed account=2E Email address=3A georgemorris=40indiatimes=2Ecom Note that=2C all winnings must be claimed not later than three weeks after notification=2E After this date all unclaimed funds will be null and void=2E Please note in order to avoid unnecessary delays and complications=2C remember to quote your reference number and batch numbers in all correspondences=2E Furthermore=2C should there be any change of address=2C do inform our agent as quickly as possible=2E Congratulations once more and thank you for being part this program=2E Note=3A Anybody under the age of 18 is automatically disqualified=2E Sincerely yours=2C Mr George Morris=2E =28Lottery Coordinator=29 From blml@wellsborocomputing.com Sat Dec 6 03:34:26 2003 From: blml@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 22:34:26 -0500 Subject: [blml] Something different! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 15:12:16 -0900 (AKST), Gordon Bower wrote: > >On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Brian Meadows wrote: > >> cost justification required before any feature is added. > >This is one of the few ways that pressure can be brought to bear on online >bridge services: the old "you can't award our flavour of masterpoints >unless..." trick, which of course only works if you have a significant >number of members who want to earn some masterpoints. > I'm sorry, Gordon, but try as I might, I can't actually see what the above paragraph of yours when taken with the part-sentence quote of mine is meant to say. Sorry if I'm missing something obvious. The point I was trying to make is that online providers are likely to choose the cheapest way to provide an acceptable game, and the mere fact of getting their game to comply more closely with face-to-face rules is unlikely (IMO) to be sufficient reason for them to implement software changes without there being some other financial incentive involved. >It HAS worked in some cases --- for instance, online games that award ACBL >masterpoints do have to be run by ACBL-certified directors (not that it >takes much to get a club director's card, but it gives SOME hope of >getting qualified people running games.) > I know OKBridge used to run one ACBL game, maybe they run more now. As far as I'm aware, BBO will let anyone whom they approve run a tournament. I don't know the details of the procedure, I've not asked to be allowed to run them. > >The laws have been adapted some. Which is OK. For instance, allowing the >auction and not just the contract to remain visible, required a change to >the online laws, but doesn't seem to be a huge issue. > Unless the online laws have been updated since last I read them, I'd agree with you that the above is a very minor point indeed. There are a lot of *far* more significant changes out there. > >That isn't OKB/BBO making up a new procedure and ignoring the laws, so >much as deciding to follow the established rubber bridge procedure for >handling claims in social games, isnt it? > I have no idea. I doubt I've played a dozen sessions of rubber bridge in my life, and at the one club at which I did play on those few occasions, the owner acted as TD to sort out any such problems. Yes, even during a rubber bridge game. >Now, using that same procedure in an online *tournament*, I think, isn't >right - there is a perfectly good law, there is a director present, and >it would be easy to put a "freeze table and summon director" button on the >desktop. > Yes, I thought I specifically referred to "non-tournament play" in my original post (but I haven't checked). If I didn't, then apologies for my omission. >> You're perfectly entitled to regard this as "not bridge", Ed, but >> there are an ever-increasing number of online players, most of >> whom (IMO) would beg to differ. Suggesting that the online >> providers quit claiming that they game they're providing is >> bridge because it doesn't follow TFLB in every respect is the >> clearest example of p**sing into the wind that I've seen in a >> long time. > >Telling them to call it something else is a bit of an extreme statement. Yes, that was my point too. >And the independent sites with no affiliation to any bridge organization >can do what they like. But I do hope we will see a move toward better >following of the rules in the future. > Sure - but IMO the majority of online providers will want more of a justification for software changes than simply trying to come as close as possible to the existing laws. >It is possible to make changes happen. At Swan Games, during the time I >worked there I saw the policies on psyching and adjusted scores changed to >conform to the laws. We regularly use late plays when conditions permit, >instead of just skipping every board in sight. We tried to get an Undo >policy that conformed to L25A in place, and didn't quite get it, but got a >lot closer than we used to be. > It's difficult for me to make any comment on this, not having played on Swan's site I have no idea what the previous policies were. As I said, my online experience is with OKBridge and Bridge Base Online, which I believe to be the two providers with the largest memberships (corrections welcome). >There are still things at Swan that are unLawful that bother me... but >slowly it has gotten better and will continue to get better, I think. I >hear horror stories of things that happen on other sites, and like to >think I had some small part in stopping some of those abuses from >happening where I was directing. > >If you want to see the software improved, you need to be putting pressure >on the providers to adapt. Saying you love what they are doing now and are >glad they are thumbing their noses at the WBF doesn't help. > I didn't say that *I* loved what they are doing now. As anyone who has read OKB's Discuss list for some while will know, I've been one of the more vociferous critics of some of OKB's policies. I also didn't say that *I* was glad that they were thumbing their noses at the WBF, although I've certainly said before that I'm glad that online bridge is free (at least on BBO and OKB) from the arbitrary systems restrictions imposed on the F2F game. What I *did* say was that I don't think the WBF's views figure very much in the concerns of the majority of online players, and I also said that I think online providers will look at the bottom line as being far more important than strict compliance with TFLB. If you're telling us that I'm wrong in the case of Swan, then fair enough, I'm happy to accept your correction. In any case, apart from suggesting that Ed was p**sing into the wind with a wish that online providers ceased referring to their services as bridge (you seem to agree), and saying that I feel it's unfortunate that the bottom line is the overriding factor in so much software development today, I didn't say what I *personally* thought on the subject. If you want to disagree with my perception of what the majority view might be, that's a different matter. I'm always willing to debate and/or defend what I actually write. Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Dec 6 07:58:39 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 02:58:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] Something different! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <00640BC0-27C2-11D8-9A49-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Dec 5, 2003, at 19:03 US/Eastern, Brian Meadows wrote: > My online bridge experience is limited to two providers, OKBridge > and Bridge Base Online. Neither of them do what you mention, and > I agree with you that it would be a significant change if they > did. I used that example because it actually happened on MSN online a few years ago, and the person in charge of the site, in subsequent discussion, refused to even consider revising the software. From blml@wellsborocomputing.com Sat Dec 6 10:10:43 2003 From: blml@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2003 05:10:43 -0500 Subject: [blml] Something different! In-Reply-To: <00640BC0-27C2-11D8-9A49-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <00640BC0-27C2-11D8-9A49-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <3la3tvkk9l4d2acndtev4u5kajt373lcsi@4ax.com> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 02:58:39 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: >On Friday, Dec 5, 2003, at 19:03 US/Eastern, Brian Meadows wrote: > >> My online bridge experience is limited to two providers, OKBridge >> and Bridge Base Online. Neither of them do what you mention, and >> I agree with you that it would be a significant change if they >> did. > >I used that example because it actually happened on MSN online a few >years ago, and the person in charge of the site, in subsequent >discussion, refused to even consider revising the software. > Then I'm on your side with that one. Unless it was a trial version of the software or something similar, that's horrible. Having a bad board? Just delay the play until the round is called. Ugh. Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com From cibor@poczta.fm Sat Dec 6 10:17:40 2003 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 11:17:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] 12A1 Message-ID: <005201c3bbe2$31da50e0$32254cd5@c5s5d3> Hello, The contract is 5Dx. The defence cashes two top hearts in this layout. 72 K3 A986 QJ105 West leads the HK and a heart to the ace. East shifts to spades, the defenders take their two black aces and declarer claims the rest. -2, 500. After the hand was over, when the East-West players tried to find out if 5S was making they discovered that the H4 was missing. It turned out that dummy tabled 12 cards by accidently (no doubt about it) placing a small heart *under* one of the other cards in dummy making it invisible. East claimed that seeing 3 hearts in dummy he would have given his partner a heart ruff for 800. L12A1 says that: The Director may award an assigned adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to the non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation of law committed by an opponent Dummy certainly violated 41D but was this a "particular type" of violation or just "regular" violation? Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland From svenpran@online.no Sat Dec 6 10:42:11 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 11:42:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] 12A1 In-Reply-To: <005201c3bbe2$31da50e0$32254cd5@c5s5d3> Message-ID: <000001c3bbe5$9b942cb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Konrad Ciborowski > The contract is 5Dx. The defence cashes two top hearts in this = layout. >=20 > 72 > K3 A986 > QJ105 >=20 >=20 > West leads the HK and a heart to the ace. East shifts to spades, > the defenders take their two black aces and declarer claims > the rest. -2, 500. After the hand was over, when the East-West players > tried to find out if 5S was making they discovered that the H4 was > missing. It turned out that dummy tabled 12 cards by accidently > (no doubt about it) placing a small heart *under* one of the other > cards in dummy making it invisible. > East claimed that seeing 3 hearts in dummy he would have given > his partner a heart ruff for 800. >=20 > L12A1 says that: > The Director may award an assigned adjusted score when he judges > that these Laws do not provide indemnity to the non-offending = contestant > for > the particular type of violation of law committed by an opponent >=20 > Dummy certainly violated 41D but was this a "particular type" of = violation > or just "regular" violation? The word "particular" in Law 12A1 is not meant for classifying = violations into categories. It is simply a reference to the "particular" violation = that has occurred. In this case dummy has violated (unintentionally) Law 41D and the = defense has clearly been damaged from this violation. The laws do not provide = any indemnity for violations of Law 41D, thus law 12A1 is applicable. As = dummy is a faced hand the Director must consider whether the defense should = have discovered this error and therefore themselves are partly at fault for = their own damage. There are situations where the defense cannot claim redress for damage caused by errors in dummy (e.g. revoke), this in my opinion is not one = of them so I would adjust the result to 5Dx down three. Regards Sven From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Sat Dec 6 12:10:32 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 12:10:32 +0000 Subject: [blml] 12A1 In-Reply-To: <005201c3bbe2$31da50e0$32254cd5@c5s5d3> Message-ID: <30EAB8AD-27E5-11D8-85F5-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Saturday, December 6, 2003, at 10:17 am, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > Hello, > > The contract is 5Dx. The defence cashes two top hearts in this > layout. > > 72 > K3 A986 > QJ105 > > > West leads the HK and a heart to the ace. East shifts to spades, > the defenders take their two black aces and declarer claims > the rest. -2, 500. After the hand was over, when the East-West players > tried to find out if 5S was making they discovered that the H4 was > missing. It turned out that dummy tabled 12 cards by accidently > (no doubt about it) placing a small heart *under* one of the other > cards in dummy making it invisible. > East claimed that seeing 3 hearts in dummy he would have given > his partner a heart ruff for 800. Why do we believe that a defender who hasn't noticed that there are only twelve cards in dummy, would have worked out that he could give his partner a ruff if dummy had displayed thirteen cards? In the same way that there would have been no penalties if dummy had revoked (because the defenders were at least partly responsible for noticing the defective dummy), so too there should be no adjustment here. > > L12A1 says that: > The Director may award an assigned adjusted score when he judges > that these Laws do not provide indemnity to the non-offending > contestant for > the particular type of violation of law committed by an opponent > > Dummy certainly violated 41D but was this a "particular type" of > violation > or just "regular" violation? I think this is a semantic problem. "Particular type of violation" just means "specific violation". L41D is of the type "Dummy does ....", which the Scope and Interpretation of the Laws tells us "establishes correct procedure without any suggestion that a violation be penalised." -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Sat Dec 6 12:17:42 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 12:17:42 +0000 Subject: [blml] Something different! In-Reply-To: <27B4F2D4-2772-11D8-95AF-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <30C414A7-27E6-11D8-85F5-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Friday, December 5, 2003, at 10:27 pm, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Friday, Dec 5, 2003, at 05:27 US/Eastern, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > >> if the players then agree to designate one of their own to perform >> the TD's functions, that person need not be considered a TD. > > So what is he? Chopped liver? That person would be the player designated to perform the TD's functions. If the laws intended to insist that the players appoint a TD from among their number, they could have said so much more succinctly. Instead they chose to use a more complex wording which avoids saying that such a person *is* the TD. Remember that this sub-thread was started by Richard's assertion that if there is no TD, it's not Duplicate Bridge. I don't think the Laws support that view. > If the players don't like his ruling, can they ignore him? No. I don't think this is dependent on whether the person is a TD or is a player designated to perform the TD's functions. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From blml@blakjak.com Sat Dec 6 15:48:27 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 15:48:27 +0000 Subject: [blml] 12A1 In-Reply-To: <30EAB8AD-27E5-11D8-85F5-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <005201c3bbe2$31da50e0$32254cd5@c5s5d3> <30EAB8AD-27E5-11D8-85F5-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: Gordon Rainsford wrote >On Saturday, December 6, 2003, at 10:17 am, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >> The contract is 5Dx. The defence cashes two top hearts in this >>layout. >> >> 72 >> K3 A986 >> QJ105 >> >> West leads the HK and a heart to the ace. East shifts to spades, >> the defenders take their two black aces and declarer claims >> the rest. -2, 500. After the hand was over, when the East-West players >> tried to find out if 5S was making they discovered that the H4 was >> missing. It turned out that dummy tabled 12 cards by accidently >> (no doubt about it) placing a small heart *under* one of the other >> cards in dummy making it invisible. >> East claimed that seeing 3 hearts in dummy he would have given >> his partner a heart ruff for 800. >Why do we believe that a defender who hasn't noticed that there are >only twelve cards in dummy, would have worked out that he could give >his partner a ruff if dummy had displayed thirteen cards? > >In the same way that there would have been no penalties if dummy had >revoked (because the defenders were at least partly responsible for >noticing the defective dummy), so too there should be no adjustment here. The defenders are not responsible for a defective dummy. The dummy player is required by Law to put his hand on the table in a certain way and failed to do so. L12A1 leads to an assigned score. It is still a judgement matter what that adjustment is, and a TD could adjust on the basis that the defence would never find the ruff, or under some jurisdictions that they would find the ruff part of the time via L12C3. As for your comment about a revoke the same applies: if the defence have lost by a dummy revoke then redress is given via L64C. -- 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 Sat Dec 6 16:12:17 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 17:12:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] 12A1 In-Reply-To: <30EAB8AD-27E5-11D8-85F5-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <000001c3bc13$b90f3d10$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Gordon Rainsford > Why do we believe that a defender who hasn't noticed that there are > only twelve cards in dummy, would have worked out that he could give > his partner a ruff if dummy had displayed thirteen cards? >=20 > In the same way that there would have been no penalties if dummy had > revoked (because the defenders were at least partly responsible for > noticing the defective dummy), so too there should be no adjustment > here. There is a major difference between noticing that there are only twelve cards (visible) in dummy and noticing that dummy cannot ruff the third = heart or noticing that dummy revokes by not playing a visible card. As every bridge player has realized: Counting to thirteen is an = extremely difficult task. I once faced dummy with a remark that I had exactly the 16 HCP I had announced in my auction. The funny thing was that three players studied = my hand with interest and none of them pointed out that I only had 14 HCP. After several tricks we discovered that dummy was defective and on inspection we found that the Diamond Queen had somehow never shown up in dummy. (Till this day I have absolutely no idea what really had = happened). IMO the responsibility for defenders to recognize a defective dummy must = be judged from case to case. Sven From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Sat Dec 6 16:25:34 2003 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 11:25:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] OLOOT - self ruling Message-ID: Hi all, North being the declarer, West lead OOT with DA. Declarer told East: "No problem, lead what you want". East put D2 on table, declarer called "a small" from dummy and told West: "You must play the A". West then called the TD. Your ruling: 1) Apply Law 50D2b (No Lead Restriction) as if TD had been called in time (declarer refuses LOOT). 2) Cancel penalties, as allowed by Law 10 B and tell W he can play what he wants (DA returns in hand). 3) Something else ? Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From blml@blakjak.com Sat Dec 6 16:59:35 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 16:59:35 +0000 Subject: [blml] 12A1 In-Reply-To: <000001c3bc13$b90f3d10$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <30EAB8AD-27E5-11D8-85F5-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <000001c3bc13$b90f3d10$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <2Q1h0JL3rg0$EwCN@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Sven Pran wrote >IMO the responsibility for defenders to recognize a defective dummy must be >judged from case to case. Since there is no responsibility whatever in the Laws for dummy's 13 cards for anyone except dummy, why should anyone else be responsible? -- 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 kaima13@hotmail.com Sat Dec 6 18:23:31 2003 From: kaima13@hotmail.com (Raija Davis) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 10:23:31 -0800 Subject: [blml] OLOOT - self ruling References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Laval Dubreuil" To: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 8:25 AM Subject: [blml] OLOOT - self ruling > Hi all, > > North being the declarer, West lead OOT with DA. > Declarer told East: "No problem, lead what you want". > East put D2 on table, declarer called "a small" from > dummy and told West: "You must play the A". West then > called the TD. > > Your ruling: > > 1) Apply Law 50D2b (No Lead Restriction) as if TD had > been called in time (declarer refuses LOOT). > > 2) Cancel penalties, as allowed by Law 10 B and tell W > he can play what he wants (DA returns in hand). > > 3) Something else ? > > Laval Du Breuil > Quebec City This is interesting to me, as a player (I am not TD as you prob know). I don't like it when players start making their own rulings and I get funny looks if I call director when an irregularity occurs and some law needs to be applied. Is it lawful for players to make rulings themselves? I always thought it wasn't, but it happens frequently. Raija Davis From svenpran@online.no Sat Dec 6 19:20:26 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 20:20:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] OLOOT - self ruling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000a01c3bc2e$00c45450$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Raija Davis > From: "Laval Dubreuil"=20 > > North being the declarer, West lead OOT with DA. > > Declarer told East: "No problem, lead what you want". > > East put D2 on table, declarer called "a small" from > > dummy and told West: "You must play the A". West then > > called the TD. > > > > Your ruling: > > > > 1) Apply Law 50D2b (No Lead Restriction) as if TD had > > been called in time (declarer refuses LOOT). > > > > 2) Cancel penalties, as allowed by Law 10 B and tell W > > he can play what he wants (DA returns in hand). > > > > 3) Something else ? > > > > Laval Du Breuil > > Quebec City >=20 >=20 > This is interesting to me, as a player (I am not TD as you prob know). = I > don't like it when players start making their own rulings and I get = funny > looks if I call director when an irregularity occurs and some law = needs to > be applied. Is it lawful for players to make rulings themselves? I = always > thought it wasn't, but it happens frequently. > Raija Davis Different directors might handle this case differently, partly due to = habits in the environments they work. For me this is an obvious case: I shall use Laws 10B and 11A and tell = the players that West may follow suit with any diamond he may have available = and desires to play. The DA is NOT a penalty card. If North has the habit of taking over the job of the Director a = procedure penalty on him is in order, at least he shall have a warning. Regards Sven=20 From svenpran@online.no Sat Dec 6 19:29:04 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 20:29:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] 12A1 In-Reply-To: <2Q1h0JL3rg0$EwCN@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <000b01c3bc2f$360778d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson > Sven Pran wrote > > >IMO the responsibility for defenders to recognize > >a defective dummy must be judged from case to case. > > Since there is no responsibility whatever in the Laws for dummy's 13 > cards for anyone except dummy, why should anyone else be responsible? Have you overlooked Law 74B1? Since dummy's cards are all faced the defenders have a duty under this law to avoid being damaged because of insufficient attention. Sven From john@asimere.com Sat Dec 6 19:38:26 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 19:38:26 +0000 Subject: [blml] OLOOT - self ruling In-Reply-To: <000a01c3bc2e$00c45450$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000a01c3bc2e$00c45450$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000a01c3bc2e$00c45450$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >> Raija Davis >> From: "Laval Dubreuil" >> > North being the declarer, West lead OOT with DA. >> > Declarer told East: "No problem, lead what you want". >> > East put D2 on table, declarer called "a small" from >> > dummy and told West: "You must play the A". West then >> > called the TD. >> > >> > Your ruling: >> > >> > 1) Apply Law 50D2b (No Lead Restriction) as if TD had >> > been called in time (declarer refuses LOOT). >> > >> > 2) Cancel penalties, as allowed by Law 10 B and tell W >> > he can play what he wants (DA returns in hand). >> > >> > 3) Something else ? >> > >> > Laval Du Breuil >> > Quebec City >> >> >> This is interesting to me, as a player (I am not TD as you prob know). I >> don't like it when players start making their own rulings and I get funny >> looks if I call director when an irregularity occurs and some law needs to >> be applied. Is it lawful for players to make rulings themselves? I always >> thought it wasn't, but it happens frequently. >> Raija Davis > >Different directors might handle this case differently, partly due to habits >in the environments they work. > >For me this is an obvious case: I shall use Laws 10B and 11A and tell the >players that West may follow suit with any diamond he may have available and >desires to play. The DA is NOT a penalty card. > >If North has the habit of taking over the job of the Director a procedure >penalty on him is in order, at least he shall have a warning. > I think this is about right in a club event. Had the player given the 5 options to the opponent as if he were ruling from the book, then I'd leave it alone. I'm pretty sure Sven would agree with that too. John >Regards Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Dec 6 21:41:54 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 16:41:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] Something different! In-Reply-To: <30C414A7-27E6-11D8-85F5-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <02150F2F-2835-11D8-B8C4-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Saturday, Dec 6, 2003, at 07:17 US/Eastern, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > Remember that this sub-thread was started by Richard's assertion that > if there is no TD, it's not Duplicate Bridge. I don't think the Laws > support that view. Neither do I. :-) >> If the players don't like his ruling, can they ignore him? > > No. I don't think this is dependent on whether the person is a TD or > is a player designated to perform the TD's functions. Okay. From svenpran@online.no Sat Dec 6 21:49:38 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 22:49:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] OLOOT - self ruling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c3bc42$d8873970$6900a8c0@WINXP> John (MadDog) Probst ............. > >Different directors might handle this case differently, > >partly due to habits in the environments they work. > > > >For me this is an obvious case: I shall use Laws 10B > > and 11A and tell the players that West may follow suit > >with any diamond he may have available and desires to > >play. The DA is NOT a penalty card. > > > >If North has the habit of taking over the job of the > >Director a procedure penalty on him is in order, at > >least he shall have a warning. > > > I think this is about right in a club event. Had the > player given the 5 options to the opponent as if he > were ruling from the book, then I'd leave it alone. > I'm pretty sure Sven would agree with that too. I would indeed - with a playing director who could appreciate some assistance and a player who knew what he was doing and who made the correct ruling. Sven From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Dec 6 21:54:52 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 16:54:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] 12A1 In-Reply-To: <000b01c3bc2f$360778d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Saturday, Dec 6, 2003, at 14:29 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > Have you overlooked Law 74B1? > > Since dummy's cards are all faced the defenders have a duty under this > law > to avoid being damaged because of insufficient attention. I think that's stretching the meaning of Law 74B1 a bit. First, the law itself says it's a matter of courtesy, not duty. Second, "should" means a PP should be rare. So I don't see this law having the impact above. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Dec 6 22:00:34 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 17:00:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 12 Message-ID: <9DB63E44-2837-11D8-B8C4-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> The 2003 "Duplicate Decisions", subtitled "A Club Director's Guide for Ruling at the Table", in its discussion of law 12, contains the statement "If the Director has a choice between awarding an artificial adjusted score and an assigned adjusted score, awarding a real score is preferable." Is there any circumstance in which the Director has or may have this choice? From blml@blakjak.com Sat Dec 6 22:08:38 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 22:08:38 +0000 Subject: [blml] 12A1 In-Reply-To: <000b01c3bc2f$360778d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <2Q1h0JL3rg0$EwCN@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <000b01c3bc2f$360778d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5DBSwsRmNl0$EwT+@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >> Sven Pran wrote >> >> >IMO the responsibility for defenders to recognize >> >a defective dummy must be judged from case to case. >> >> Since there is no responsibility whatever in the Laws for dummy's 13 >> cards for anyone except dummy, why should anyone else be responsible? > >Have you overlooked Law 74B1? > >Since dummy's cards are all faced the defenders have a duty under this law >to avoid being damaged because of insufficient attention. That is really reaching for something that is not in the Laws. I suppose you are not paying sufficient attention if your opponent has one of his cards hidden behind another in his hand. When a player breaks the Law in this sort of fashion trying to pretend it is the opponent's fault as well is not just against the Laws, it is against the whole spirit of them. Furthermore, applying Laws in a way that encourages cheating is a very poor approach. What is to stop a player putting his cards down wrong deliberately? His partner will have seen it before and not be fooled. When a player breaks the Law he is at fault. -- 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 Sat Dec 6 22:59:50 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 23:59:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] 12A1 In-Reply-To: <5DBSwsRmNl0$EwT+@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <000001c3bc4c$a7795930$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson > Sven Pran wrote > >Have you overlooked Law 74B1? > > > >Since dummy's cards are all faced the defenders have a duty under = this > law > >to avoid being damaged because of insufficient attention. >=20 > That is really reaching for something that is not in the Laws. I > suppose you are not paying sufficient attention if your opponent has = one > of his cards hidden behind another in his hand. >=20 > When a player breaks the Law in this sort of fashion trying to = pretend > it is the opponent's fault as well is not just against the Laws, it is > against the whole spirit of them. >=20 > Furthermore, applying Laws in a way that encourages cheating is a = very > poor approach. What is to stop a player putting his cards down wrong > deliberately? His partner will have seen it before and not be fooled. >=20 > When a player breaks the Law he is at fault. I used the word "insufficient" and have said that this (what constitutes insufficient attention) must be a matter of judgment in each case.=20 Normally I would never hold it against a player who overlooks that dummy = has too few cards, but I wouldn't entirely discard the possibility that I = might in certain cases. I see no problem with cheating, it would be too easy to spot and punish = any such tactics. And it is of course the responsibility of dummy and nobody else if he = faces his cards with the wrong number of cards visible regardless for what = reason. But what I maintain is that defenders also have some responsibility in paying attention to those cards once they have been faced. Regards Sven From blml@blakjak.com Sun Dec 7 00:57:05 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 00:57:05 +0000 Subject: [blml] Law 12 In-Reply-To: <9DB63E44-2837-11D8-B8C4-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <9DB63E44-2837-11D8-B8C4-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote >The 2003 "Duplicate Decisions", subtitled "A Club Director's Guide for >Ruling at the Table", in its discussion of law 12, contains the >statement "If the Director has a choice between awarding an artificial >adjusted score and an assigned adjusted score, awarding a real score is >preferable." > >Is there any circumstance in which the Director has or may have this >choice? When I read it I thought they were just trying to say in a nice way what we already knew: when you make an adjustment, it is assigned if at all possible. For example, L82C refers to awarding a score [speaking from memory] but in fact we all know here this means assigning if there was a result. -- 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 Sun Dec 7 03:09:24 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 03:09:24 +0000 Subject: [blml] IBLF Message-ID: For those of you have forgotten [or never knew] while this is an excellent place for in-depth discussion of Laws [and RGB for simpler discussions of rulings] some people merely want a simple opinion on a ruling or a Law or a regulation. The International Bridge Laws forum is thriving, getting many queries, and interesting ideas. But we could do with more! In fact a large proportion [too large] is from the UK, so please come and visit, and ask a question, especially if you are *not* from the UK. I think the reason for so much UK interest is that the EBU both have a link on their website and recommend IBLF to their lesser TDs. We would get a more rounded picture if a few other authorities did the same. Please note this is not mean to be an argumentative site: if you think the law should be changed, or is silly, or something, please say so on RGB or BLML. But if you just want to know the penalties for revoke out of turn by a kibitzer, IBLF is the place to go. http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm If you are really interested to see all the threads for the last few years then see http://blakjak.com/iblf1.htm -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Dec 7 06:53:39 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 01:53:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 12 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <16764E45-2882-11D8-BBF1-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Saturday, Dec 6, 2003, at 19:57 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > When I read it I thought they were just trying to say in a nice way > what we already knew: when you make an adjustment, it is assigned if at > all possible. For example, L82C refers to awarding a score [speaking > from memory] but in fact we all know here this means assigning if there > was a result. Perhaps. But I *know* that ACBL directors have ruled artAS when the situation called for an asAS, and it struck me that this statement might be their basis for doing so. If so, it ought to be stricken from the guidance ACBL provides to its TDs. From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Dec 7 11:14:33 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 11:14:33 -0000 Subject: [blml] IBLF References: Message-ID: <004f01c3bcb8$443b57d0$0d40e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 3:09 AM Subject: [blml] IBLF > > Please note this is not mean to be an argumentative > site: if you think the law should be changed, or is silly, > or something, please say so on RGB or BLML. But if > you just want to know the penalties for revoke out > of turn by a kibitzer, IBLF is the place to go. > > http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm > > If you are really interested to see all the threads for the last few > years then see > > http://blakjak.com/iblf1.htm > +=+ Perhaps David is saying that if you want a single answer to a question go to IBLF and if you want seventeen different answers go to blml? +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Dec 7 11:46:51 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 11:46:51 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 12 References: <16764E45-2882-11D8-BBF1-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <005001c3bcb8$453f3340$0d40e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 6:53 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 12 > > On Saturday, Dec 6, 2003, at 19:57 US/Eastern, > David Stevenson wrote: > > > When I read it I thought they were just trying to > > say in a nice way what we already knew: when you > > make an adjustment, it is assigned if at all possible. > > For example, L82C refers to awarding a score > > [speaking from memory] but in fact we all know > > here this means assigning if there was a result. > > Ed: > Perhaps. But I *know* that ACBL directors have > ruled artAS when the situation called for an asAS, > and it struck me that this statement might be their > basis for doing so. If so, it ought to be stricken from > the guidance ACBL provides to its TDs. > +=+ One of the fascinating psychological exercises in my quiet hours is to look at the drafting committee for the 1997 laws (Kaplan, Allison, Cohen, Stern, Endicott, Martel) and to compare what they wrote with what the ACBL does. Technically Law 12 provides that either it has not been possible to obtain a result and the adjusted score is artificial, or a result has been obtained and is substituted with an assigned adjusted score. The gap between these two is covered by 12A2 whilst 12A1 and 12A3 assume a result has been obtained. The structure is unyielding and only the imagination bends it. That is where we are. Ton Kooijman has long and honourably argued that it is too rigid and that there should be more fluidity to move from assigned to artificial. I agree with him that the objective should be this and my notes indicate that a majority of our drafting subcommittee is acquiescent. Of course, what I am now redrafting post-Monaco may turn again by the time we get to 'Istanbul' - we are still writing in the sand - but trends in our thinking as a group are now apparent. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From blml@blakjak.com Sun Dec 7 15:17:02 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 15:17:02 +0000 Subject: [blml] Law 12 In-Reply-To: <16764E45-2882-11D8-BBF1-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <16764E45-2882-11D8-BBF1-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <8WTDVIAuR00$EwC2@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Ed Reppert wrote >On Saturday, Dec 6, 2003, at 19:57 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > >> When I read it I thought they were just trying to say in a nice way >> what we already knew: when you make an adjustment, it is assigned if at >> all possible. For example, L82C refers to awarding a score [speaking >> from memory] but in fact we all know here this means assigning if there >> was a result. > >Perhaps. But I *know* that ACBL directors have ruled artAS when the >situation called for an asAS, and it struck me that this statement >might be their basis for doing so. If so, it ought to be stricken from >the guidance ACBL provides to its TDs. I do not see this. The statement is that in such cases they should assign. -- 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 idc@macs.hw.ac.uk Sun Dec 7 15:33:06 2003 From: idc@macs.hw.ac.uk (Ian D Crorie) Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 15:33:06 +0000 Subject: [blml] EBU appeals 2001 number 26 Message-ID: > Richard Hills 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? > >Question 2 - What other call do you consider [Robert E. Harris, Answer 1] > 3D, after a lot of pondering, probable telling the whole world I > don't really know what to do, but passing is out here, I think. > [Answer 2] > Pass, and, very much less reasonable, double(clearly not penalty in > most of my partnerships.) I'm sure you'd have lots of support for this view of double but really it should be for penalties. How else could you bid a hand that had been planning to pass for penalities opposite a reopening double by partner? Given the number of 4 card overcalls these days, not to mention some 2 card raises, having a penalty double available is pretty useful. If I had to act on the hand, I'd try 2NT, assuming I had a partner who was awake enough to realise that it must be takeout. Not that my suits will be clear until I remove 3C to 3D but I think that gives us the best chance of alighting in a playable spot. But at this vul and at IMPs, I think I'll follow the slogan one of my friends regularly uses in a Bidding Challenge ("The green card is the happy card") and pass. --- Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. A: Why is top posting deprecated? From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Sun Dec 7 16:26:07 2003 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 16:26:07 -0000 Subject: [blml] A hard day's lawful labo(u)r. Message-ID: <002401c3bcfe$fd4aaaf0$052a2850@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott References: <002401c3bcfe$fd4aaaf0$052a2850@multivisionoem> Message-ID: At 4:26 PM +0000 12/7/03, Grattan Endicott wrote: > Hmm....... well, maybe the success of the day >lies in the fact that the text is the distillation asked >of me by colleagues from a previous text of just over >250 words. Sometimes the product is what is not >on the page. Pascal wrote "Je n'ai fait cette lettre-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte." A literal translation into English is, "I made this longer letter only because I did not have the leisure to make it shorter." A similar quote is (wrongly) attributed to Mark Twain. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From blml@blakjak.com Sun Dec 7 20:35:15 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 20:35:15 +0000 Subject: [blml] IBLF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: David Stevenson wrote > Please note this is not mean to be an argumentative site: if you think >the law should be changed, or is silly, or something, please say so on >RGB or BLML. But if you just want to know the penalties for revoke out >of turn by a kibitzer, IBLF is the place to go. Personal replies from Ed Reppert are unanswerable at the moment. If you are reading this, Ed, emails from me to you bounce. If not, anyone else know what the problem is? -- 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 Dec 7 21:32:13 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 22:32:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] IBLF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3bd09$94f40040$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson wrote > Personal replies from Ed Reppert are unanswerable at the moment. = If > you are reading this, Ed, emails from me to you bounce. If not, = anyone > else know what the problem is? I do not know what the problem "is", but I have a hunch: My suspicion is that your address is flagged by some DSNBL server(s) as = a source for SPAM and that Ed is connected to a mail server that detects = this "fact" and bounces your messages back to you instead of feeding them to = Ed's mailbox.=20 So how can this happen:=20 1: You may have sent out mass e-mails in some way or had other = activities that caused your IP-address to be registered as a SPAM provider, or 2 If you, like most of us is allocated a dynamic IP-address rather than having your own fixed private IP-address then a previous holder of your current IP-address may have been registered as a SPAM provider. And Ed may be using a mail server that performs SPAM-filtering by automatically rejecting (and bouncing) incoming e-mail from = SPAM-providers. Comments: 2) above is not as exotic as it may seem, I have noticed = several occasions of this happening with posters to blml. The last time I = remember a case like that Grattan had a post that had been marked this way.=20 A spam filter automatically bouncing messages is really a bad idea. It causes the addressee to lose possibly wanted messages and in some = cases it creates undesirable extra traffic on the internet.=20 A better idea is to flag the suspect message in some way (like blml = which inserts a SPAM-text in the subject line) and leave the final decision = how to handle the message to the addressee. I have found that the best way of dealing with spam is to use MailWasher which regularly scans my server for new mail and displays the headers = only in addition to possible SPAM warning but leaves it to me to decide = whether I will download the messages or whatever alternative action I want to = take.=20 My mail client is now configured to no longer retrieving messages automatically, it waits for me to select "send/receive" after first = having MailWasher processing those messages I do not want to receive. With the hope that this can be of some help Regards Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Dec 7 22:32:21 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 08:32:21 +1000 Subject: [blml] 12A1 Message-ID: Konrad Ciborowski asserted: [snip] >>In the same way that there would have been no penalties >>if dummy had revoked (because the defenders were at least >>partly responsible for noticing the defective dummy), so >>too there should be no adjustment here. David Stevenson differed: >The defenders are not responsible for a defective dummy. >The dummy player is required by Law to put his hand on the >table in a certain way and failed to do so. > >L12A1 leads to an assigned score. [snip] Richard James Hills pedants: I would use Law 72B1 ("...could have known at the time of his irregularity...") as a stepping-stone to a Law 12A1 adjustment. Best wishes RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Dec 7 22:58:38 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 08:58:38 +1000 Subject: [blml] Tippecanoe and Tyler too! Message-ID: >From the thread Something different! Gordon Rainsford wrote: >>>if the players then agree to designate one of their own to >>>perform the TD's functions, that person need not be >>>considered a TD. Ed Reppert asked: >>So what is he? Chopped liver? Gordon Rainsford replied: >That person would be the player designated to perform the >TD's functions. If the laws intended to insist that the >players appoint a TD from among their number, they could >have said so much more succinctly. Instead they chose to use >a more complex wording which avoids saying that such a >person *is* the TD. > >Remember that this sub-thread was started by Richard's >assertion that if there is no TD, it's not Duplicate Bridge. >I don't think the Laws support that view. [snip] Richard James Hills: In the 1840 USA Presidential election, the Whig Party won with the slogan "Tippecanoe and Tyler too!" Their candidate, General Harrison, had gained minor notoriety some decades earlier by massacring Native Americans at the battle of Tippecanoe. Harrison's running mate, Tyler, represented a group which had splintered from the opposing Democratic Party. Harrison gave an extremely boring and lengthy address at his inauguration in 1841 during an extremely cold and blustery day. He therefore fell ill, and a month later was the first American President to die in office. The Constitution of the United States was as ambiguous as Law 80A, so Tyler's political opponents (most of both the Whig Party and also the Democratic Party) wished to call him Acting President Tyler. He insisted on being called President Tyler, and returned unopened all correspondence to which included "Acting" in the address. Therefore, I continue to assert that a TD - not an acting TD - is needed to make a game of bridge a lawful game of Duplicate Bridge. I will concede that bridge now comes in three flavours, rather than the previous two flavours. I agree that Rubber Bridge and Duplicate Bridge have now been joined by the third flavour of Online Bridge, and that only one of these three flavours requires a (non-acting) TD. Best wishes RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From blml@blakjak.com Sun Dec 7 22:01:48 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 22:01:48 +0000 Subject: [blml] IBLF In-Reply-To: <000001c3bd09$94f40040$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c3bd09$94f40040$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson wrote >> Personal replies from Ed Reppert are unanswerable at the moment. If >> you are reading this, Ed, emails from me to you bounce. If not, anyone >> else know what the problem is? > >I do not know what the problem "is", but I have a hunch: > >My suspicion is that your address is flagged by some DSNBL server(s) as a >source for SPAM and that Ed is connected to a mail server that detects this >"fact" and bounces your messages back to you instead of feeding them to Ed's >mailbox. > >So how can this happen: >1: You may have sent out mass e-mails in some way or had other activities >that caused your IP-address to be registered as a SPAM provider, or >2 If you, like most of us is allocated a dynamic IP-address rather than >having your own fixed private IP-address then a previous holder of your >current IP-address may have been registered as a SPAM provider. I have no idea what my IP-address is or whether it is fixed. >And Ed may be using a mail server that performs SPAM-filtering by >automatically rejecting (and bouncing) incoming e-mail from SPAM-providers. > >Comments: 2) above is not as exotic as it may seem, I have noticed several >occasions of this happening with posters to blml. The last time I remember a >case like that Grattan had a post that had been marked this way. It is possible, of course, but do not most spam filters - as Mailwasher does - keep a list of good guys? I have emailed Ed regularly over the years. >A spam filter automatically bouncing messages is really a bad idea. >It causes the addressee to lose possibly wanted messages and in some cases >it creates undesirable extra traffic on the internet. >A better idea is to flag the suspect message in some way (like blml which >inserts a SPAM-text in the subject line) and leave the final decision how to >handle the message to the addressee. >I have found that the best way of dealing with spam is to use MailWasher >which regularly scans my server for new mail and displays the headers only >in addition to possible SPAM warning but leaves it to me to decide whether I >will download the messages or whatever alternative action I want to take. >My mail client is now configured to no longer retrieving messages >automatically, it waits for me to select "send/receive" after first having >MailWasher processing those messages I do not want to receive. It sounds a good idea, but I have just too much email to deal with it this way. I really do not want to go through 1200 headers every day. So, regrettably, I have to take more extreme anti-spam measures, and get Mailwasher Pro to do a lot of stuff without me seeing it. I have every sympathy for anyone else with similar problems coming to similar solutions. Let us pray that the recent initiatives in California and more recently in the USA generally are merely the start of making SPAM illegal around the world and then anti-spam measures might hot up. Both my male cats are sick of being offered bigger breasts and better car insurance. If anyone is out there - besides the obvious four who like winding me up and I have deliberately killfiled - who is surprised they cannot reach me, especially if they have received an email saying my eddress does not exist, then please write to me at b l u e j a k 6 6 6 { a t } h o t m a i l { d o t } c o m and I shall examine my Mailwasher files to see if it has managed to blacklist them in some way. Once someone is in the friends list then Mailwasher accepts the email even if it seems to be spam. -- 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 Dec 7 22:31:32 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 23:31:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] IBLF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c3bd11$dda46ca0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson wrote > It sounds a good idea, but I have just too much email to deal with = it > this way. I really do not want to go through 1200 headers every day. > So, regrettably, I have to take more extreme anti-spam measures, and = get > Mailwasher Pro to do a lot of stuff without me seeing it. I have = every > sympathy for anyone else with similar problems coming to similar > solutions. Fair enough. But if you set your filter to reject any mail automatically then make = sure the (default) action is only to delete it, not to bounce it! This is = most important when the processed message is large; say more than some 10K or = 15K in size or if it includes any attachment. (If your mailwasher lets you select the action also on such criteria it would normally be OK to set bounce for small suspicious messages without any attachment but please = avoid that on the rest). I have seen My MailWasher suggesting bounce in a lot of cases where that would not do any good for anybody but just contribute to overloading internet. Regards Sven From blml@wellsborocomputing.com Mon Dec 8 00:27:33 2003 From: blml@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 19:27:33 -0500 Subject: [blml] IBLF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <21h7tvkqrn234v1ctunkunqes7c5e0i3de@4ax.com> On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 20:35:15 +0000, you wrote: >David Stevenson wrote > >> Please note this is not mean to be an argumentative site: if you think >>the law should be changed, or is silly, or something, please say so on >>RGB or BLML. But if you just want to know the penalties for revoke out >>of turn by a kibitzer, IBLF is the place to go. > > Personal replies from Ed Reppert are unanswerable at the moment. If >you are reading this, Ed, emails from me to you bounce. If not, anyone >else know what the problem is? RoadRunner (ED's ISP) seem to have wound up their anti-spam policies of late, messages posted via my ISP to RoadRunner addresses are bouncing because RoadRunner believe my ISP's mailserver to be responsible for unacceptable amounts of spam. If you look at the top of the bounce message, David, it will be very clear if this is the answer. If it is, all you can do is to contact Demon and tell them that RoadRunner has blacklisted them, and/or get someone whose outgoing mailserver is not on RoadRunner's blacklist to forward replies to Ed for you. Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 8 01:13:03 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 11:13:03 +1000 Subject: [blml] Monte-Carlo Appeal 1, deposit discussion Message-ID: http://fsbridge.nexenservices.com/2003/wtc/appeals.html [big snip] >Deposit: In discussing the merit of the appeal it was >pointed out that even if East's 5H bid had been judged >to have been the proximal cause of his side's poor >result, and had they consequently been left with the >table result, N/S would still have been responsible >for causing E/W to get beyond game, and so they could >never expect to receive a more favorable score than >the one assigned them by the TD. This is precisely the >sort of appeal (where a pair causes damage and insists >that their opponents should have recovered from it >anyhow and that they, the offenders, should be allowed >to keep their ill-gotten result) that we wish to >inhibit. [snip] Richard James Hills asks: Why should the WBF AC "wish to inhibit" a team from launching this "sort of appeal"? It is futile to appeal in an infinitely large multiple teams event, if your team is certain to retain its current score of 11 vps, whether or not your appeal is a successful appeal. In an infinitely large multiple teams event, why launch an appeal merely to reduce your current opponents' score from 19 vps to 16 vps? But only 16 teams played in the qualifying round of the Bermuda Bowl. Therefore, a "beggar-my-neighbour" strategy of appealing is, in my opinion, sporting. What if the AC had ruled that the bidding of the NOS was IWOG, and awarded a split score? What if that split score had resulted in the OS team subsequently squeaking past the NOS team for the last qualifying place? What is the inhibited problem? Best wishes RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Dec 8 01:54:37 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 01:54:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] Monte-Carlo Appeal 1, deposit discussion References: Message-ID: <045a01c3bd2e$3f2f0fe0$fd9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Richard James Hills] What if the AC had ruled that the bidding of the NOS was IWOG, and awarded a split score? What if that split score had resulted in the OS team subsequently squeaking past the NOS team for the last qualifying place? What is the inhibited problem? [Nigel] Phew! In the end, you did mention a selfish motive! That's a relief because, to begin with, you were arguing like the heretics, who claim that you should act altruistically to "protect the field" so preventing evil-doers from enjoying their ill-gotten gains. Stupid of me. Everybody should be aware by now that field-protection is sacrilege. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 06/12/2003 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Dec 8 01:56:16 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 01:56:16 -0000 Subject: [blml] Monte-Carlo Appeal 1, deposit discussion Message-ID: <046101c3bd2e$78690680$fd9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Richard James Hills] What if the AC had ruled that the bidding of the NOS was IWOG, and awarded a split score? What if that split score had resulted in the OS team subsequently squeaking past the NOS team for the last qualifying place? What is the inhibited problem? [Nigel] Phew! In the end, you did mention a selfish motive! That's a relief because, to begin with, you were arguing like the heretics, who claim that you should act altruistically to "protect the field" so preventing evil-doers from enjoying their ill-gotten gains. Stupid of me. Everybody should be aware by now that field-protection is sacrilege. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 06/12/2003 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Dec 8 01:55:32 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 01:55:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] Monte-Carlo Appeal 1, deposit discussion References: Message-ID: <045b01c3bd2e$5e16be80$fd9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Richard James Hills] What if the AC had ruled that the bidding of the NOS was IWOG, and awarded a split score? What if that split score had resulted in the OS team subsequently squeaking past the NOS team for the last qualifying place? What is the inhibited problem? [Nigel] Phew! In the end, you did mention a selfish motive! That's a relief because, to begin with, you were arguing like the heretics, who claim that you should act altruistically to "protect the field" so preventing evil-doers from enjoying their ill-gotten gains. Stupid of me. Everybody should be aware by now that field-protection is sacrilege. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 06/12/2003 From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Dec 8 02:16:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 02:16 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Something different! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > In which case this *particular* Individual was run in > violation of Law 80A, so cannot be called Duplicate > Bridge, so discussions of the legality of actions > taken at an individual table of this Individual are > moot. L80A encompasses the concept that bridge can be played without a TD. The premier knock-out team competitions in the UK are also played without a TD (it being a right PITA trying to get a TD round to people's homes to supervise all the matches. Perhaps you would be so kind as speculate on a purely theoretical case where a TD was present and called "two minutes to finish the round" and players at one table agreed to pass out two hands rather than be penalised for slow play. What law have they broken and what law would the TD invoke in order to award adjusted scores (assume they looked at their cards)? Tim From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 8 02:25:42 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 21:25:42 -0500 Subject: [blml] IBLF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sunday, Dec 7, 2003, at 15:35 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > Personal replies from Ed Reppert are unanswerable at the moment. If > you are reading this, Ed, emails from me to you bounce. If not, > anyone else know what the problem is? I am reading this. I suspect that Sven is right - somewhere between us someone, or something, has decided you message to me is spam. Annoying, and I shall attempt to look into it from my end - but my isp is singularly unhelpful about such things, so I hold out little hope. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 8 02:29:37 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 21:29:37 -0500 Subject: [blml] IBLF In-Reply-To: <21h7tvkqrn234v1ctunkunqes7c5e0i3de@4ax.com> Message-ID: <5E23E3C8-2926-11D8-B8EE-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Sunday, Dec 7, 2003, at 19:27 US/Eastern, Brian Meadows wrote: > RoadRunner (ED's ISP) seem to have wound up their anti-spam > policies of late, messages posted via my ISP to RoadRunner > addresses are bouncing because RoadRunner believe my ISP's > mailserver to be responsible for unacceptable amounts of spam. > > If you look at the top of the bounce message, David, it will be > very clear if this is the answer. If it is, all you can do is to > contact Demon and tell them that RoadRunner has blacklisted them, > and/or get someone whose outgoing mailserver is not on > RoadRunner's blacklist to forward replies to Ed for you. This is about what I've seen on RoadRunner's support newsgroup as an explanation for (and in some cases complaint about :) the problem. Sometimes, ISPs have managed to get off RR's blacklist, but complaints from RR users don't seem to do it. From Anne Jones" Message-ID: <001601c3bd33$7e7f9ca0$ba2d6651@annespc> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 2:16 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Something different! > Richard wrote: > > In which case this *particular* Individual was run in > > violation of Law 80A, so cannot be called Duplicate > > Bridge, so discussions of the legality of actions > > taken at an individual table of this Individual are > > moot. > > L80A encompasses the concept that bridge can be played without a TD. The > premier knock-out team competitions in the UK are also played without a TD > (it being a right PITA trying to get a TD round to people's homes to > supervise all the matches. > > Perhaps you would be so kind as speculate on a purely theoretical case > where a TD was present and called "two minutes to finish the round" and > players at one table agreed to pass out two hands rather than be penalised > for slow play. What law have they broken and what law would the TD > invoke in order to award adjusted scores (assume they looked at their > cards)? > > Tim > In this instance Tim, there has been no agreement between the players, to pass the boards out, before or after looking at the faces of their cards, nor any instruction from one of them to do so. > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From blml@blakjak.com Mon Dec 8 02:55:23 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 02:55:23 +0000 Subject: [blml] IBLF In-Reply-To: <5E23E3C8-2926-11D8-B8EE-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <21h7tvkqrn234v1ctunkunqes7c5e0i3de@4ax.com> <5E23E3C8-2926-11D8-B8EE-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote > >On Sunday, Dec 7, 2003, at 19:27 US/Eastern, Brian Meadows wrote: > >> RoadRunner (ED's ISP) seem to have wound up their anti-spam >> policies of late, messages posted via my ISP to RoadRunner >> addresses are bouncing because RoadRunner believe my ISP's >> mailserver to be responsible for unacceptable amounts of spam. >> >> If you look at the top of the bounce message, David, it will be >> very clear if this is the answer. If it is, all you can do is to >> contact Demon and tell them that RoadRunner has blacklisted them, >> and/or get someone whose outgoing mailserver is not on >> RoadRunner's blacklist to forward replies to Ed for you. > >This is about what I've seen on RoadRunner's support newsgroup as an >explanation for (and in some cases complaint about :) the problem. >Sometimes, ISPs have managed to get off RR's blacklist, but complaints >from RR users don't seem to do it. Perhaps if Roadrunner are going to block BT then we should block AT&T in retaliation! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 8 04:01:57 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 14:01:57 +1000 Subject: [blml] Tippecanoe and Tyler too! Message-ID: Tim wrote: >L80A encompasses the concept that bridge can >be played without a TD. RJH replies: Call me obtuse, but my interpretation of Law 80A is the exact opposite. I think what Law 80A states is: (1) "A sponsoring organisation ..... has the following duties ..... to appoint the tournament Director ....." and, if the SO has failed in its duties, then -> (2) "..... the players should designate one of their own number ....." Furthermore, the word "should" - according to the Scope and Interpretation of the Laws - means that "..... failure to do it is an infraction of Law ....." Therefore, a Duplicate Bridge session without a TD is unLawful. QED. Tim continues: >The premier knock-out team competitions in the >UK are also played without a TD [snip] RJH replies: I disagree. The UK premier knock-out team competitions are played *with* a TD. Nowhere in the Laws is it stated that the TD must be in the same room as the players, so the UK practice of sometimes having a TD give a ruling by telephone is, in my opinion, Lawful. Best wishes Richard James Hills -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 8 04:23:49 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 14:23:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] Something different! Message-ID: Tim West-Meads asked: [snip] >>Perhaps you would be so kind as speculate on a >>purely theoretical case where a TD was present >>and called "two minutes to finish the round" and >>players at one table agreed to pass out two >>hands rather than be penalised for slow play. >> >>What law have they broken and what law would the >>TD invoke in order to award adjusted scores >>(assume they looked at their cards)? Anne Jones replied: >In this instance Tim, there has been no agreement >between the players, to pass the boards out, >before or after looking at the faces of their >cards, nor any instruction from one of them to do >so. Richard James Hills concurs: In important Canberra and Aussie imp events, my regular partner is somewhat slow. I often somewhat prematurely claim my contracts - ignoring the chance of trivial overtricks - in order to reduce the chance of a non-trivial slow play penalty. In a multiple teams event, is my strategy of donating overtricks to my immediate opponents unfair to their rivals? Or is it the SO which is at fault, for regulating slow play score penalties? Best wishes RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From toddz@att.net Mon Dec 8 04:36:47 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 23:36:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] IBLF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: David Stevenson > Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 9:55 PM > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] IBLF > > Perhaps if Roadrunner are going to block BT then we > should block AT&T in retaliation! AT&T have already blocked demon.co.uk, unless they've stopped blocking recently. -Todd From walt1@verizon.net Mon Dec 8 05:14:29 2003 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 00:14:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] IBLF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.0.20031208000922.043fc600@incoming.verizon.net> At 11:36 PM 7/12/2003, Todd Zimnoch wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: David Stevenson > > Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 9:55 PM > > To: blml@rtflb.org > > Subject: Re: [blml] IBLF > > > > Perhaps if Roadrunner are going to block BT then we > > should block AT&T in retaliation! > > AT&T have already blocked demon.co.uk, unless they've stopped >blocking recently. > >-Todd ... and Verizon (which in this area used to be Bell Atlantic) blocked RoadRunner last month. Thank goodness a complaint (which I suggested that a RoadRunner customer who was trying to contact me make) got the problem straightened out in only three days. This blocking strategy is a pain. It made some sense when complaints regarding spam were made to an ISP who refused to do anything. I don't think any complaints are made before blacklisting anymore and that is a real bummer. Walt From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 8 07:17:44 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 17:17:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] Monte-Carlo Appeal #5 - MI rewarded? Message-ID: [big snip] >they would have arrived in 3NT if North had >been given a more consistent explanation. EW >produced their convention card for the >committee's inspection upon request but did >not wish to add to the discussion. > >The Committee: Agreed that the Convention >Card failed to describe the 2S bid. Agreed >North was entitled to the margin of doubt as >to which explanation was correct, but >considered North had contributed to the poor >result for NS by his failure to make the 2NT >bid that was supported by a number of the >players consulted by the Director even if >the 2S bid has a constructive element to it. > >The Committee's Decision: Award of a >weighted score under Law 12C3. 50% of 3NT by >North =3D 9 tricks. 50% of 4D by North =3D 10 >tricks. > >Deposit: returned. RJH asks: Should the philosophy of UI and MI rulings be that of homoiousios, or that of homoousios? Does it make an iota of difference? A UI-informed partnership may not select an indicated winning logical alternative. Should an MI-misinformed partnership be deemed to have avoided selecting a losing misindicated logical alternative? A UI-using partnership is never partially rewarded by 50% of a good score. (Unless the TD or AC chooses an illogical Reveley ruling.) But the precedent set by the above ruling, is failing to complete a convention card, and then giving a misleading explanation, will be partially rewarded by 50% of a good score to the MI infractors. :-( Best wishes Richard James Hills -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 8 07:34:00 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 02:34:00 -0500 Subject: [blml] IBLF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sunday, Dec 7, 2003, at 21:55 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > Perhaps if Roadrunner are going to block BT then we should block AT&T > in retaliation! Roadrunner belongs to TimeWarner, which belongs, iirc, to AOHell. Don't know who owns AT&T (or who AT&T owns) this week. From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Mon Dec 8 10:33:55 2003 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 10:33:55 -0000 Subject: [blml] Something different! Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1433@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Tim West-Meads wrote: L80A encompasses the concept that bridge can be played without a TD. The = premier knock-out team competitions in the UK are also played without a = TD=20 (it being a right PITA trying to get a TD round to people's homes to=20 supervise all the matches. Frances That's not really true. You get a list of TD and referee phone numbers to call if you need a ruling. As there are no time limits, you don't = need a TD present to organise the movement. In practice I suspect most mechanical rulings (revokes, LOOT etc) are = managed with the aid of the rule book rather than the telephone, but the TD is = there if you need him or her, and is certainly used for difficult or judgement = rulings. From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Mon Dec 8 10:46:37 2003 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 10:46:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] OLOOT - self ruling Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1434@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> John Probst: > I think this is about right in a club event. Had the=20 > player given the 5 options to the opponent as if he=20 > were ruling from the book, then I'd leave it alone. > I'm pretty sure Sven would agree with that too. Sven: I would indeed - with a playing director who could appreciate some assistance and a player who knew what he was doing and who made the = correct ruling. Frances: I disagree with this approach. Only yesterday there was a LOOT=20 by my partner, and in spite of the fact I know the 5 options backwards we called the director. If I am allowed to give my own rulings at the table, why shouldn't other people? This just leads to too many poor players being browbeaten by experienced but wrong players into accepting incorrect rulings. We already see opponents telling us our claims = aren't valid because 'we can make you discard your ace on dummy's winner' and = that 'you aren't allowed to think for more than 1 minute' and that 'if = partner hesitated you aren't allowed to bid' etc etc. Players _must_ be trained to CALL THE DIRECTOR. My only exception is if there is a playing director and either i) all 4 = players at the table are experienced with the rules and agree on the ruling or = ii) one of the players is known to be an experienced TD and it's a simple ruling = they'd be expected to know by heart (such as a LOOT or a revoke). Being known = to be an 'expert' is no guarentee someone knows the laws. With a non-playing director there is no excuse. From svenpran@online.no Mon Dec 8 11:25:09 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 12:25:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] OLOOT - self ruling In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1434@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <000401c3bd7d$f0336e90$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Hinden, Frances SI-PXS > John Probst: > > I think this is about right in a club event. Had the > > player given the 5 options to the opponent as if he > > were ruling from the book, then I'd leave it alone. > > I'm pretty sure Sven would agree with that too. >=20 > Sven: >=20 > I would indeed - with a playing director who could appreciate some > assistance and a player who knew what he was doing and who made the > correct > ruling. Frances: I believe you read more into our answers than is called for. = When I wrote "a player who knew what he was doing" I meant a qualified director known to me as such. And all the players in our club know that. I would never dream of letting any player however "expert" make any = ruling on his own unless I knew him to be a qualified director, but in a = stressed situation it frequently happens that we (those of us who are qualified) = help each other even if just one of us is the formal director at that event. And so far we have had no problem with consent from the other players at = a table where this occurs, those players know us too well to fear = incompetent rulings. Regards Sven =20 > Frances: >=20 > I disagree with this approach. Only yesterday there was a LOOT > by my partner, and in spite of the fact I know the 5 options backwards > we called the director. If I am allowed to give my own rulings at the > table, why shouldn't other people? This just leads to too many poor > players being browbeaten by experienced but wrong players into = accepting > incorrect rulings. We already see opponents telling us our claims = aren't > valid because 'we can make you discard your ace on dummy's winner' and > that > 'you aren't allowed to think for more than 1 minute' and that 'if = partner > hesitated you aren't allowed to bid' etc etc. Players _must_ be = trained > to CALL THE DIRECTOR. >=20 > My only exception is if there is a playing director and either i) all = 4 > players > at the table are experienced with the rules and agree on the ruling or = ii) > one > of the players is known to be an experienced TD and it's a simple = ruling > they'd > be expected to know by heart (such as a LOOT or a revoke). Being = known to > be > an 'expert' is no guarentee someone knows the laws. >=20 > With a non-playing director there is no excuse. >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Dec 8 11:27:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 11:27 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Something different! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Anne and Richard wrote: > >>Perhaps you would be so kind as speculate on a > >>purely theoretical case where a TD was present > >>and called "two minutes to finish the round" and > >>players at one table agreed to pass out two > >>hands rather than be penalised for slow play. > >> > >>What law have they broken and what law would the > >>TD invoke in order to award adjusted scores > >>(assume they looked at their cards)? > > Anne Jones replied: > > >In this instance Tim, there has been no agreement > >between the players, to pass the boards out, > >before or after looking at the faces of their > >cards, nor any instruction from one of them to do > >so. > > Richard James Hills concurs: I don't understand. In both this example and the original the players have agreed to pass out 2 boards before looking at their hands. In neither this example or the original was there an "instruction" to pass out the hands, there was a suggestion from one player with which the other three players agreed. The only difference between the two cases is the existence of a TD (but in neither case was the TD involved in the suggestion/agreement to pass out). BTW I fully agree with Richard that it would be wrong for a TD to instruct players to pass out hands in similar circumstances. I am less sure if it would be illegal for one to say "Guys, if you want to take pot-luck and pass these two out you will avoid time penalties but the choice must be yours - maybe you can just play them really quickly." Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Dec 8 11:27:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 11:27 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Tippecanoe and Tyler too! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Tim wrote: > > >L80A encompasses the concept that bridge can > >be played without a TD. > > RJH replies: > > Call me obtuse, but my interpretation of Law > 80A is the exact opposite. I think what Law > 80A states is: > > (1) "A sponsoring organisation ..... has the > following duties ..... to appoint the > tournament Director ....." A tad unclear - is this a "duty" or a "power"? I would consider it the latter rather than the former but I admit it could be either. L80F for example is clearly better seen as a "power" than a "duty" while L80G is clearly better as a duty. > (2) "..... the players should designate one > of their own number ....." Less clear is *when* the players should so designate. I would consider the idea that doing only when "TD functions" are required would be adequate. However this is perhaps moot. The EBU has accepted that BCL may issue masterpoints for competitions where no TD has been appointed/selected and this has been the case for quite some time. > Furthermore, the word "should" - according to > the Scope and Interpretation of the Laws - > means that "..... failure to do it is an > infraction of Law ....." > > Therefore, a Duplicate Bridge session > without a TD is unLawful. > > QED. I strongly disagree. In the case that players select someone to perform the duties of a TD the person selected does not suddenly become a TD. > Tim continues: > > >The premier knock-out team competitions in the > >UK are also played without a TD > > [snip] > > RJH replies: > > I disagree. The UK premier knock-out team > competitions are played *with* a TD. There is no TD appointed by the SO. Nobody is designated unless one is required. The teams are free, at such a point, to designate any TD they so desire (including one of their own number) - they are also free to agree on a ruling amongst themselves without appointing/involving a TD. > Nowhere in the Laws is it stated that the TD > must be in the same room as the players, so the > UK practice of sometimes having a TD give a > ruling by telephone is, in my opinion, Lawful. I agree, but I also think the practice of doing without a TD is lawful as well. Tim From john@asimere.com Mon Dec 8 12:07:19 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 12:07:19 +0000 Subject: [blml] Something different! In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1433@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1433@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <3L08eJA3lG1$Ewr1@asimere.com> In article <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1433@lonsc-s- 031.europe.shell.com>, Hinden, Frances SI-PXS writes >Tim West-Meads wrote: > >L80A encompasses the concept that bridge can be played without a TD. The >premier knock-out team competitions in the UK are also played without a TD >(it being a right PITA trying to get a TD round to people's homes to >supervise all the matches. > >Frances > >That's not really true. You get a list of TD and referee phone numbers >to call if you need a ruling. As there are no time limits, you don't need a >TD present to organise the movement. > >In practice I suspect most mechanical rulings (revokes, LOOT etc) are managed >with the aid of the rule book rather than the telephone, but the TD is there >if you need him or her, and is certainly used for difficult or judgement >rulings. I get about half a dozen calls a year for rulings for private matches played at home. ninety per cent are judgement rulings but I did get a call from a match where one table sat the wrong way. (I even knew the answer off the top of my head). I don't know whether the other UK TDs get these calls (admittedly mamos DWS and myself are all down for "don't call BEFORE 11 am") :) > >_______________________________________________ >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 Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Mon Dec 8 13:29:28 2003 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 13:29:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] Qualification Methods Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB143E@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Yesterday I played in a heat of the local (county) pairs championship. = There were 20 tables, with 8 pairs qualifying for the final next year. = The competitions brochure said that 'at least' 30 boards would be played = but I would say there was very little enthusiasm for playing any more = than 30. The director chose to play a 20-table non-arrow-switched = Mitchell with 15 2-board rounds, with the top 4 pairs in each direction = qualifying. There was a random draw for starting positions. Is this really the right approach? Wouldn't it be better to arrow = switch some mumber of rounds and just have the top 8 pairs qualifying? = Or should there be two all-play-all sections, not necessarily of the = same size?=20 NB to those from the ACBL: Starting positions in this sort of event are = never, ever seeded and the suggestion would be laughed out of the room. = Seeding by masterpoints would also not (IMO) result in the best players = being the top seeds. Frances From svenpran@online.no Mon Dec 8 16:35:29 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 17:35:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Qualification Methods In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB143E@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <000701c3bda9$4ae91da0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Hinden, Frances SI-PXS > Yesterday I played in a heat of the local (county) pairs championship. > There were 20 tables, with 8 pairs qualifying for the final next year. > The competitions brochure said that 'at least' 30 boards would be = played > but I would say there was very little enthusiasm for playing any more = than > 30. The director chose to play a 20-table non-arrow-switched Mitchell > with 15 2-board rounds, with the top 4 pairs in each direction = qualifying. > There was a random draw for starting positions. >=20 > Is this really the right approach? Wouldn't it be better to arrow = switch > some mumber of rounds and just have the top 8 pairs qualifying? Or = should > there be two all-play-all sections, not necessarily of the same size? >=20 > NB to those from the ACBL: Starting positions in this sort of event = are > never, ever seeded and the suggestion would be laughed out of the = room. > Seeding by masterpoints would also not (IMO) result in the best = players > being the top seeds. Except that I would have demanded 40 boards for a complete (20 rounds) Mitchell this is precisely the correct approach once you are = predetermined to play Mitchell. No arrow switching, random allocation of starting positions and an equal number of qualifying pairs from each direction. A possibly better alternative could have been to make it two Mitchell = groups each with 10 tables playing 3 boards per round for ten rounds. In that = case two pairs should qualify from each group and direction. Regards Sven From blml@blakjak.com Mon Dec 8 17:06:22 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 17:06:22 +0000 Subject: [blml] Qualification Methods In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB143E@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB143E@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: Hinden, Frances wrote >Yesterday I played in a heat of the local (county) pairs championship. >There were 20 tables, with 8 pairs qualifying for the final next year. >The competitions brochure said that 'at least' 30 boards would be >played but I would say there was very little enthusiasm for playing any >more than 30. The director chose to play a 20-table non-arrow-switched >Mitchell with 15 2-board rounds, with the top 4 pairs in each direction >qualifying. There was a random draw for starting positions. > >Is this really the right approach? Wouldn't it be better to arrow >switch some mumber of rounds and just have the top 8 pairs qualifying? >Or should there be two all-play-all sections, not necessarily of the >same size? The right approach is very subjective. Total fairness to the exclusion of everything else will always appeal to some people - including a fair proportion of BLML members - but amongst actual players the proportion is pretty low. I think that the way your TD handled it is mediocre to fair. I do not really think that all-play-all is suitable for qualifying events - it just does not feel right. As for arrow-switching, sure it is needed for single-winner, but this was a qualifying. Two separate fields of four from twenty is just as good as one of eight from forty. Anyway, this was just one heat, so what advantage to all-play-all or fewer fields? But one thing that does push the fairness so far off as to worry is only playing 15 sets out of 20: that is iffy. Some sort of movement by which there were no more than 32/33 boards in play would be ok. The experts following me will tell you the movement. -- 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 webinfo@mailbox.hu Mon Dec 8 18:24:02 2003 From: webinfo@mailbox.hu (webinfo@mailbox.hu) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 18:24:02 UT Subject: [blml] Akciós ajánlatok a legkülönbözõbb helyekrõl Message-ID: <200312081824.hB8IO2nN021012@2.hirlevel.com> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --_----------=_10709078422421552180 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_----------=_10709078422421552181" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME::Lite 2.117 (F2.71; B2.12; Q2.03) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 18:24:02 UT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --_----------=_10709078422421552181 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Length: 1131 Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME::Lite 2.117 (F2.71; B2.12; Q2.03) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 18:24:02 UT Kedves C=EDmzett! =20 El=F5zetes hozz=E1j=E1rul=E1s=E1t szeretn=E9m k=E9rni, hogy az =D6n r=E9sz= =E9re egy r=F6vid t=E1j=E9koztat=F3t, egy elektronikus sz=F3r=F3lapot k=FCl= dhessek nemr=E9g elk=E9sz=FClt honlapomr=F3l. =20 Az oldalam az al=E1bbi t=E9m=E1kkal foglalkozik: - Ingyenes SMS k=FCld=E9s - Fogyaszt=F3v=E9delem - Egynapos akci=F3k, v=E9gki=E1rus=EDt=E1sok, nyerem=E9nyj=E1t=E9kok folyam= atos figyel=E9se - =C1rak =F6sszevet=E9se, hogy mindenki eld=F6nthesse val=F3ban akci=F3s-e = ami "akci=F3s" - Exclusive =E1ll=E1slehet=F5s=E9gek - Ingyenes Apr=F3hirdet=E9s felad=E1s lehet=F5s=E9ge b=E1rkinek. - =D6tletek Kar=E1csonyra =20 Amennyiben szeretne b=F5vebb t=E1j=E9koztat=E1st kapni, k=E9rem k=FCldj=F6n= egy levelet a webinfo@mailbox.hu c=EDmre, vagy v=E1laszoljon erre a lev=E9= lre, =E9s automatikus v=E1laszk=E9nt elk=FCld=F6m =D6nnek az ismertet=F5t. =20 El=F5re is k=F6sz=F6n=F6m megtisztel=F5 =E9rdekl=F5d=E9s=E9t. =20 Amennyiben levelemmel zavartam volna, sz=EDves eln=E9z=E9s=E9t k=E9rem. =20 =DCdv=F6zlettel Juhos L=E1szl=F3 =20 =20 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- E-mail c=EDm=E9t egy t=F6bb nyerem=E9nyj=E1t=E9kban r=E9sztvev=F5ket tartal= maz=F3 adatb=E1zisb=F3l v=E1lasztottam ki. A j=F6v=F5ben semmilyen levelet = sem k=FCld=F6k =D6nnek. Esetleges =E9szrev=E9teleit k=E9rem k=FCldje a reag= @mailbox.hu c=EDmre. --_----------=_10709078422421552181 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Length: 2454 Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-2" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME::Lite 2.117 (F2.71; B2.12; Q2.03) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 18:24:02 UT =0D =0D =0D =0D =0D =0D =0D =0D =0D =0D =0D =0D =0D =0D =0D =0D =0D =0D =0D
=0D =0D Kedves C=EDmzett!=0D =0D
=0D =0D =0D
=0D =A0=0D
=0D =0D =0D
=0D =0D
=0D El=F5zetes hozz=E1j=E1rul=E1s=E1t szeretn=E9m k=E9rni, hogy =0D az =D6n r=E9sz=E9re egy r=F6vid t=E1j=E9koztat=F3t, egy elektronikus sz=F3r= =F3lapot k=FCldhessek =0D nemr=E9g elk=E9sz=FClt honlapomr=F3l.=0D =0D
=0D =0D =0D
=0D =A0=0D
=0D =0D =0D
=0D =0D Az oldalam az al=E1bbi t=E9m=E1kkal =0D foglalkozik:=0D
=0D -=A0Ingyenes SMS k=FCld=E9s=0D
=0D -=A0Fogyaszt=F3v=E9delem=0D
=0D -=A0Egynapos =0D akci=F3k, v=E9gki=E1rus=EDt=E1sok, nyerem=E9nyj=E1t=E9kok folyamatos figyel= =E9se=0D
=0D -=A0=C1rak =0D =F6sszevet=E9se, hogy mindenki eld=F6nthesse val=F3ban akci=F3s-e ami =0D "akci=F3s"=0D
=0D -=A0Exclusive =E1ll=E1slehet=F5s=E9gek=0D
=0D -=A0Ingyenes Apr=F3hirdet=E9s felad=E1s =0D lehet=F5s=E9ge b=E1rkinek.=0D
=0D -=A0=D6tletek Kar=E1csonyra=0D =0D
=0D =0D =0D
=0D =A0=0D
=0D =0D =0D
=0D =0D Amennyiben szeretne b=F5vebb t=E1j=E9koztat=E1st kapni, =0D k=E9rem k=FCldj=F6n egy levelet a =0D =0D webinfo@mailbox.hu=0D =0D c=EDmre, vagy v=E1laszoljon =0D erre a lev=E9lre, =E9s automatikus v=E1laszk=E9nt elk=FCld=F6m =D6nnek az = =0D ismertet=F5t.=0D =0D
=0D =0D =0D
=0D =A0=0D
=0D =0D =0D
=0D =0D El=F5re is k=F6sz=F6n=F6m megtisztel=F5 =0D =E9rdekl=F5d=E9s=E9t.=0D =0D
=0D =0D =0D
=0D =A0=0D
=0D =0D =0D
=0D =0D Amennyiben levelemmel zavartam volna, sz=EDves =0D eln=E9z=E9s=E9t k=E9rem.=0D =0D
=0D =0D =0D
=0D =A0=0D
=0D =0D =0D
=0D =0D
=0D =DCdv=F6zlettel=0D
=0D Juhos L=E1szl=F3=0D =0D
=0D =0D =0D
=0D =A0=0D
=0D =0D =0D
=0D =0D =0D =A0=0D
=0D =0D =0D
=0D =0D =0D
=0D =0D =0D
=0D =0D =0D
=0D =0D E-mail c=EDm=E9t egy t=F6bb nyerem=E9nyj=E1t=E9kban =0D r=E9sztvev=F5ket tartalmaz=F3 adatb=E1zisb=F3l v=E1lasztottam ki. A j=F6v= =F5ben semmilyen =0D levelet sem k=FCld=F6k =D6nnek. Esetleges =E9szrev=E9teleit k=E9rem k=FCldj= e a =0D =0D reag@mailbox.hu=0D =0D c=EDmre.=0D =0D
=0D =0D =0D =0D =0D =0D =0D =0D =0D --_----------=_10709078422421552181-- --_----------=_10709078422421552180-- From john@asimere.com Mon Dec 8 19:24:59 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 19:24:59 +0000 Subject: [blml] Qualification Methods In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB143E@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB143E@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: In article <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB143E@lonsc-s- 031.europe.shell.com>, Hinden, Frances SI-PXS writes >Yesterday I played in a heat of the local (county) pairs championship. There >were 20 tables, with 8 pairs qualifying for the final next year. The >competitions brochure said that 'at least' 30 boards would be played but I would >say there was very little enthusiasm for playing any more than 30. The director >chose to play a 20-table non-arrow-switched Mitchell with 15 2-board rounds, >with the top 4 pairs in each direction qualifying. There was a random draw for >starting positions. > >Is this really the right approach? Wouldn't it be better to arrow switch some >mumber of rounds and just have the top 8 pairs qualifying? Or should there be >two all-play-all sections, not necessarily of the same size? > >NB to those from the ACBL: Starting positions in this sort of event are never, >ever seeded and the suggestion would be laughed out of the room. Seeding by >masterpoints would also not (IMO) result in the best players being the top >seeds. > >Frances It's a given that arrowswitching works correctly (peace Sven, peace) only when the movement is completed. It is an abject failure if fewer than 80% of the opposing line are played. The TD followed EBU guidelines here. A reasonable alternative would have been 2 x ten table sections, playing 10 x 3 board rounds, no switch and qualify 2 from each line, or possibly arrow switch 1 round and qualify 4 from each section, but it's not as good. > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Mon Dec 8 19:25:34 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 19:25:34 +0000 Subject: [blml] Qualification Methods In-Reply-To: <000701c3bda9$4ae91da0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB143E@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <000701c3bda9$4ae91da0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <000701c3bda9$4ae91da0$6900a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >> Hinden, Frances SI-PXS >> Yesterday I played in a heat of the local (county) pairs championship. >> There were 20 tables, with 8 pairs qualifying for the final next year. >> The competitions brochure said that 'at least' 30 boards would be played >> but I would say there was very little enthusiasm for playing any more than >> 30. The director chose to play a 20-table non-arrow-switched Mitchell >> with 15 2-board rounds, with the top 4 pairs in each direction qualifying. >> There was a random draw for starting positions. >> >> Is this really the right approach? Wouldn't it be better to arrow switch >> some mumber of rounds and just have the top 8 pairs qualifying? Or should >> there be two all-play-all sections, not necessarily of the same size? >> >> NB to those from the ACBL: Starting positions in this sort of event are >> never, ever seeded and the suggestion would be laughed out of the room. >> Seeding by masterpoints would also not (IMO) result in the best players >> being the top seeds. > >Except that I would have demanded 40 boards for a complete (20 rounds) >Mitchell this is precisely the correct approach once you are predetermined >to play Mitchell. > >No arrow switching, random allocation of starting positions and an equal >number of qualifying pairs from each direction. > >A possibly better alternative could have been to make it two Mitchell groups >each with 10 tables playing 3 boards per round for ten rounds. In that case >two pairs should qualify from each group and direction. Hmm, Sven and me in agreement :) > >Regards Sven > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Dec 8 20:36:14 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 20:36:14 -0000 Subject: [blml] Lawful recreation. References: <002401c3bcfe$fd4aaaf0$052a2850@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <002901c3bdcb$073c29e0$f82c87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Grattan Endicott" Cc: "blml" Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 8:32 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A hard day's lawful labo(u)r. > At 4:26 PM +0000 12/7/03, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > Hmm....... well, maybe the success of the day > >lies in the fact that the text is the distillation asked > >of me by colleagues from a previous text of just over > >250 words. Sometimes the product is what is not > >on the page. > > Pascal wrote "Je n'ai fait cette lettre-ci plus longue que parce que > je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte." A literal > translation into English is, "I made this longer letter only because > I did not have the leisure to make it shorter." > > A similar quote is (wrongly) attributed to Mark Twain. > +=+ Invoice to WBF Treasurer To leisure expenditure .. inks, stationery, internet charges $US 250 Performance (addictive) .. 0. ?? ~ G ~ +=+ From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Dec 8 20:45:38 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 12:45:38 -0800 Subject: [blml] Qualification Methods References: <000701c3bda9$4ae91da0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <004c01c3bdcc$3e55e320$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Sven Pran" >A possibly better alternative could have been to make it two Mitchell groups >each with 10 tables playing 3 boards per round for ten rounds. In that case >two pairs should qualify from each group and direction. Yes, this seems right. Probably the boards should be duplicated, but no matchpointing across the field. Each group is on its own. Pairs competing for qualification will then play (all) the same hands, face (all) the same opponents, and compare all results with every other pair in their group. Very fair. If I understand right, it is customary to use random seating over there. For this type of event, I cannot understand why a seeding committee should not seed a number of the best pairs, distributing them among the four lines. What's wrong with that? Doesn't it maximize the chance that the best pairs will qualify? The ACBL seeding committee does such a fine job for NABC+ events that I have never heard a complaint about their work. In the old days seeding was in effect done by the players. If your line looked too strong, you complained to the TD and s/he would probably switch some pairs. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Mon Dec 8 10:00:03 2003 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 10:00:03 -0000 Subject: [blml] IBLF References: <5E23E3C8-2926-11D8-B8EE-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <001301c3bdcf$ddec0ba0$0f242850@multivisionoem> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 2:29 AM Subject: Re: [blml] IBLF > > ISPs have managed to get off RR's blacklist, but complaints > from RR users don't seem to do it. > +=+ They are "protecting the field". :-) +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 8 22:23:45 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 08:23:45 +1000 Subject: [blml] Tippecanoe and Tyler too! Message-ID: Tim wrote: >A tad unclear - is this a "duty" or a "power"? [snip] >Less clear is *when* the players should so >designate. [snip] Richard replied: This is one of the key issues - even a relatively straightforward Law such as Law 80A, is written with much Kaplanesque over-succinctness, that it can be interpreted with radically different meanings. Tim continued: >In the case that players select someone to >perform the duties of a TD the person selected >does not suddenly become a TD. [snip] Richard replied: This is the other key issue - was John Tyler the President of the United States, or was John Tyler merely the Acting President of the United States? Does the second sentence of Law 80A create a Tournament Director, or does the second sentence of Law 80A merely create an Acting Tournament Director? Grattan, one for your notebook? Best wishes RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From SeniorKibitzer1@aol.com Mon Dec 8 21:31:37 2003 From: SeniorKibitzer1@aol.com (SeniorKibitzer1@aol.com) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 16:31:37 EST Subject: [blml] Something different! (was Tippecanoe) Message-ID: In a message dated 08/12/03 11:29:37 GMT Standard Time, twm@cix.co.uk writes: > Less clear is *when* the players should so designate. I would consider > the idea that doing only when "TD functions" are required would be > adequate. However this is perhaps moot. The EBU has accepted that BCL > may issue masterpoints for competitions where no TD has been > appointed/selected and this has been the case for quite some time. Sorry, Tim, but your last sentence lacks your usual accuracy. While BCL (and the EBU OBC before that) were an EBU Membership service, I was appointed by the EBU Tournament Committee as Director-In-Charge and that appointment was prior to the introduction of Online Master Points. I would accept that there was virtually never a TD on duty inside the club, but this never seemed to be a problem as players would play on and report concerns to me (as advised on the web site) which generally either resulted in an adjusted score or not. Online Master Point awards reflected any rulings on incidents brought to my attention, and I never received any complaints about that. As for the present arrangements (since the beginning of October), it is possible that you may be correct, Tim, as the "Operations Director" who was the person involved in the incident that initiated this discussion has said on the BCL web site: "I have never claimed to be a tournament director. I help run this event and other events by telling people where to go or what do and aanswer [sic] questions". I do not feel inclined to offer my own comments and have been more interested to read the comments of others, who would be more impartial. Best wishes from Barrie Barrie Partridge Senior TD for Sheffield BC, England Former EBU Online Bridge Manager From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 8 22:37:21 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 08:37:21 +1000 Subject: [blml] Qualification Methods Message-ID: Frances Hinden: >Yesterday I played in a heat of the local (county) pairs >championship. There were 20 tables, with 8 pairs >qualifying for the final next year. [snip] >a 20-table non-arrow-switched Mitchell with 15 2-board >rounds, with the top 4 pairs in each direction >qualifying. There was a random draw for starting >positions. > >Is this really the right approach? [snip] >Starting positions in this sort of event are never, ever >seeded and the suggestion would be laughed out of the >room. [snip] Richard James Hills: Randomly seeding two heats of a qualifying (NS and EW) for a one-movement final is "fair", since every expert pair has an equal chance of being in the weaker qualifying field. But, if the Sponsoring Organisation was really keen on non-seeded fairness, they could have been even "fairer" by drawing the eight qualifying pairs out of a hat. This way, the SO would not have wasted time on a skewed qualifying event. :-( Best wishes RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From HarrisR@missouri.edu Mon Dec 8 22:55:33 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 16:55:33 -0600 Subject: [blml] Perfect pronouns (was Dummy play) In-Reply-To: <002701c3b871$70439b80$0b9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <002701c3b871$70439b80$0b9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: >[Richard Hills] >When referring to a generic or unknown individual, >the pronoun "they" is less offensive to 50% of >homo sapiens than the pronoun "he". > >[Nigel] >"They" is a crude, clumsy, woolly substitute for >a singular pronoun. I prefer the poncy but >grammatically correct "one". Why don't we just >use "she" as generic? Then nobody would object :) > The father of one of our friends (Theodore Kennard, a chemist) always refered to himself in conversation as "one". Personally, I prefer "it" as the generic singular pronoun in the nominative. We could use "his" in the singular possessive and "her" in the singular accusative. Thus we could offend everyone who can be offended by these usages. I belong to a chemical fraternity (Alpha Chi Sigma) which was originally a male-only organization. When it was decided to allow female members, the solution to what to call them was to continue to refer to fellow members as "brother". REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Dec 9 00:52:54 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 19:52:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] OLOOT - self ruling In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1434@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <05A7FD5C-29E2-11D8-AD33-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Dec 8, 2003, at 05:46 US/Eastern, Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote: > Only yesterday there was a LOOT by my partner, and in spite of the > fact I > know the 5 options backwards we called the director. If I am allowed > to give > my own rulings at the table, why shouldn't other people? I don't think players should be allowed to give rulings at their own table - but I would have no objection to a TD appointing a player from another table to handle a call, provided (a) the appointed player was known to be sensible and (b) he read his ruling from the book. We have a player around here who used to give his own rulings at the table. He rarely does it anymore. I like to think at least part of the reason is that every time he did it at my table, my reaction was to immediately call the director. A while back, at a league Swiss teams game (playing director). This guy called for a TD. The TD was on the team this guy's team was playing. So he asked another player to handle it. The one who called for a TD insisted, loudly and repeatedly, on a "real" TD. So much so that the distraction caused me to blow a 3NT contract. Really pissed me off. :-( No, I don't know how the appointed player handled the call. I was busy. And I don't know what the final outcome was - but I think the guy shoulda got a PP for being obnoxious, if nothing else. From blml@blakjak.com Tue Dec 9 02:56:11 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 02:56:11 +0000 Subject: [blml] Qualification Methods In-Reply-To: <004c01c3bdcc$3e55e320$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <000701c3bda9$4ae91da0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <004c01c3bdcc$3e55e320$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marvin French wrote >If I understand right, it is customary to use random seating over there. For >this type of event, I cannot understand why a seeding committee should not >seed a number of the best pairs, distributing them among the four lines. >What's wrong with that? Doesn't it maximize the chance that the best pairs >will qualify? Why is that an advantage? The idea of playing bridge is so that a pair will qualify/win/get master-points through *their* efforts, not through the efforts of someone else on their behalf. Giving the better players an advantage like this would unfairly disadvantage the poorer players. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Dec 9 00:54:24 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 00:54:24 -0000 Subject: [blml] Perfect pronouns (was Dummy play) References: <002701c3b871$70439b80$0b9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <034e01c3be03$706432e0$919468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Robert E. Harris] Personally, I prefer "it" in the nominative. We could use "his" in the singular possessive and "her" in the singular accusative. Thus we could offend everyone who can be offended by these usages. [: Nigel :] With imagination, the WBFLC can transform the apparent problem of gender pronouns into a solution to potential ambiguity in TFLB -- assuming that any member of the OS is male: the NOS female. Thus, "If *he* revokes, then *she* calls the TD." What about the TD's gender? We could adopt Richard's suggestion and refer to the TD as "it". --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 06/12/2003 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Dec 9 06:22:42 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:22:42 +1000 Subject: [blml] Qualification Methods Message-ID: Marvin French wrote: >>If I understand right, it is customary to use random >>seating over there. For this type of event, I cannot >>understand why a seeding committee should not seed a >>number of the best pairs, distributing them among >>the four lines. What's wrong with that? Doesn't it >>maximize the chance that the best pairs will >>qualify? David Stevenson differed: >Why is that an advantage? > >The idea of playing bridge is so that a pair will >qualify/win/get master-points through *their* efforts, >not through the efforts of someone else on their >behalf. Giving the better players an advantage like >this would unfairly disadvantage the poorer players. Richard James Hills fence-sits: I agree with Marv that seeding is often the lesser of two evils. I agree with Marv that the luck of the draw being more important than bridge skill is a worse evil. I agree with DWS that seeding remains evil. I suggest that this event (detailed in the stem posting of this thread) would better have featured a one-field qualifying to its one-field final. A Swiss Pairs qualifying would have allowed all eight of the eight best pairs to reach the final on merit. Best wishes RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr Tue Dec 9 08:21:04 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 09:21:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Qualification Methods References: <000701c3bda9$4ae91da0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <004c01c3bdcc$3e55e320$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000e01c3be2d$682707e0$eba953d4@vaio> There is no right qualification method. The right qualification method really depends on the SO's objective. In Holland one major multi stage tournament with thousand of pairs starting, the early and middle qualification stages are 'unfair' on purpose. Small sections without seeding. The obvious goal is that everyone has some change of advancing since some sections will not contain any good pairs. For the same reason lots of good pairs won't make it to the finals. Even the final is organized with this goal in mind, it has relatively few boards. Now of course the tournament most of the time is won by a well known top pair but then sometimes it is not. Obviously here the SO's objective is to have a tournament were outsiders have a fighting chance. To be complete, recently the tournament has changed sponsors and the format has become 'fairer'. The other extreme is the mixed pairs championship which is played tournament style. The qualifyer is correctly seeded, a sensible movement is used, and is scored over the field with the top x pairs advancing just like any major international championship. Obviously here the SO's objective is to have as strong a final as possible. Now guess why board-a-match was abandoned. It is much more discriminating than imp's in the sense that it is next to impossible for a weaker team to beat a stronger team over a long match playing board-a-match. Playing imp's you always might get lucky on the big bipolar boards. So board-a-match can be considered 'fairer' but exactly for this reason it is also hated I guess. I agree with DWS that fairness is not really the goal of most participants. Most of the wannabees just want to have a chance to win. But board-a-match is not completely dead. One of the more amusing ways to score the game is what the French call 'Patton' which is a mix of b-a-m and imps (half the VP's come from b-a-m, half the VP's come from the the imp difference). It adds spice to the flat 3NT+x boards because that extra overtrick is really worth something and it reduces a little the weight of the expensive boards. All French festival teams competitions use this form of scoring. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 9:45 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Qualification Methods > > From: "Sven Pran" > > >A possibly better alternative could have been to make it two Mitchell > groups > >each with 10 tables playing 3 boards per round for ten rounds. In that case > >two pairs should qualify from each group and direction. > > Yes, this seems right. Probably the boards should be duplicated, but no > matchpointing across the field. Each group is on its own. Pairs competing > for qualification will then play (all) the same hands, face (all) the same > opponents, and compare all results with every other pair in their group. > Very fair. > > If I understand right, it is customary to use random seating over there. For > this type of event, I cannot understand why a seeding committee should not > seed a number of the best pairs, distributing them among the four lines. > What's wrong with that? Doesn't it maximize the chance that the best pairs > will qualify? > > The ACBL seeding committee does such a fine job for NABC+ events that I have > never heard a complaint about their work. In the old days seeding was in > effect done by the players. If your line looked too strong, you complained > to the TD and s/he would probably switch some pairs. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Tue Dec 9 08:50:37 2003 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 08:50:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] OLOOT - self ruling Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1444@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> > Hinden, Frances SI-PXS > John Probst: > > I think this is about right in a club event. Had the > > player given the 5 options to the opponent as if he > > were ruling from the book, then I'd leave it alone. > > I'm pretty sure Sven would agree with that too. >=20 > Sven: >=20 I would indeed - with a playing director who could appreciate some assistance and a player who knew what he was doing and who made the correct ruling. I believe you read more into our answers than is called for. When I wrote "a player who knew what he was doing" I meant a qualified director known to me as such. And all the players in our club know that. I would never dream of letting any player however "expert" make any = ruling on his own unless I knew him to be a qualified director, but in a = stressed situation it frequently happens that we (those of us who are qualified) = help each other even if just one of us is the formal director at that event. Frances: Fair enough. We are actually on the same wavelength, I misunderstood = you. From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Dec 9 08:56:56 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 08:56:56 -0000 Subject: [blml] Perfect pronouns (was Dummy play) References: <002701c3b871$70439b80$0b9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <034e01c3be03$706432e0$919468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <001901c3be32$7ea79520$3d4ae150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 12:54 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Perfect pronouns (was Dummy play) > [Robert E. Harris] > Personally, I prefer "it" in the nominative. > We could use "his" in the singular possessive > and "her" in the singular accusative. Thus > we could offend everyone who can be offended > by these usages. > > [: Nigel :] > With imagination, the WBFLC can transform the > apparent problem of gender pronouns into a > solution to potential ambiguity in TFLB -- > assuming that any member of the OS is male: > the NOS female. Thus, "If *he* revokes, > then *she* calls the TD." What about the TD's > gender? We could adopt Richard's suggestion > and refer to the TD as "it". > +=+ We could allow options. In drafting wherever a gender orientated pronoun is requisite I could simply put **** and allow the option to complete as appropriate as occasions arise. I think space for four letters would be about right ~ G ~ +=+ p.s. believe me, imagination is the one thing we are not short of.. From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Dec 9 10:22:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 10:22 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Something different! (was Tippecanoe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Barrie: > In a message dated 08/12/03 11:29:37 GMT Standard Time, twm@cix.co.uk > writes: > > > Less clear is *when* the players should so designate. I would > > consider the idea that doing only when "TD functions" are required > > would be adequate. However this is perhaps moot. The EBU has > > accepted that BCL may issue masterpoints for competitions where no > > TD has been appointed/selected and this has been the case for quite > > some time. > > Sorry, Tim, but your last sentence lacks your usual accuracy. > > While BCL (and the EBU OBC before that) were an EBU Membership service, > I was appointed by the EBU Tournament Committee as Director-In-Charge > and that appointment was prior to the introduction of Online Master > Points. If you were the DIC you were incredibly remiss in your duties:) There was almost never a TD on duty in the whole time I played - a bone of contention between us when I first started playing but something with which I learnt to live. I well remember several occasions where a *timely* TD ruling was required but unavailable. Of course should you wish to confess to multiple and ongoing breaches of L81c2 (I think that one is a duty, not a power) that is your business. > As for the present arrangements (since the beginning of October), it is > possible that you may be correct In real terms the situation remains unchanged - there are still no TDs on duty (either in the club or by telephone). My understanding is that the EBU has not required the appointment of a director (I think that is normal since they required that SJWBC have an appointed TD either). I know that the club consults qualified TDs when a "point of law" ruling is required (a relatively rare occurrence since most rulings are "judgement" ones and TD input should not be necessary). Tim From Anne Jones" Message-ID: <001d01c3be66$7aa15180$e7546e51@annespc> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 10:22 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Something different! (was Tippecanoe) > Hi Barrie: > > > In a message dated 08/12/03 11:29:37 GMT Standard Time, twm@cix.co.uk > > writes: > > > > > Less clear is *when* the players should so designate. I would > > > consider the idea that doing only when "TD functions" are required > > > would be adequate. However this is perhaps moot. The EBU has > > > accepted that BCL may issue masterpoints for competitions where no > > > TD has been appointed/selected and this has been the case for quite > > > some time. > > > > Sorry, Tim, but your last sentence lacks your usual accuracy. > > > > While BCL (and the EBU OBC before that) were an EBU Membership service, > > I was appointed by the EBU Tournament Committee as Director-In-Charge > > and that appointment was prior to the introduction of Online Master > > Points. > > If you were the DIC you were incredibly remiss in your duties:) There was > almost never a TD on duty in the whole time I played - a bone of > contention between us when I first started playing but something with > which I learnt to live. I well remember several occasions where a > *timely* TD ruling was required but unavailable. Of course should you wish > to confess to multiple and ongoing breaches of L81c2 (I think that one is > a duty, not a power) that is your business. > > > As for the present arrangements (since the beginning of October), it is > > possible that you may be correct > > In real terms the situation remains unchanged - there are still no TDs on > duty (either in the club or by telephone). My understanding is that the > EBU has not required the appointment of a director (I think that is > normal since they required that SJWBC have an appointed TD either). I > know that the club consults qualified TDs when a "point of law" ruling is > required (a relatively rare occurrence since most rulings are "judgement" > ones and TD input should not be necessary). > Tim has some novel ideas - this one is pretty good. One needs a qualified TD to read a book - but the janitor is better at making judgement rulings. Now I understand why he keeps saying, in another place, that my powers of analysis are sadly flawed - I am not obviously not suitably qualified :-))) Anne From blml@blakjak.com Tue Dec 9 15:55:13 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:55:13 +0000 Subject: [blml] Qualification Methods In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote: >Marvin French wrote: > >>>If I understand right, it is customary to use random >>>seating over there. For this type of event, I cannot >>>understand why a seeding committee should not seed a >>>number of the best pairs, distributing them among >>>the four lines. What's wrong with that? Doesn't it >>>maximize the chance that the best pairs will >>>qualify? > >David Stevenson differed: > >>Why is that an advantage? >> >>The idea of playing bridge is so that a pair will >>qualify/win/get master-points through *their* efforts, >>not through the efforts of someone else on their >>behalf. Giving the better players an advantage like >>this would unfairly disadvantage the poorer players. > >Richard James Hills fence-sits: > >I agree with Marv that seeding is often the lesser of >two evils. I agree with Marv that the luck of the >draw being more important than bridge skill is a worse >evil. > >I agree with DWS that seeding remains evil. > >I suggest that this event (detailed in the stem posting >of this thread) would better have featured a one-field >qualifying to its one-field final. A Swiss Pairs >qualifying would have allowed all eight of the eight >best pairs to reach the final on merit. Yeah, sure, and the Rugby world cup would have been fairer if it had been held over four years and in fifteen countries. that way, England might have won . Why do you want to spoil perfectly good events and run them totally differently? It is not bridge. To say an event is unfair, and must be run to satisfy people who are not playing in it, with no sympathy whatever for geography or anything, is to try to demean a great mindsport. So, a one day event may or may not be fairer, but no organiser should deliberately refuse to organise an event in the way the players want for this reason. If we were to run the Australian Pairs, with lots of heats then a final, should we run *all* the heats in Alice Springs "to get a level playing field"? Should we only run heats if we can get seven tables exactly because that is fairest? No. Minor imperfections that are in the eye of a minority of fairness freaks should not be allowed to ruin perfectly good competitions. -- 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 SeniorKibitzer1@aol.com Tue Dec 9 16:19:03 2003 From: SeniorKibitzer1@aol.com (SeniorKibitzer1@aol.com) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 11:19:03 EST Subject: [blml] Something different! (was Tippecanoe) Message-ID: <15.1e309f80.2d074ff7@aol.com> In a message dated 08/12/03 21:33:31 GMT Standard Time, SeniorKibitzer1@aol.com writes: > I would accept that there was virtually never a TD on duty inside the club, In a message dated 09/12/03 10:25:53 GMT Standard Time, twm@cix.co.uk writes: > There was almost never a TD on duty in the whole time I played Snap!!! :o)) Tim also wrote: > In real terms the situation remains unchanged - there are still no TDs on > duty (either in the club or by telephone). My understanding is that the > EBU has not required the appointment of a director (I think that is > normal since they required that SJWBC have an appointed TD either). Yes, that is normal. BCL is now a club that is affiliated to the EBU, just like most f2f clubs throughout the country. While the EBU strongly encourage affiliated clubs to get one or more of their members qualified as an EBU-qualified Club TD, it is not a requirement. Tim added: > I know that the club consults qualified TDs when a "point of law" ruling is > required (a relatively rare occurrence since most rulings are "judgement" > ones and TD input should not be necessary). Regarding the bit in brackets, how would the management know that a ruling is a judgement ruling if they can't read the Laws to find the point of law where it says whether a ruling needs to be a judgement ruling or a book ruling? :o)) Best wishes from Barrie Barrie Partridge Derbyshire, England From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Dec 9 18:07:16 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 18:07:16 -0000 Subject: [blml] Laws Committee expansion. Message-ID: <002401c3be7f$acc19e40$a951e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott <6.0.1.1.0.20031208000922.043fc600@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <002501c3be7f$addd4770$a951e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Todd Zimnoch" ; Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 5:14 AM Subject: RE: [blml] IBLF > > This blocking strategy is a pain. It made some sense > when complaints regarding spam were made to an > ISP who refused to do anything. I don't think any > complaints are made before blacklisting anymore > and that is a real bummer. > +=+ It seems that aol blocks this address. I have asked my ISP to sort that out. Mails to me were bouncing because I did not know that my ISP's filter placed spam in a folder in my PC. So eventually the mailbox filled up. Now I go to my ISP's site once a day where there is an interactive tool to discard the spam except for messages I wish to keep - well, some of those offers might be useful, they think, at my age. ~ G ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Dec 9 21:51:31 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 07:51:31 +1000 Subject: [blml] Qualification Methods Message-ID: [big snip] >Minor imperfections that are in the eye of a >minority of fairness freaks should not be >allowed to ruin perfectly good competitions. > >David Stevenson RJH: I acknowledge that I am the Elephant Man in my criticism of English bridge traditions. However, DWS is likewise the Elephant Man in his previous "minor imperfection" criticism of the "perfectly good" Aussie tradition of seeding our Swiss Team events. :-) Mammoth wishes Richard James Hills -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From blml@blakjak.com Tue Dec 9 23:07:10 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 23:07:10 +0000 Subject: [blml] Qualification Methods In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote > I acknowledge that I am the Elephant Man in > my criticism of English bridge traditions. > > However, DWS is likewise the Elephant Man in > his previous "minor imperfection" criticism > of the "perfectly good" Aussie tradition of > seeding our Swiss Team events. I became aware of the "perfectly good" tradition when in Australia because of the large number of complaints about it from Aussie players. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Dec 10 00:07:52 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 10:07:52 +1000 Subject: [blml] Christmas greetings to all blmlers Message-ID: I am the very model of a modern bridge competitor, I write many pages as a club newsletter editor. I know the Laws of Contract, and I quote debates historical, >From revoking to etiquette, in order categorical. I'm very well acquainted too, with card play mathematical, I understand all squeezes, both simple and quadratical. As committee President, I'm teeming with advocacy, With many cheerful rulings tinged with my hypocrisy. In short, as bridge player, President and editor, I am the very model of a modern bridge competitor. Happy new year Richard James Hills -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Dec 10 00:11:08 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 00:11:08 -0000 Subject: [blml] Christmas greetings to all blmlers References: Message-ID: <007f01c3beb2$1d3255c0$649468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Richard James Hills] I am the very model of a modern bridge competitor, I write many pages as a club newsletter editor. I know the Laws of Contract, and I quote debates historical, >From revoking to etiquette, in order categorical. I'm very well acquainted too, with card play mathematical, I understand all squeezes, both simple and quadratical. As committee President, I'm teeming with advocacy, With many cheerful rulings tinged with my hypocrisy. In short, as bridge player, President and editor, I am the very model of a modern bridge competitor. Happy New Year [Nigel] Brilliant! and Happy Christmas! --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Dec 10 05:55:35 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:55:35 +1000 Subject: [blml] Laws Committee expansion. Message-ID: Grattan Endicott revealed: >>+=3D+ With tournament directors Jeanne van den >>Meiracker and Bertrand Gignoux among its new and >>worthy additions, the WBFLC now has 22 members. >>Given the demand upon the conduct of world >>championships thus achieved, I am wondering >>whether future championships will see a suspension >>of play for half a day while we meet, or whether we >>are to begin our meetings at 0430 hours. :-) >>................or both? C. Northcote Parkinson described: >A committee is organic rather than mechanical in >its nature: it is not a structure but a plant. It >takes root and grows, it flowers, wilts, and dies, >scattering the seed from which other committees >will bloom in their turn. Richard James Hills continued: In Parkinson's analysis of decision-making committees, he demonstrated that membership of 21 or 22 was the flowering number, which caused any vaster than empires (and more slow) committee to wilt and die. After that its powers would be seeded (and ceded) to a much smaller, more effective, executive council. Rest in pieces, WBFLC :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From hans-olof.hallen@swipnet.se Wed Dec 10 08:54:11 2003 From: hans-olof.hallen@swipnet.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?=) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:54:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Qualification methods Message-ID: <001301c3befb$2f662d40$174a65d5@swipnet.se> It is as important to seed the weaker pairs, especially as you don=B4t = play the whole line. Yours etc Hans-Olof Hall=E9n From jurgenr@t-online.de Wed Dec 10 11:38:00 2003 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 12:38:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Question 1 Message-ID: After 1S Pass 2C, alerted, the explanation was "forcing" and "nothing to do with Clubs". Asked for more detail the opponents insisted that the explanation was complete. Without describing the scene further I have 2 questions concerning relevant laws and regulations (locale is Germany, club game). The first is 1. If this explanation is in fact complete is such a convention allowed? I.e. can the 2C bid, per agreement, have no meaning concerning the length of any suit, nor the strength of the hand, no lower and no upper limit, and also not be a relay with a well-defined schedule of replies? In other words, can two partners agree that, in specific situations, a bid is to have no meaning beyond "forcing" and that responses to that bid are to remain undiscussed? Jürgen From jurgenr@t-online.de Wed Dec 10 11:50:06 2003 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 12:50:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Question 2 Message-ID: After 1S Pass 2C, alerted, the explanation was "forcing" and "nothing to do with Clubs". Asked for more detail the opponents insisted that the explanation was complete. Without describing the scene further I have 2 questions concerning relevant laws and regulations (locale is Germany, club game). The second question is 2. If the lack of explanation makes it impossible for you to make a sensible bid, are you allowed to respond by conceding the hand? Or do the proprieties require that you remain in the dark and pretend that you are still playing bridge? Jürgen From svenpran@online.no Wed Dec 10 12:12:01 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 13:12:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Question 1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3bf16$d17271f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > J=FCrgen Rennenkampff > After 1S Pass 2C, alerted, the explanation was "forcing" and "nothing = to > do > with Clubs". Asked for more detail the opponents insisted that the > explanation was complete. Without describing the scene further I have = 2 > questions concerning relevant laws and regulations (locale is Germany, > club > game). The first is >=20 > 1. If this explanation is in fact complete is such a convention = allowed? > I.e. can the 2C bid, per agreement, have no meaning concerning the = length > of > any suit, nor the strength of the hand, no lower and no upper limit, = and > also not be a relay with a well-defined schedule of replies? In other > words, > can two partners agree that, in specific situations, a bid is to have = no > meaning beyond "forcing" and that responses to that bid are to remain > undiscussed? As far as I can see this 2C bid is a simple relay bid which requires the opener to further describe his hand. There is nothing wrong in that. And as the purpose of relay bids as I know them always is requesting = partner to give more information I consider the explanation "forcing, nothing to = do with the named suit" even more comprehensive than just stating "relay". Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Wed Dec 10 12:16:38 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 13:16:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Question 2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c3bf17$763f2a70$6900a8c0@WINXP> > J=FCrgen Rennenkampff > After 1S Pass 2C, alerted, the explanation was "forcing" and "nothing = to > do > with Clubs". Asked for more detail the opponents insisted that the > explanation was complete. Without describing the scene further I have = 2 > questions concerning relevant laws and regulations (locale is Germany, > club > game). The second question is >=20 > 2. If the lack of explanation makes it impossible for you to make a > sensible > bid, are you allowed to respond by conceding the hand? Or do the > proprieties > require that you remain in the dark and pretend that you are still = playing > bridge? What can prevent you from "playing bridge" with opponents using a system including ordinary and fully legal relay bids? Players have managed that = for decades. Sven From blml@wellsborocomputing.com Wed Dec 10 12:48:19 2003 From: blml@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 07:48:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] Question 1 In-Reply-To: <000001c3bf16$d17271f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c3bf16$d17271f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 13:12:01 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: >> Jürgen Rennenkampff >> After 1S Pass 2C, alerted, the explanation was "forcing" and "nothing to >> do >> with Clubs". Asked for more detail the opponents insisted that the >> explanation was complete. Without describing the scene further I have 2 >> questions concerning relevant laws and regulations (locale is Germany, >> club >> game). The first is >> >> 1. If this explanation is in fact complete is such a convention allowed? >> I.e. can the 2C bid, per agreement, have no meaning concerning the length >> of >> any suit, nor the strength of the hand, no lower and no upper limit, and >> also not be a relay with a well-defined schedule of replies? In other >> words, >> can two partners agree that, in specific situations, a bid is to have no >> meaning beyond "forcing" and that responses to that bid are to remain >> undiscussed? > >As far as I can see this 2C bid is a simple relay bid which requires the >opener to further describe his hand. There is nothing wrong in that. > >And as the purpose of relay bids as I know them always is requesting partner >to give more information I consider the explanation "forcing, nothing to do >with the named suit" even more comprehensive than just stating "relay". > I agree with you that the explanation offered is more comprehensive than just "relay", Sven, but is it really enough? It seems to me that opponents *must* know more about the bid than simply that it's forcing and nothing to do with clubs. That statement may well be acceptable as an initial explanation, but surely not when an opponent asks for additional details? Let me give a couple of examples. With one partner, I play Tartan Two bids, where a 2H opener can show 5-5 in hearts and a minor, a strong 2 in hearts, or 21-22 balanced. Assuming the next hand passes, responder is *compelled* to bid 2S with anything short of a 33 count. Over the 2S opener, showing weak 5-5 spades and another or a strong 2 in spades, opener can pass with a hand where he thinks 2S is the best contract even opposite a strong 2S opener, but otherwise bids 2NT. Switching the system to Precision, a 2D response to 2C guarantees about 10+ HCP. Now *all* of these bids (2H-2S, 2S-2NT, 2C-2D) are forcing, and nothing to do with the named suit (or doesn't show a desire to play in NT in the case of 2S-2NT) but I'd feel very unhappy about using the same phrase as Jurgen's opponents to explain all three of them. I think Jurgen, *given that he stated he asked for more details*, is entitled to "Forcing, nothing to do with the named suit, responder could have absolutely anything" or "Forcing, nothing to do with the named suit, partner can pass with up to " or "Forcing, nothing to do with the named suit, minimum of HCP or equivalent values" or whatever else. Jurgen's asked for extra details, so IMO he should be given the FULL version of the explanation. If it's more detail than he wants to know, then that's his fault for asking. ;-) Brian. From cibor@poczta.fm Wed Dec 10 13:23:02 2003 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:23:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Question 1 References: Message-ID: <000601c3bf20$cf17ad80$fdd263d9@c5s5d3> ----- Original Message ----- From: J=FCrgen Rennenkampff To: BLML Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 12:38 PM Subject: [blml] Question 1 >After 1S Pass 2C, alerted, the explanation was "forcing" and "nothing to= do >with Clubs". Asked for more detail the opponents insisted that the >explanation was complete. Without describing the scene further I have 2 >questions concerning relevant laws and regulations (locale is Germany, c= lub >game). The first is >1. If this explanation is in fact complete is such a convention allowed? It is - unless the SO decides otherwise. >I.e. can the 2C bid, per agreement, have no meaning concerning the lengt= h of >any suit, nor the strength of the hand, no lower and no upper limit, and >also not be a relay with a well-defined schedule of replies? In other words, >can two partners agree that, in specific situations, a bid is to have no >meaning beyond "forcing" and that responses to that bid are to remain >undiscussed? As far as I know (which isn't far) Meckstroth -Rodwell play that an overcall of 1S over the strong 1C opener has "no meaning whatsoever - random". Some pairs even play that such an overcall is compulsory. So I see no reason that could prohibit a pair from making such an agreement. All the time I assume that this is really their agreement (not relay or catch-all bid in which case the explanation is woefully inadequate). Cibor From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Wed Dec 10 13:44:26 2003 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 13:44:26 -0000 Subject: [blml] Qualification Methods Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1463@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Thanks to all who answered my original question. I raised it=20 because I would have said that there were 2 pairs playing in=20 this heat noticeably better than the rest of the field, and=20 about 8 or 9 others who might expect to qualify. The two=20 good pairs both sat N/S, so it struck me that other N/S=20 pairs had been a bit unlucky in the draw for starting positions. =20 Seeding based on masterpoints would not have led to those 2=20 pairs being seeded either 1st or 2nd (possibly not even in the=20 top 8, I'm not sure). =20 Now on to the other point: > >I suggest that this event (detailed in the stem posting >of this thread) would better have featured a one-field >qualifying to its one-field final. A Swiss Pairs >qualifying would have allowed all eight of the eight >best pairs to reach the final on merit. "better" in what way? One of the features of this event is that you can play in=20 a heat at a club on a convenient date near where you live. =20 Only the top few players from each heat then have to travel=20 to one central venue for the all-play-all final. The same=20 approach is used for the English National Pairs event=20 (with regional finals in addition in the middle). A one-field qualifying would lead to fewer pairs taking part in the qualifier a) because you'd have to travel further and b) because there would be no choice of date. It is obvious that the multiple heats method of qualification is unlikely to=20 lead to the top 20 pairs who entered playing in the final, but so what? All of the players who entered that I would expect to be in=20 contention to win have qualified, all that's changed is that=20 the overall field is maybe a bit more random. But rabbit-bashing=20 is an important pairs skill. As for running the qualifier as a Swiss Pairs: why on earth should we want to do that? I don't know how many boards per round you are thinking of for a 30-board qualifier, but I find it very hard to believe that this would be a better approach to come up with the top 8 pairs from one heat. From cibor@poczta.fm Wed Dec 10 13:57:38 2003 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:57:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Question 2 References: Message-ID: <004101c3bf25$96b75bc0$fdd263d9@c5s5d3> ----- Original Message ----- From: J=FCrgen Rennenkampff To: BLML Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 12:50 PM Subject: [blml] Question 2 >2. If the lack of explanation makes it impossible for you to make a sensible >bid, are you allowed to respond by conceding the hand? No, you are not. You have to play on. You can call the TD after the hand is over and complain that you were damaged or (better still) - call the TD immediately after you receive an explanation that you judge to be incomplete. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Wed Dec 10 14:01:21 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:01:21 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Qualification Methods Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EBE0@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Hinden, Frances wrote: Thanks to all who answered my original question. I raised it=20 because I would have said that there were 2 pairs playing in=20 this heat noticeably better than the rest of the field, and=20 about 8 or 9 others who might expect to qualify. The two=20 good pairs both sat N/S, so it struck me that other N/S=20 pairs had been a bit unlucky in the draw for starting positions. =20 Seeding based on masterpoints would not have led to those 2=20 pairs being seeded either 1st or 2nd (possibly not even in the=20 top 8, I'm not sure). =20 Now on to the other point: > >I suggest that this event (detailed in the stem posting >of this thread) would better have featured a one-field >qualifying to its one-field final. A Swiss Pairs >qualifying would have allowed all eight of the eight >best pairs to reach the final on merit. "better" in what way? One of the features of this event is that you can play in=20 a heat at a club on a convenient date near where you live. =20 Only the top few players from each heat then have to travel=20 to one central venue for the all-play-all final. The same=20 approach is used for the English National Pairs event=20 (with regional finals in addition in the middle). A one-field qualifying would lead to fewer pairs taking part in the qualifier a) because you'd have to travel further and b) because there would be no choice of date. It is obvious that the multiple heats method of qualification is unlikely to=20 lead to the top 20 pairs who entered playing in the final, but so what? All of the players who entered that I would expect to be in=20 contention to win have qualified, all that's changed is that=20 the overall field is maybe a bit more random. But rabbit-bashing=20 is an important pairs skill. As for running the qualifier as a Swiss Pairs: why on earth should we want to do that? I don't know how many boards per round you are thinking of for a 30-board qualifier, but I find it very hard to believe that this would be a better approach to come up with the top 8 pairs from one heat. ----- With only 30 boards, it seems to me that the "luck factor" in any case will= be so high that the format of the qualification tournament won't be very i= mportant for the outcome. Regards, Harald Skj=E6ran, Oslo ----- _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ************************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error=20 please notify NIF at postmaster@nif.idrett.no.=20 Abuse can be reported to abuse@nif.idrett.no This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports ************************************************************************** From svenpran@online.no Wed Dec 10 14:01:50 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:01:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Question 1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3bf26$28d5f980$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Brian Meadows > >> J=FCrgen Rennenkampff > >> After 1S Pass 2C, alerted, the explanation was "forcing"=20 > >> and "nothing to do with Clubs". Asked for more detail the > >> opponents insisted that the explanation was complete.=20 > >> Without describing the scene further I have 2 questions > >> concerning relevant laws and regulations (locale is Germany, > >> club game). The first is > >> > >> 1. If this explanation is in fact complete is such a convention > allowed? > >> I.e. can the 2C bid, per agreement, have no meaning concerning the > length > >> of > >> any suit, nor the strength of the hand, no lower and no upper = limit, > and > >> also not be a relay with a well-defined schedule of replies? In = other > >> words, > >> can two partners agree that, in specific situations, a bid is to = have > no > >> meaning beyond "forcing" and that responses to that bid are to = remain > >> undiscussed? > > > >As far as I can see this 2C bid is a simple relay bid which requires = the > >opener to further describe his hand. There is nothing wrong in that. > > > >And as the purpose of relay bids as I know them always is requesting > partner > >to give more information I consider the explanation "forcing, nothing = to > do > >with the named suit" even more comprehensive than just stating = "relay". > > >=20 > I agree with you that the explanation offered is more > comprehensive than just "relay", Sven, but is it really enough? >=20 > It seems to me that opponents *must* know more about the bid than > simply that it's forcing and nothing to do with clubs. That > statement may well be acceptable as an initial explanation, but > surely not when an opponent asks for additional details? I took the liberty to snip away your examples because they mainly = concerned conventional opening bids at the two level which in my opinion is not comparable to the situation described above. I agree with you that a "full" explanation of conventional calls should usually include the entire scale of possible responses, at least if = these too will be conventional. However, in the case of relay bids as = described I do not think this is called for, definitely not when the responses to = the relay bids are to be "natural", but in many cases not even when the responses will be conventional (e.g. showing the precise number of = controls or showing a limited HCP range). If the auction goes as above: 1S pass 2C where the 2C bid is natural = would anybody at this time request a full explanation of all second calls = possible by opener? I doubt it, but where is the difference?=20 This time again 2C is forcing, the only difference is that is shows = clubs. And the second call by opener is again supposed to "further describe his hand".=20 Actually I have several books on natural systems for bridge pointing out = the advantage of using 2C as an artificial bid on a hand holding 10+ HCP but = no suit that according to the system could be bid at the one- or two-level after partner's opening bid of 1 in a suit. Originally this was simply a call violating agreements (really with no danger of ending in an = unsuitable contract), eventually it has become part of the systems. The most important information in the case presented must be that the 2C = bid itself says nothing about clubs. Sven From larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk Wed Dec 10 14:17:01 2003 From: larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk (Larry Bennett) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:17:01 -0000 Subject: [blml] Qualification Methods References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1463@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <000401c3bf32$1fcb8f10$6ef74c51@pentium41600> . Only the top few players from each heat then have to travel to one central venue for the all-play-all final. The same approach is used for the English National Pairs event (with regional finals in addition in the middle). Many years ago, at a local club qualifier for the Nat. Pairs, the td had 22.5 tables. He wandered off into a corner for a few minutes, and emerged with the movement........5 x 4.5 table howells. This qualified 15 pairs, compared to the "normal" 12 which would have qualified had he run 2 x sensible movements. This practice is now specifically banned by the conditions of contest. lnb From svenpran@online.no Wed Dec 10 15:30:04 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:30:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Question 1 In-Reply-To: <000001c3bf26$28d5f980$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000001c3bf32$7c49fec0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Mistype: I intended of course to write (way below): "the only difference = is that it does not show clubs". Was anybody confused because of that? Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = Sven > Pran > Sent: 10. desember 2003 15:02 > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Question 1 >=20 > > Brian Meadows > > >> J=FCrgen Rennenkampff > > >> After 1S Pass 2C, alerted, the explanation was "forcing" > > >> and "nothing to do with Clubs". Asked for more detail the > > >> opponents insisted that the explanation was complete. > > >> Without describing the scene further I have 2 questions > > >> concerning relevant laws and regulations (locale is Germany, > > >> club game). The first is > > >> > > >> 1. If this explanation is in fact complete is such a convention > > allowed? > > >> I.e. can the 2C bid, per agreement, have no meaning concerning = the > > length > > >> of > > >> any suit, nor the strength of the hand, no lower and no upper = limit, > > and > > >> also not be a relay with a well-defined schedule of replies? In = other > > >> words, > > >> can two partners agree that, in specific situations, a bid is to = have > > no > > >> meaning beyond "forcing" and that responses to that bid are to = remain > > >> undiscussed? > > > > > >As far as I can see this 2C bid is a simple relay bid which = requires > the > > >opener to further describe his hand. There is nothing wrong in = that. > > > > > >And as the purpose of relay bids as I know them always is = requesting > > partner > > >to give more information I consider the explanation "forcing, = nothing > to > > do > > >with the named suit" even more comprehensive than just stating = "relay". > > > > > > > I agree with you that the explanation offered is more > > comprehensive than just "relay", Sven, but is it really enough? > > > > It seems to me that opponents *must* know more about the bid than > > simply that it's forcing and nothing to do with clubs. That > > statement may well be acceptable as an initial explanation, but > > surely not when an opponent asks for additional details? >=20 > I took the liberty to snip away your examples because they mainly > concerned > conventional opening bids at the two level which in my opinion is not > comparable to the situation described above. >=20 > I agree with you that a "full" explanation of conventional calls = should > usually include the entire scale of possible responses, at least if = these > too will be conventional. However, in the case of relay bids as = described > I > do not think this is called for, definitely not when the responses to = the > relay bids are to be "natural", but in many cases not even when the > responses will be conventional (e.g. showing the precise number of > controls > or showing a limited HCP range). >=20 > If the auction goes as above: 1S pass 2C where the 2C bid is natural = would > anybody at this time request a full explanation of all second calls > possible > by opener? >=20 > I doubt it, but where is the difference? >=20 > This time again 2C is forcing, the only difference is that is shows = clubs. This sentence should (of course) have been: "the only difference is that = it does not show clubs" > And the second call by opener is again supposed to "further describe = his > hand". >=20 > Actually I have several books on natural systems for bridge pointing = out > the > advantage of using 2C as an artificial bid on a hand holding 10+ HCP = but > no > suit that according to the system could be bid at the one- or = two-level > after partner's opening bid of 1 in a suit. Originally this was simply = a > call violating agreements (really with no danger of ending in an > unsuitable > contract), eventually it has become part of the systems. >=20 > The most important information in the case presented must be that the = 2C > bid > itself says nothing about clubs. >=20 > Sven >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Wed Dec 10 15:32:13 2003 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:32:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Question 2 References: <004101c3bf25$96b75bc0$fdd263d9@c5s5d3> Message-ID: <015f01c3bf32$fc0100a0$8c053dd4@c6l8v1> >2. If the lack of explanation makes it impossible for you to make a sensible >bid, are you allowed to respond by conceding the hand? No, you are not. You have to play on. You can call the TD after the hand is over and complain that you were damaged or (better still) - call the TD immediately after you receive an explanation that you judge to be incomplete. ---------- "Forcing and nothing to do with clubs" is not enough; there are certain requirements for that call. I can imagine that a player should like to know what the opener in that situation knows! Ben From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Dec 10 15:32:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:32 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Something different! (was Tippecanoe) In-Reply-To: <15.1e309f80.2d074ff7@aol.com> Message-ID: Barrie wrote: > Regarding the bit in brackets, how would the management know that a > ruling is a judgement ruling if they can't read the Laws to find the > point of law where it says whether a ruling needs to be a judgement > ruling or a book ruling? :o)) It has been said before that the primary requirement for decisions on LAs etc is that the decision makers should be suitably capable players. This is hardly news and is the basis for constituting appeals committees. Perhaps I did not express myself well but there are many good TDs out there who do not rate themselves as players (which is fine) but the key is that a TD qualification gives no indication of suitability for making such rulings. "At the table rulings" require a different set of skills (not least of which is handling people) and ensuring that players fully understand their rights and restrictions. The EBU recognises this distinction by requiring that TDs consult before giving judgement rulings. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Dec 10 15:32:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:32 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Something different! (was Tippecanoe) In-Reply-To: <001d01c3be66$7aa15180$e7546e51@annespc> Message-ID: Anne, you are not suitably qualified to make judgement decisions beyond your playing level (nor is anybody else). Personally I would have thought this was stating the obvious. If the janitor is a world-class player he is better qualified to make high level judgement rulings than 99% of TDs, if he doesn't know how to take a finesse he is less qualified than most:) TDs. There is, of course, nothing wrong with having TDs act on an AC (or being consulted by a TD) - providing they have been selected on the basis of their suitability as players rather than their qualification to do something completely different. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Dec 10 15:32:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:32 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Question 2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > After 1S Pass 2C, alerted, the explanation was "forcing" and "nothing > to do with Clubs". Asked for more detail the opponents insisted that the > explanation was complete. Without describing the scene further I have 2 > questions concerning relevant laws and regulations (locale is Germany, > club game). The second question is > > 2. If the lack of explanation makes it impossible for you to make a > sensible bid, are you allowed to respond by conceding the hand? If the explanation is complete and you are unable to make a sensible bid your system is flawed and you have to try the best you can given that flaw. If the explanation is later deemed incomplete by TD/AC and you have been disadvantaged by the lack of completeness you will receive an adjusted score. Note that alerter should not disclose the response structure (since he will be the one bidding) although he should disclose any "questions" inherent in the 2C bid (ie "asking me whether I have a second suit and/or am better than minimum). Nor, according to many eminent BLML contributors are you entitled to ask about the response structure, since there is no legal entitlement to ask about bids not yet made. However, should you be damaged by your lack of knowledge of the response structure you should receive a ruling in your favour. As to whether the convention is permitted that depends on SO regulations. For example in the EBU at level 3 the 2C can be a forcing "artificial game try" (I'm not sure exactly what that means but if the 2C bidder turns out very weak I'd be asking "on what non-game response(s) by partner would you plan to bid game?"). Tim From blml@blakjak.com Wed Dec 10 15:35:20 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:35:20 +0000 Subject: [blml] Question 1 In-Reply-To: <000001c3bf16$d17271f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c3bf16$d17271f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <+x3zcVC40z1$EwZL@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Sven Pran wrote >> Jürgen Rennenkampff >> After 1S Pass 2C, alerted, the explanation was "forcing" and "nothing to >> do >> with Clubs". Asked for more detail the opponents insisted that the >> explanation was complete. Without describing the scene further I have 2 >> questions concerning relevant laws and regulations (locale is Germany, >> club >> game). The first is >> >> 1. If this explanation is in fact complete is such a convention allowed? >> I.e. can the 2C bid, per agreement, have no meaning concerning the length >> of >> any suit, nor the strength of the hand, no lower and no upper limit, and >> also not be a relay with a well-defined schedule of replies? In other >> words, >> can two partners agree that, in specific situations, a bid is to have no >> meaning beyond "forcing" and that responses to that bid are to remain >> undiscussed? > >As far as I can see this 2C bid is a simple relay bid which requires the >opener to further describe his hand. There is nothing wrong in that. > >And as the purpose of relay bids as I know them always is requesting partner >to give more information I consider the explanation "forcing, nothing to do >with the named suit" even more comprehensive than just stating "relay". A partnership that plays this will know on what hands they use it,a nd that requires disclosure. Do they respond 2C on xxx AKxx xxxx xx AKQJxxxxx -- KQx Ax -- KQJT9xx KQJT9x -- Jxx Qxx KQJx Kxx ? And so on. The pair has more information as to when the 2C is used, and it is not satisfactory not to say so. With one of my partners I play a 2C response on any game try hand with fewer than four cards in partner's suit - and it will not have three cards in partner's suit and a singleton. If asked what 2C is then we say so - we do not say it is a relay, even though it is. -- 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 Wed Dec 10 15:38:28 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:38:28 +0000 Subject: [blml] Question 2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0xUxsxC03z1$Ew5W@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Jürgen Rennenkampff wrote >After 1S Pass 2C, alerted, the explanation was "forcing" and "nothing to do >with Clubs". Asked for more detail the opponents insisted that the >explanation was complete. Without describing the scene further I have 2 >questions concerning relevant laws and regulations (locale is Germany, club >game). The second question is > >2. If the lack of explanation makes it impossible for you to make a sensible >bid, are you allowed to respond by conceding the hand? Or do the proprieties >require that you remain in the dark and pretend that you are still playing >bridge? The criteria you set are impossible. What you consider an incomplete explanation cannot make it impossible to play the hand. Of course, you call the TD at the time - but once he rules it a complete explanation you play on, and appeal if necessary. It is never up to you to make rulings at your table whoever you are, and to say the hand is unplayable is giving a ruling on their explanation. -- 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 Wed Dec 10 15:42:10 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:42:10 +0000 Subject: SV: [blml] Qualification Methods In-Reply-To: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EBE0@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EBE0@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: Skjaran, Harald wrote >Hinden, Frances wrote: >One of the features of this event is that you can play in >a heat at a club on a convenient date near where you live. >Only the top few players from each heat then have to travel >to one central venue for the all-play-all final. The same >approach is used for the English National Pairs event >(with regional finals in addition in the middle). > >A one-field qualifying would lead to fewer pairs taking part >in the qualifier a) because you'd have to travel further and >b) because there would be no choice of date. It is obvious >that the multiple heats method of qualification is unlikely to >lead to the top 20 pairs who entered playing in the final, but so what? >All of the players who entered that I would expect to be in >contention to win have qualified, all that's changed is that >the overall field is maybe a bit more random. But rabbit-bashing >is an important pairs skill. > >As for running the qualifier as a Swiss Pairs: why on earth >should we want to do that? I don't know how many boards per >round you are thinking of for a 30-board qualifier, but >I find it very hard to believe that this would be a better >approach to come up with the top 8 pairs from one heat. >----- >With only 30 boards, it seems to me that the "luck factor" in any case >will be so high that the format of the qualification tournament won't >be very important for the outcome. Very strange attitude. OK, let us all abandon playing in any single session event, such as a club evening. Or is is just possible that some people just play bridge and if they play better, do better? No, whatever can I be thinking of, tournaments are decided by organisers, aren't they. Sorry, Harald, I am not really getting at you, but I do not understand why players do not expect to do better by playing better. -- 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 wrgptfan@fastmail.fm Wed Dec 10 15:46:20 2003 From: wrgptfan@fastmail.fm (David Kent) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 10:46:20 -0500 Subject: [blml] Question 1 In-Reply-To: <000001c3bf16$d17271f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c3bf16$d17271f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <20031210154620.62EA3437A6@server1.messagingengine.com> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 13:12:01 +0100, "Sven Pran" said: > > J=FCrgen Rennenkampff > > After 1S Pass 2C, alerted, the explanation was "forcing" and "nothing to > > do > > with Clubs". Asked for more detail the opponents insisted that the > > explanation was complete. Without describing the scene further I have 2 > > questions concerning relevant laws and regulations (locale is Germany, > > club > > game). The first is > >=20 > > 1. If this explanation is in fact complete is such a convention allowed? > > I.e. can the 2C bid, per agreement, have no meaning concerning the leng= th > > of > > any suit, nor the strength of the hand, no lower and no upper limit, and > > also not be a relay with a well-defined schedule of replies? In other > > words, > > can two partners agree that, in specific situations, a bid is to have no > > meaning beyond "forcing" and that responses to that bid are to remain > > undiscussed? >=20 > As far as I can see this 2C bid is a simple relay bid which requires the > opener to further describe his hand. There is nothing wrong in that. >=20 > And as the purpose of relay bids as I know them always is requesting > partner > to give more information I consider the explanation "forcing, nothing to > do > with the named suit" even more comprehensive than just stating "relay". >=20 > Regards Sven >=20 Is the bid forcing for one round or game forcing? Are all other bids after the 1S opener non-forcing? Most relay systems exclude some hand types from their 2C response.=20=20 I believe that unless the 2C is not game forcing and is the only bid which cannot be passed, the explanation is incomplete. --=20 http://www.fastmail.fm - Access all of your messages and folders wherever you are From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Wed Dec 10 15:50:36 2003 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:50:36 -0000 Subject: [blml] Question 1 Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1469@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> > J=FCrgen Rennenkampff > After 1S Pass 2C, alerted, the explanation was "forcing"=20 > and "nothing to do with Clubs". Asked for more detail the > opponents insisted that the explanation was complete.=20 > Without describing the scene further I have 2 questions > concerning relevant laws and regulations (locale is Germany, > club game). The first is >=20 > 1. If this explanation is in fact complete is such a convention = allowed? > I.e. can the 2C bid, per agreement, have no meaning concerning the > length of any suit, nor the strength of the hand, no lower and no = upper limit, > and also not be a relay with a well-defined schedule of replies? In = other > words,can two partners agree that, in specific situations, a bid is to = have > no meaning beyond "forcing" and that responses to that bid are to = remain > undiscussed? Sven > > > >As far as I can see this 2C bid is a simple relay bid which requires = the > >opener to further describe his hand. There is nothing wrong in that. > > > >And as the purpose of relay bids as I know them always is requesting > partner to give more information I consider the explanation "forcing, = nothing to > do with the named suit" even more comprehensive than just stating = "relay". > > >=20 Frances This is crazy. Somewhere, someone is missing the point. I don't know = about Germany, but such a bid is certainly not allowed in the EBU. What's = missing are the words "FROM STRENGTH". The usual Precision-style 2C simple = relay bid promises at least invitational values. That is vital information & a = completely different system to a 2C response that might systemically be on a = zero-count. There seem to be two possibilities a) The 2C bid really says absolutely nothing about responder's hand, and = there are no agreements about continuations, when forcing passes are set up, what = later bids are forcing or even whether is shows 0-33 HCP or whatever. This is = of course possible but immensely unlikely and may well not be allowed. b) A much better reply when asked for more details would be something = like "forcing, at least invitational values, not suitable for a strong jump shift, = unlikely to have 4-card spade support or 5 hearts" (or whatever, depending on the = system). I have some memory of seeing something somewhere (WBF systems booklet?) = that "forcing" was always taken to mean "forcing from strength" unless specified = otherwise. Is this part of the problem, that this was not made clear? From svenpran@online.no Wed Dec 10 16:02:47 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:02:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Question 2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3bf37$0ee71e80$6900a8c0@WINXP> Tim West-Meads ........... > Note that alerter should not disclose the response structure (since he > will be the one bidding) although he should disclose any "questions" > inherent in the 2C bid (ie "asking me whether I have a second suit = and/or > am better than minimum). Nor, according to many eminent BLML = contributors > are you entitled to ask about the response structure, since there is = no > legal entitlement to ask about bids not yet made. However, should you > be damaged by your lack of knowledge of the response structure you = should > receive a ruling in your favour. I believe this is too rigid. Depending on your own intentions you may = have a "valid bridge reason" to know the response structure (or at least parts = of it) to a conventional call. Such information is really part of the agreements on the call just made and I don't think you can be denied the right to ask for that information (on the ground that the response call = has not yet been made).=20 However, "anything you say can be used against" your partner as UI, and = any opportunity your questions give your opponents to clarify their system = and avoid misunderstandings is valid for them. Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Wed Dec 10 16:11:23 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:11:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Question 1 In-Reply-To: <+x3zcVC40z1$EwZL@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <000101c3bf38$41700500$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ............. >=20 > With one of my partners I play a 2C response on any game try hand = with > fewer than four cards in partner's suit - and it will not have three > cards in partner's suit and a singleton. If asked what 2C is then we > say so - we do not say it is a relay, even though it is. If a relay bid commits information on the hand from which it is made = then it is of course no longer true to say that it does not. My assumption was that the 2C bid was exactly what was written: Forcing = with no information on the hand and specifically not showing anything about = the club suit. Anybody can assume that a forcing bid is not made on a valueless hand = but when neither agreements nor experience indicate what qualities is = included then it must be sufficient to state "forcing". Opponents will know as = much as partner. Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Wed Dec 10 16:17:46 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:17:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Question 2 In-Reply-To: <015f01c3bf32$fc0100a0$8c053dd4@c6l8v1> Message-ID: <000201c3bf39$263cb660$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ben Schelen ............. > "Forcing and nothing to do with clubs" is not enough; there are = certain > requirements for that call. > I can imagine that a player should like to know what the opener in = that > situation knows! Precisely. And when the opener does not know anything else than that his partner has made a forcing bid that is what he must disclose.=20 Anybody can then estimate for instance what general strength is required = for a forcing call; the opener must disclose what he knows from agreements including experience but cannot be required to disclose anything beyond that. From svenpran@online.no Wed Dec 10 16:30:16 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:30:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Question 1 In-Reply-To: <20031210154620.62EA3437A6@server1.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <000001c3bf3a$e5db0390$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Kent ............ > Is the bid forcing for one round or game forcing? Are all other bids > after the 1S opener non-forcing? Most relay systems exclude some hand > types from their 2C response. >=20 > I believe that unless the 2C is not game forcing and is the only bid > which cannot be passed, the explanation is incomplete. What difference does it make if the system includes 2D and/or 2H as = natural bids (showing 5 cards in the named suit) that cannot be passed although = they are not forcing to game? What if the 2C bid is game forcing except when opener simply responds = 2S? (I have no idea if such agreement exists anywhere but it would not surprise me). If, if, if Please let us stick to what we know for our discussion. The sequence 1M = - 2C as a forcing bid with no information on the club suit isn't that = uncommon? Sven From adam@irvine.com Wed Dec 10 17:09:27 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:09:27 -0800 Subject: [blml] Question 1 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 10 Dec 2003 13:12:01 +0100." <000001c3bf16$d17271f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <200312101709.JAA01398@mailhub.irvine.com> Sven wrote: > > Jürgen Rennenkampff > > After 1S Pass 2C, alerted, the explanation was "forcing" and "nothing to > > do > > with Clubs". Asked for more detail the opponents insisted that the > > explanation was complete. Without describing the scene further I have 2 > > questions concerning relevant laws and regulations (locale is Germany, > > club > > game). The first is > > > > 1. If this explanation is in fact complete is such a convention allowed? > > I.e. can the 2C bid, per agreement, have no meaning concerning the length > > of > > any suit, nor the strength of the hand, no lower and no upper limit, and > > also not be a relay with a well-defined schedule of replies? In other > > words, > > can two partners agree that, in specific situations, a bid is to have no > > meaning beyond "forcing" and that responses to that bid are to remain > > undiscussed? > > As far as I can see this 2C bid is a simple relay bid which requires the > opener to further describe his hand. There is nothing wrong in that. > > And as the purpose of relay bids as I know them always is requesting partner > to give more information I consider the explanation "forcing, nothing to do > with the named suit" even more comprehensive than just stating "relay". My opinion: If 2C is the start of a relay sequence, in which responder will gather a bunch of information and then place the contract, the description should say so. The explanation "forcing, nothing to do with clubs" does *not* in my view imply that it's the start of a relay sequence, and is thus not quite complete. If 2C starts a series of asking bids, then responder is not describing anything about his hand to his partner. One could argue that, since responder is not by agreement saying anything at all about his hand, he doesn't have to tell the opponents anything either. I don't quite buy this, though; the opponents could still end up playing the contract, and the opening bidder will certainly be able to draw inferences about responder's hand based on his knowledge of their entire bidding system, and those inferences need to be available to the opponents as well. Certainly responder must have some minimum strength to use the 2C (game-forcing? invitational? less?), which the opening side will know about since they know the entire relay structure, and the opponents are entitled to this information as well. I think the opening side also has a responsibility to provide some basic information about what other tools (particularly raises) are available, since responder may be less likely to use the 2C tool when other tools are available (even though 2C would probably not deny a hand suitable for some other tool). -- Adam From svenpran@online.no Wed Dec 10 17:10:09 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:10:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Question 1 In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1469@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <000001c3bf40$77762730$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Hinden, Frances SI-PXS ......... > This is crazy. Somewhere, someone is missing the point. =20 > I don't know about Germany, but such a bid is certainly=20 > not allowed in the EBU. What's missing are the words=20 > "FROM STRENGTH". The usual Precision-style 2C simple relay > bid promises at least invitational values. That is vital > information & a completely different system to a 2C=20 > response that might systemically be on a zero-count. What makes you so sure this is (generally) not allowed in EBU? If asked = I would (from what we have been told so far) classify this as a "red" = system (which is perfectly legal in most events) and that's it. > There seem to be two possibilities >=20 > a) The 2C bid really says absolutely nothing about=20 > responder's hand, and there are no agreements about > continuations, when forcing passes are set up, what > later bids are forcing or even whether is shows=20 > 0-33 HCP or whatever. This is of course possible=20 > but immensely unlikely and may well not be allowed. >=20 > b) A much better reply when asked for more details=20 > would be something like "forcing, at least=20 > invitational values, not suitable for a strong jump > shift, unlikely to have 4-card spade support or > 5 hearts" (or whatever, depending on the system). I have a problem understanding what you try to express: a): Of course the 2C bid implies that he takes the responsibility for = making a forcing bid. Normally this means he must have some strength. Shall the opener have to emphasize that fact (which should be obvious to = everybody) with his explanation?=20 If in a similar situation I were to be asked about my partner's strength = I would answer just that with a puzzled expression on my face caused by = the very question. And from the facts and to some degree depending upon what alternatives exist for the continued auction I shall expect the strength = of the 2C caller to be anything between at least 6HCP (generally accepted = as minimum for lifting to 2S which still can be a possible contract) up to about 28HCP (unlikely but what is left from the opener taking 12HCP)=20 b): "forcing, at least invitational values, not suitable for a strong = jump shift, unlikely to have 4-card spade support or 5 hearts" (or whatever, depending on the system). If any of this is part of the agreements (including experience) then of course it must be included in the explanation (unless it could be = assumed obvious for anybody involved). It can hardly be an error not including information which is not part of agreements/experience in the explanation? And who says any of the above = is part of agreements/experience? =20 > I have some memory of seeing something somewhere (WBF systems = booklet?) > that "forcing" > was always taken to mean "forcing from strength" unless specified > otherwise. Is this > part of the problem, that this was not made clear? I don't think so. The term "forcing" is unambiguous in itself. Whether = it is forcing for a round or to game may be an important distinction; when = that is the case it will usually reveal itself soon enough. Sven=20 From wrgptfan@fastmail.fm Wed Dec 10 17:33:12 2003 From: wrgptfan@fastmail.fm (David Kent) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 12:33:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] Question 1 In-Reply-To: <000001c3bf3a$e5db0390$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c3bf3a$e5db0390$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <20031210173312.C74DC41E58@server1.messagingengine.com> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:30:16 +0100, "Sven Pran" said: > > David Kent > ............ > > Is the bid forcing for one round or game forcing? Are all other bids > > after the 1S opener non-forcing? Most relay systems exclude some hand > > types from their 2C response. > >=20 > > I believe that unless the 2C is not game forcing and is the only bid > > which cannot be passed, the explanation is incomplete. >=20 > What difference does it make if the system includes 2D and/or 2H as > natural > bids (showing 5 cards in the named suit) that cannot be passed although > they > are not forcing to game? >=20 > What if the 2C bid is game forcing except when opener simply responds 2S? > (I > have no idea if such agreement exists anywhere but it would not surprise > me). >=20 > If, if, if >=20 > Please let us stick to what we know for our discussion. The sequence 1M - > 2C > as a forcing bid with no information on the club suit isn't that > uncommon? >=20 > Sven >=20 Why would it be so difficult to say "Artifical game force. Denies 4 card support or 5+ cards in one of the red suits" if that is their agreement. The reason that I would like to know as a defender is that if they have overloaded the 2C responses to include ALL game forcing hands, I am much more likely to interfere with their auction than if 2C shows a subset of the GF hands. In order to decide whether or not to compete on borderline hands, I must know in advance what the impact of my interference will be. --=20 http://www.fastmail.fm - And now for something completely different=85 From john@asimere.com Wed Dec 10 17:35:32 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:35:32 +0000 Subject: [blml] OLOOT - self ruling In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1444@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1444@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <7IwPe4Akl11$Ewae@asimere.com> In article <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1444@lonsc-s- 031.europe.shell.com>, Hinden, Frances SI-PXS writes > >> Hinden, Frances SI-PXS >> John Probst: >> > I think this is about right in a club event. Had the >> > player given the 5 options to the opponent as if he >> > were ruling from the book, then I'd leave it alone. >> > I'm pretty sure Sven would agree with that too. >> >> Sven: >> >I would indeed - with a playing director who could appreciate some >assistance and a player who knew what he was doing and who made the >correct >ruling. I don't even think it needs to be a qualified TD. The question to ask the offender's side is "Were your options explained to you?". I'd go on to explain what they should have been told and assess the position from there. > >I believe you read more into our answers than is called for. When I >wrote "a player who knew what he was doing" I meant a qualified director >known to me as such. And all the players in our club know that. > >I would never dream of letting any player however "expert" make any ruling >on his own unless I knew him to be a qualified director, but in a stressed >situation it frequently happens that we (those of us who are qualified) help >each other even if just one of us is the formal director at that event. > >Frances: >Fair enough. We are actually on the same wavelength, I misunderstood you. > >_______________________________________________ >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 Wed Dec 10 17:42:36 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:42:36 +0000 Subject: [blml] Question 1 In-Reply-To: <200312101709.JAA01398@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <000001c3bf16$d17271f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <200312101709.JAA01398@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: In article <200312101709.JAA01398@mailhub.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes > >Sven wrote: >=20 >> > J=FCrgen Rennenkampff >> > After 1S Pass 2C, alerted, the explanation was "forcing" and "nothin= g to >> > do >> > with Clubs". Asked for more detail the opponents insisted that the >> > explanation was complete. Without describing the scene further I hav= e 2 >> > questions concerning relevant laws and regulations (locale is German= y, >> > club >> > game). The first is >> >=20 >> > 1. If this explanation is in fact complete is such a convention allo= wed? >> > I.e. can the 2C bid, per agreement, have no meaning concerning the l= ength >> > of >> > any suit, nor the strength of the hand, no lower and no upper limit,= and >> > also not be a relay with a well-defined schedule of replies? In othe= r >> > words, >> > can two partners agree that, in specific situations, a bid is to hav= e no >> > meaning beyond "forcing" and that responses to that bid are to remai= n >> > undiscussed? >>=20 >> As far as I can see this 2C bid is a simple relay bid which requires t= he >> opener to further describe his hand. There is nothing wrong in that. >>=20 >> And as the purpose of relay bids as I know them always is requesting p= artner >> to give more information I consider the explanation "forcing, nothing = to do >> with the named suit" even more comprehensive than just stating "relay". Would we be discussing this if the auction had started 1NT P 2C and the same explanation had been given? Sheesh! john --=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 blml@blakjak.com Wed Dec 10 17:51:49 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:51:49 +0000 Subject: [blml] Question 1 In-Reply-To: <000101c3bf38$41700500$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <+x3zcVC40z1$EwZL@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <000101c3bf38$41700500$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >............. >> >> With one of my partners I play a 2C response on any game try hand with >> fewer than four cards in partner's suit - and it will not have three >> cards in partner's suit and a singleton. If asked what 2C is then we >> say so - we do not say it is a relay, even though it is. > >If a relay bid commits information on the hand from which it is made then it >is of course no longer true to say that it does not. > >My assumption was that the 2C bid was exactly what was written: Forcing with >no information on the hand and specifically not showing anything about the >club suit. > >Anybody can assume that a forcing bid is not made on a valueless hand but >when neither agreements nor experience indicate what qualities is included >then it must be sufficient to state "forcing". Opponents will know as much >as partner. They can assume it, but will they be right? We had a ruling a year or two ago at Brighton where a pair was playing 1H as a "forcing relay" over 1D. To be legal it had to be constructive. They argued that it was, despite the fact that it was made on 6 HCP, and the AC agreed, even though the TDs had not. So if you were told that a 1H response to 1D was a forcing relay, constructive, would you assume it could be made on 6 HCP? The pair concerned know what values the 2C response will be made on: their opponents do not. They are not practising Full Disclosure. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Wed Dec 10 17:52:59 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:52:59 +0000 Subject: [blml] Question 1 In-Reply-To: <000001c3bf3a$e5db0390$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <20031210154620.62EA3437A6@server1.messagingengine.com> <000001c3bf3a$e5db0390$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Kent >............ >> Is the bid forcing for one round or game forcing? Are all other bids >> after the 1S opener non-forcing? Most relay systems exclude some hand >> types from their 2C response. >> >> I believe that unless the 2C is not game forcing and is the only bid >> which cannot be passed, the explanation is incomplete. > >What difference does it make if the system includes 2D and/or 2H as natural >bids (showing 5 cards in the named suit) that cannot be passed although they >are not forcing to game? > >What if the 2C bid is game forcing except when opener simply responds 2S? (I >have no idea if such agreement exists anywhere but it would not surprise >me). > >If, if, if > >Please let us stick to what we know for our discussion. The sequence 1M - 2C >as a forcing bid with no information on the club suit isn't that uncommon? No, but it always has more information because of alternatives, therefore that is not a complete description. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Dec 10 17:59:14 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:59:14 -0800 Subject: SV: [blml] Qualification Methods References: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EBE0@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> Message-ID: <001301c3bf47$55331460$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> I want to say more about seeding the lines of straight Mitchells, as is the ACBL practice. In our small La Jolla and Beach unit of the ACBL, we have two Sunday games a month with two sections of 13-15 tables, stratified (A, B, & C players ranked separately). The TD very conscientiously puts the four strongest pairs at table 3, the next four at table 6, and the next four at table 9. B and C pairs are distributed equally among the lines. Unseeded A pairs are seated randomly. As a result, all the seeded pairs meet three seeded pairs, while others may meet only two. Comparisons are across-the-field, with both overall and in-section ranking. The players like this arrangement very much, no complaints. They would scream bloody murder if seating were random. Overall ranking for a straight Mitchell is inappropriate, of course, but it is ACBL practice even in prestigious NABC+ events. The two fields have played different hands, faced different opponents, and have compared only with those in the field. That's two separate games, not one, which should result in two winners and two overall rankings. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Wed Dec 10 18:19:38 2003 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:19:38 -0000 Subject: [blml] Laws Committee expansion. References: Message-ID: <000201c3bf4a$75350540$b9182850@multivisionoem> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 5:55 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Laws Committee expansion. --------- \x/ ---------- Richard James Hills continued: In Parkinson's analysis of decision-making committees, he demonstrated that membership of 21 or 22 was the flowering number, which caused any vaster than empires (and more slow) committee to wilt and die. After that its powers would be seeded (and ceded) to a much smaller, more effective, executive council. +=+ However, the Laws Drafting Subcommittee is on course to complete its task before it reaches these dizzy heights. The only change is that Joan Gerard's status is now member in her own right rather than as alternate for Ralph Cohen. For those who do not know this gives us: Wignall (chair), Endicott (Coordinator), Cohen, Gerard, Kooijman, Polisner, Riccardi, Schoder. ~ G ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Wed Dec 10 18:38:58 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 19:38:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Question 1 In-Reply-To: <20031210173312.C74DC41E58@server1.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <000001c3bf4c$dfc6bff0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Kent > > > David Kent > > ............ > Why would it be so difficult to say "Artifical game force. Denies 4 = card > support or 5+ cards in one of the red suits" if that is their = agreement. >=20 > The reason that I would like to know as a defender is that if they = have > overloaded the 2C responses to include ALL game forcing hands, I am = much > more likely to interfere with their auction than if 2C shows a subset = of > the GF hands. In order to decide whether or not to compete on = borderline > hands, I must know in advance what the impact of my interference will = be. Nobody has stated that this is forcing to game, just forcing (for one round). Now place yourself in the position where your LHO opens the auction with = 1S, your partner passes and your RHO bids 2C. They have declared "green" = system and there is no alert. By the current rules (in most areas I know about) that mean that the 2C = bid shows a minimum of three clubs, 10HCP and is forcing for at least one = round. What questions do you ask and what information do you want. And then please tell the difference from the case when you are informed = that except for not showing anything about the club suit the 2C bid is the = same? Sven From svenpran@online.no Wed Dec 10 18:52:30 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 19:52:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Question 1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c3bf4e$c3dc39d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ............. > They can assume it, but will they be right? We had a ruling a year or > two ago at Brighton where a pair was playing 1H as a "forcing relay" > over 1D. To be legal it had to be constructive. They argued that it > was, despite the fact that it was made on 6 HCP, and the AC agreed, even > though the TDs had not. > > So if you were told that a 1H response to 1D was a forcing relay, > constructive, would you assume it could be made on 6 HCP? Yes I would, inasmuch as I accept a natural 1H bid over a 1D opening as a bid that is forcing for one round and can be made on as little as 6HCP. > The pair concerned know what values the 2C response will be made on: > their opponents do not. They are not practising Full Disclosure. Why are you so certain about that? This is a case where I take their word for it until I see some evidence to the contrary. Unless I have misunderstood something essential it is generally accepted that a person making a bid establishing him as the captain takes on the responsibility of being captain and his partner has just to "answer" with bids showing his hand as requested. If they have a system like that opponents will know exactly as much as he does about the player who assumes control of the auction. Sven From svenpran@online.no Wed Dec 10 19:08:35 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:08:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Question 1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3bf51$02e1e240$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson .........=20 > >2C as a forcing bid with no information on the club suit=20 > >isn't that uncommon? >=20 > No, but it always has more information because of alternatives, > therefore that is not a complete description. Does it? (Privately you have informed me that the classifications "green", = "blue", "red" and "yellow" are not used by EBU. I appreciate that with a slight surprise, they are "official" WBF classifications which we have adopted = here in Norway as we have found them very convenient. See for instance the = link to the WBF Systems Policy: http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/rt/wbfsyspo.html which I have copied from your own web pages) I am playing a green ("natural") system and if I were asked about my partner's bid of 2C over my 1S opening bid I would simply answer = "natural". On possible follow-up questions on what this means I would inform them = that "natural" means: "Forcing for one round, at least three clubs and at least 10HCP. = Requesting me to further describe my opening hand". When playing against partnerships that use relay systems I accept that = the relay bidder is the captain and does not disclose anything about his = hand with his bids except that he has either the cards or the nerve to do = what he does. Sven From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Dec 10 19:11:55 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:11:55 -0800 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia NABC Appeals Message-ID: <003201c3bf51$d0ad9980$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> After going thru the Philadelphia casebook, printing the Acrobat file provided by the ACBL (under Members section, for some reason), I have the following comments: I see that Joan Gerard is now the AC Director and Barry Rigal the AC Chairman, replacing Alan Le Bendig and Jon Brissman. These two very capable people are well-suited to the positions. There were 37 cases, 20 decided by a TD Panel, 17 by an Appeals Committee Going by both the casebood commentators and a bit of my own opinion, of the 20 TD Panel decisions I found 17 to be sound, one unsound (24), one debatable (18), and one (28) hard to classify because my opinion (unsound) was not generally shared by the commentators. Of the 17 AC decisions, I found 10 to be sound, six (4, 21, 23, 25, 26, 30) unsound, and one (14) debatable. It is interesting that the TD Panels did much better than the ACs, but maybe their cases were easier (I didn't judge their difficulty). The ACs decide cases from NABC+ events, the TD Panels cases from other events. Presumably the latter would tend to be easier cases. Case 28 involved one of my pet peeves. It happened in a senior game, and we are not told the strength of the pairs involved. (No, we're not all weak!) A Stayman 2C was doubled, not Alerted, and next hand inquired as to the meaning. This unnecessary inquiry led to all sorts of trouble. In the absence of an Alert, the double of a low-level artificial bid is default suit/strength showing, not takeout (which is Alertable). The question forced the opponent to give an answer that happened to be wrong. She wasn't sure what the double meant, and guessed wrong, saying "Takeout." The doubler actually held Jxx xx A10 KJ8753, partner holding Kxx KJ9xx xxx A9. Opener, holding AQxx Qx KQx Q10xx, redoubled, and responder passed with 109x A1084 J7642 2 Down two, -600. Opener claimed he would not have redoubled a strength-showing double, but would have bid 2S. Responder thought opener had better clubs (!), hence the pass. The TD Panel polled many players about the redouble and pass of the redouble, with mixed responses, but the decision was contract changed to 2S making three +140/-140. I don't know why opener would not redouble a normal 2C double (strength/length showing). If partner has something like Axx or Kxx and game-try strength, 2C might easily make. That is the procedure I'm familiar with. Double with four decent clubs, pass with three, make the normal response with two. Partner's redouble is to play. The casebook commentators were divided on this one, but most thought the MI should not go unpunished, not realizing that the MI came as the result of a stupid question that should not have been asked. My opinion is table result stands. Commentator opinions were mixed, but a small majority went along with the decision. Only one (Treadwell) would let the table result stand for both sides. A minority opinion was table result for the redoubler (-600), but the result of a 2S contract (-110 or -140) for the doubler (because of the MI). -- Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From blml@blakjak.com Wed Dec 10 19:26:15 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 19:26:15 +0000 Subject: [blml] Question 1 In-Reply-To: <000101c3bf4e$c3dc39d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c3bf4e$c3dc39d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >............. >> They can assume it, but will they be right? We had a ruling a year or >> two ago at Brighton where a pair was playing 1H as a "forcing relay" >> over 1D. To be legal it had to be constructive. They argued that it >> was, despite the fact that it was made on 6 HCP, and the AC agreed, even >> though the TDs had not. >> >> So if you were told that a 1H response to 1D was a forcing relay, >> constructive, would you assume it could be made on 6 HCP? > >Yes I would, inasmuch as I accept a natural 1H bid over a 1D opening as a >bid that is forcing for one round and can be made on as little as 6HCP. So what about the normal players who when they make a constructive bid show 11 HCP - because that is the normal understanding of constructive - game try values? Do you not think htat they should tell opponents what they play rather than hide it? >> The pair concerned know what values the 2C response will be made on: >> their opponents do not. They are not practising Full Disclosure. > >Why are you so certain about that? This is a case where I take their word >for it until I see some evidence to the contrary. > >Unless I have misunderstood something essential it is generally accepted >that a person making a bid establishing him as the captain takes on the >responsibility of being captain and his partner has just to "answer" with >bids showing his hand as requested. > >If they have a system like that opponents will know exactly as much as he >does about the player who assumes control of the auction. Not at all: they will not know what hands it may be used on. I have *never* met a pair that plays relay bids with no idea what hands they are used 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 blml@blakjak.com Wed Dec 10 19:27:21 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 19:27:21 +0000 Subject: [blml] Question 1 In-Reply-To: <000001c3bf4c$dfc6bff0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <20031210173312.C74DC41E58@server1.messagingengine.com> <000001c3bf4c$dfc6bff0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Kent >> > > David Kent >> > ............ >> Why would it be so difficult to say "Artifical game force. Denies 4 card >> support or 5+ cards in one of the red suits" if that is their agreement. >> >> The reason that I would like to know as a defender is that if they have >> overloaded the 2C responses to include ALL game forcing hands, I am much >> more likely to interfere with their auction than if 2C shows a subset of >> the GF hands. In order to decide whether or not to compete on borderline >> hands, I must know in advance what the impact of my interference will be. > >Nobody has stated that this is forcing to game, just forcing (for one >round). > >Now place yourself in the position where your LHO opens the auction with 1S, >your partner passes and your RHO bids 2C. They have declared "green" system >and there is no alert. > >By the current rules (in most areas I know about) that mean that the 2C bid >shows a minimum of three clubs, 10HCP and is forcing for at least one round. > >What questions do you ask and what information do you want. > >And then please tell the difference from the case when you are informed that >except for not showing anything about the club suit the 2C bid is the same? No-one has suggested it shows 10 HCP, except you: the actual description has no mention of values whatever. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Wed Dec 10 19:42:56 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 19:42:56 +0000 Subject: [blml] Question 1 In-Reply-To: References: <000001c3bf16$d17271f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <200312101709.JAA01398@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst wrote >Would we be discussing this if the auction had started 1NT P 2C and the >same explanation had been given? Sheesh! john Probably. If they are playing a relay method that is not Stayman then the same applies: they know their system , you don't. My friends, the Keens, play 2C as Keri - and, no, I have no idea what that means. But they will explain it to me at length if I ask them. Be honest, John, do you personally expect to gain at this game by keeping your opponents in ignorance of your methods? Of course you don't. Neither should your opponents be gaining this way. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From svenpran@online.no Wed Dec 10 19:45:55 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:45:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Question 1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3bf56$3a3dfee0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson > >............. > >> They can assume it, but will they be right? We had a ruling a = year > or > >> two ago at Brighton where a pair was playing 1H as a "forcing = relay" > >> over 1D. To be legal it had to be constructive. They argued that = it > >> was, despite the fact that it was made on 6 HCP, and the AC agreed, > even > >> though the TDs had not. > >> > >> So if you were told that a 1H response to 1D was a forcing = relay, > >> constructive, would you assume it could be made on 6 HCP? > > > >Yes I would, inasmuch as I accept a natural 1H bid over a 1D opening = as a > >bid that is forcing for one round and can be made on as little as = 6HCP. >=20 > So what about the normal players who when they make a constructive = bid > show 11 HCP - because that is the normal understanding of constructive = - > game try values? Do you not think htat they should tell opponents = what > they play rather than hide it? I don't understand your position here. Already Goren (and Culbertson = before him) taught us to bid 1H over partner's opening bid in 1D with a four = card suit and 6 HCP (up to at least 15 HCP). This is what I know still the = normal style in "green" (natural) systems. Do you claim that this 1H bid (which = was forcing for one round already with Culbertson) is not "constructive"? =20 > >> The pair concerned know what values the 2C response will be made = on: > >> their opponents do not. They are not practising Full Disclosure. > > > >Why are you so certain about that? This is a case where I take their = word > >for it until I see some evidence to the contrary. > > > >Unless I have misunderstood something essential it is generally = accepted > >that a person making a bid establishing him as the captain takes on = the > >responsibility of being captain and his partner has just to "answer" = with > >bids showing his hand as requested. > > > >If they have a system like that opponents will know exactly as much = as he > >does about the player who assumes control of the auction. >=20 > Not at all: they will not know what hands it may be used on. >=20 > I have *never* met a pair that plays relay bids with no idea what > hands they are used on. I have. They accept that the relay bidder has full control. The only = thing his partner "knows" is that the captain has a reason for his bidding and (hopefully) that he is conscious. And so should opponents assume. If opponents feel the need for clarifying questions they are of course = free to ask them, and with a true relay bid they should expect an answer to = just that effect: "Partner must have values to justify his bids, I do not = know what those values are". Sven From svenpran@online.no Wed Dec 10 19:51:42 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:51:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Question 1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c3bf57$08d93b20$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson > Sven Pran wrote >=20 > >> David Kent > >> > > David Kent > >> > ............ > >> Why would it be so difficult to say "Artifical game force. Denies = 4 > card > >> support or 5+ cards in one of the red suits" if that is their > agreement. > >> > >> The reason that I would like to know as a defender is that if they = have > >> overloaded the 2C responses to include ALL game forcing hands, I am > much > >> more likely to interfere with their auction than if 2C shows a = subset > of > >> the GF hands. In order to decide whether or not to compete on > borderline > >> hands, I must know in advance what the impact of my interference = will > be. > > > >Nobody has stated that this is forcing to game, just forcing (for one > >round). > > > >Now place yourself in the position where your LHO opens the auction = with > 1S, > >your partner passes and your RHO bids 2C. They have declared "green" > system > >and there is no alert. > > > >By the current rules (in most areas I know about) that mean that the = 2C > bid > >shows a minimum of three clubs, 10HCP and is forcing for at least one > round. > > > >What questions do you ask and what information do you want. > > > >And then please tell the difference from the case when you are = informed > that > >except for not showing anything about the club suit the 2C bid is the > same? >=20 > No-one has suggested it shows 10 HCP, except you: the actual > description has no mention of values whatever. Sorry, this part is really irrelevant for my question. In a natural = system any call forcing the contract level to two should show at least 10HCP. (According to Goren and many subsequent authors). I would still appreciate an answer to my question. Sven From blml@blakjak.com Wed Dec 10 19:57:38 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 19:57:38 +0000 Subject: [blml] Question 1 In-Reply-To: <000001c3bf51$02e1e240$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c3bf51$02e1e240$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >......... >> >2C as a forcing bid with no information on the club suit >> >isn't that uncommon? >> >> No, but it always has more information because of alternatives, >> therefore that is not a complete description. > >Does it? > >(Privately you have informed me that the classifications "green", "blue", >"red" and "yellow" are not used by EBU. I appreciate that with a slight >surprise, they are "official" WBF classifications which we have adopted here >in Norway as we have found them very convenient. See for instance the link >to the WBF Systems Policy: > >http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/rt/wbfsyspo.html > >which I have copied from your own web pages) > >I am playing a green ("natural") system and if I were asked about my >partner's bid of 2C over my 1S opening bid I would simply answer "natural". > >On possible follow-up questions on what this means I would inform them that >"natural" means: >"Forcing for one round, at least three clubs and at least 10HCP. Requesting >me to further describe my opening hand". That's ok because you are playing a natural system, and the opponents can make deductions. for example, your partner will not have eight diamonds - if you played canapé you would say so. >When playing against partnerships that use relay systems I accept that the >relay bidder is the captain and does not disclose anything about his hand >with his bids except that he has either the cards or the nerve to do what he >does. You may accept it, but it is not true. Dependent on the rest of the system there are only certain hands you and your partner will use it on - you know that, opponents do not. Admittedly the opponents could ask you for the meaning of every alternative action, but it would be a lot simpler if you just told them what the possible hands are - or what possible hands are excluded. -- 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 Wed Dec 10 20:03:09 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:03:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Question 1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c3bf58$a2db3c90$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson > >Would we be discussing this if the auction had started 1NT P 2C and = the > >same explanation had been given? Sheesh! john >=20 > Probably. If they are playing a relay method that is not Stayman = then > the same applies: they know their system , you don't. My friends, the > Keens, play 2C as Keri - and, no, I have no idea what that means. But > they will explain it to me at length if I ask them. >=20 > Be honest, John, do you personally expect to gain at this game by > keeping your opponents in ignorance of your methods? Of course you > don't. Neither should your opponents be gaining this way. This is not a question of concealing information from opponents. The questions are: 1: Is it possible to have a system where one player takes on the role as captain and without disclosing anything whatsoever about his own hand through a series of demand calls "maps" his partner's hand and finally decides the contract? Nobody can assume what cards the captain holds = except that he must be assumed to have reasons for his calls. 2: Do we allow such a system? In my opinion the obvious answer to question 1 is "yes" (I am familiar = with at least two). Equally obvious is the answer to question 2 "yes" except = when such systems are explicitly forbidden in regulations. Sven From svenpran@online.no Wed Dec 10 20:42:46 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 21:42:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Question 1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3bf5e$2bfdf300$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ............. > >I am playing a green ("natural") system and if I were asked=20 > > about my partner's bid of 2C over my 1S opening bid I would=20 > > simply answer "natural". > > > >On possible follow-up questions on what this means I would=20 > >inform them that"natural" means: "Forcing for one round, at > >least three clubs and at least 10HCP. Requesting me to=20 > >further describe my opening hand". >=20 > That's ok because you are playing a natural system, and the > opponents can make deductions. for example, your partner=20 > will not have eight diamonds=20 Why not? Finding a contract in major or No trump with the same number of tricks counts a lot more points than a contract at the same level in = minor. Nothing should prevent partner from looking for a better alternative to playing in Diamonds. (Eight diamonds provides for a nice amount of discards). >=20 > >When playing against partnerships that use relay systems I=20 > >accept that the relay bidder is the captain and does not=20 > >disclose anything about his hand with his bids except that > >he has either the cards or the nerve to do what he does. >=20 > You may accept it, but it is not true. Dependent on the=20 > rest of the system there are only certain hands you and=20 > your partner will use it on - you know that, opponents do=20 > not. I would like to hear you providing relevant examples to support this statement.=20 For instance the way I know relay precision systems the 1C opener takes = on the captain's functions and does not give away any more information = about his own hand after showing 16+ HCP. But there is nothing preventing a = system where the captain has given even less information on his own hand.=20 I can tell you about a "red" system called SEM which was invented in = Norway many years ago. The features of that system was that opener's partner assumed the role of captain and bid only relay bids thorough the auction until he finally bid the contract to be played. The identifying factor = for this bid is that it is not another relay. I tried that system myself, it was very nice in finding the best = contract, but it has one major weakness: It more often than not results in the "concealed" hand becoming dummy so the defense became a double dummy = play.=20 > Admittedly the opponents could ask you for the meaning of every > alternative action, but it would be a lot simpler if you just told = them > what the possible hands are - or what possible hands are excluded. So with this logic I should without being called for this information = tell opponents that when partner opens 1 in a suit he definitely not holds a higher ranked suit with the same or greater length (at least 5) as the = named suit because then he would have opened in the higher ranked suit? (We usually tell opponents that we open in the lowest ranked four card suit = and the highest ranked five card suit when asked for the suit length in the opening bid) Or when he opens in 2C (strong artificial) we should tell opponents that with 20 to 21 HCP and a NT distribution he would instead have opened in = 2NT? Etc. ad-lib. Opponents can always claim misinformation when there are undisclosed details, but they will have to show probable damage from this alleged MI = in order to have any redress. Sven From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Dec 10 22:05:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 22:05 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Question 2 In-Reply-To: <000001c3bf37$0ee71e80$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > Tim West-Meads > ........... > > Note that alerter should not disclose the response structure (since he > > will be the one bidding) although he should disclose any "questions" > > inherent in the 2C bid (ie "asking me whether I have a second suit > > and/or am better than minimum). Nor, according to many eminent BLML > > contributors are you entitled to ask about the response structure, > > since there is no legal entitlement to ask about bids not yet made. > > However, should you be damaged by your lack of knowledge of the > > response structure you should receive a ruling in your favour. > > I believe this is too rigid. Depending on your own intentions you may > have a "valid bridge reason" to know the response structure (or at least > parts of it) to a conventional call. I agree Sven - the eminent contributors of whom I spoke disagree (or did last time this question came up). The core of their argument (IIRC) was that needing to know gave basis of a claim for damage but did not "extend" the right to ask under L20f1 to cover future/potential calls. Grattan was, I believe, a strong proponent of this argument and hopefully he will correct the bits I may have misremembered. > Such information is really part of > the agreements on the call just made and I don't think you can be denied > the right to ask for that information (on the ground that the response > call has not yet been made). Under the above argument it is not a case of being "denied the right" it is a case of never having been granted the right. > However, "anything you say can be used against" your partner as UI, and Indeed - but by this stage the additional UI of "What is the response structure?" will seldom suggest any particular action. > any opportunity your questions give your opponents to clarify their > system and avoid misunderstandings is valid for them. Ahem, that should read "UI", rather than "valid" (well, my questions are AI but the answers given are not) - of course if there is no misunderstanding the UI won't suggest anything. Tim From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Dec 10 22:09:09 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:09:09 -0500 Subject: [blml] Question 2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <7AB41D0C-2B5D-11D8-9184-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Dec 10, 2003, at 06:50 US/Eastern, J=FCrgen Rennenkampff=20= wrote: > After 1S Pass 2C, alerted, the explanation was "forcing" and "nothing=20= > to do > with Clubs". Asked for more detail the opponents insisted that the > explanation was complete. Without describing the scene further I have = 2 > questions concerning relevant laws and regulations (locale is Germany,=20= > club > game). The second question is > > 2. If the lack of explanation makes it impossible for you to make a=20 > sensible > bid, are you allowed to respond by conceding the hand? Or do the=20 > proprieties > require that you remain in the dark and pretend that you are still=20 > playing > bridge? Opponents are required to include in their explanation information=20 about relevant calls available but not made. So the first thing that=20 occurs to me is "are there any other forcing responses to 1S available,=20= and if so, what do they mean?" From svenpran@online.no Wed Dec 10 22:18:33 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:18:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Question 2 In-Reply-To: <7AB41D0C-2B5D-11D8-9184-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c3bf6b$8c5e6bf0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert ........ > Opponents are required to include in their explanation information > about relevant calls available but not made. So the first thing that > occurs to me is "are there any other forcing responses to 1S available, > and if so, what do they mean?" Yes, I think this is a valid approach. (But I do not think, and do not expect you to think that the information on such alternative forcing bids should be volunteered without being asked) Regards Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Dec 10 23:30:21 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 09:30:21 +1000 Subject: [blml] Relay race (was Question 1) Message-ID: Sven Pran asked: >This is not a question of concealing information >from opponents. The questions are: > >1: Is it possible to have a system where one >player takes on the role as captain and without >disclosing anything whatsoever about his own >hand through a series of demand calls "maps" his >partner's hand and finally decides the contract? >Nobody can assume what cards the captain holds >except that he must be assumed to have reasons >for his calls. Richard James Hills answers: Yes and no. There are always negative inferences concerning other available calls not used. For example, in my (Precision-ish) Symmetric Relay system, if I respond 1NT to pard's 1H opening bid, my response is an artificial game force relay, asking pard to describe his hand further. *However*, I also have the option of responding 4H to pard's 1H opening, which by partnership agreement is a two-way bid: -> either a preemptive raise, or strong and balanced with zero interest in slam. Sven asked: >2: Do we allow such a system? > >In my opinion the obvious answer to question 1 is >"yes" (I am familiar with at least two). Equally >obvious is the answer to question 2 "yes" except >when such systems are explicitly forbidden in >regulations. RJH answers: In my personal opinion, bridge administrators should carefully regulate different relay systems in different ways, according to the fundamental taxonomy of a relay system. A relay system where the artificial relays *always* show at least game invitational values (for example, Ron Klinger's Power Acol system), should be permitted in most events. Artificial but *strong* calls are unlikely to disconcert opponents during the auction, since such opponents almost always would be intending to Pass anyway. However, systems where a response to an opening bid is: (a) totally artificial, and (b) potentially weak *would* disconcert unprepared oponents during the auction. Those relay systems, in my personal opinion, should be restricted to fewer events than Power Acol is allowed. Best wishes Richard James Hills -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Wed Dec 10 22:47:14 2003 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:47:14 -0600 Subject: [blml] Question 1 Message-ID: >> David Stevenson: >> I have *never* met a pair that plays relay bids with no idea what >>hands they are used on. >Sven Pran: >I have. They accept that the relay bidder has full control. The only thing >his partner "knows" is that the captain has a reason for his bidding and >(hopefully) that he is conscious. But the partner of the relay bidder, though ceding full control, knows with what sort of hand the relayer would think he had a reason for invoking the relay. He should give this information to his opponents, if asked. >>Ed Reppert: >> Opponents are required to include in their explanation information >> about relevant calls available but not made. So the first thing that >> occurs to me is "are there any other forcing responses to 1S available, >> and if so, what do they mean?" >Sven Pran: >Yes, I think this is a valid approach. >(But I do not think, and do not expect you to think that the information >on >such alternative forcing bids should be volunteered without being asked) No, the questioner does not have to ask exactly the right question. The mere request for information should trigger full disclosure (until the questioner indicates that he has enough). James Hudson From svenpran@online.no Wed Dec 10 22:55:19 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:55:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Relay race (was Question 1) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3bf70$af3b0930$6900a8c0@WINXP> Do I understand your comment below that you would wish to ban for = instance the following use of Stayman after opening bids in 1NT: 2C intending to pass whatever response the opener produces because the responder's hand has exactly zero HCP and the distribution 4-4-4-1 (singleton in clubs)? It is a relay bid (not often thought of as such), it can be up to 25 HCP (against a 1NT opening bid showing 15-17) and is certainly forcing for = one round. I believe the use of Stayman on a valueless hand for such purpose = is now generally accepted. Sven > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sven Pran asked: >=20 > >This is not a question of concealing information > >from opponents. The questions are: > > > >1: Is it possible to have a system where one > >player takes on the role as captain and without > >disclosing anything whatsoever about his own > >hand through a series of demand calls "maps" his > >partner's hand and finally decides the contract? > >Nobody can assume what cards the captain holds > >except that he must be assumed to have reasons > >for his calls. >=20 > Richard James Hills answers: >=20 > Yes and no. There are always negative inferences > concerning other available calls not used. >=20 > For example, in my (Precision-ish) Symmetric Relay > system, if I respond 1NT to pard's 1H opening bid, > my response is an artificial game force relay, > asking pard to describe his hand further. >=20 > *However*, I also have the option of responding > 4H to pard's 1H opening, which by partnership > agreement is a two-way bid: -> either a preemptive > raise, or strong and balanced with zero interest > in slam. >=20 > Sven asked: >=20 > >2: Do we allow such a system? > > > >In my opinion the obvious answer to question 1 is > >"yes" (I am familiar with at least two). Equally > >obvious is the answer to question 2 "yes" except > >when such systems are explicitly forbidden in > >regulations. >=20 > RJH answers: >=20 > In my personal opinion, bridge administrators > should carefully regulate different relay systems > in different ways, according to the fundamental > taxonomy of a relay system. >=20 > A relay system where the artificial relays *always* > show at least game invitational values (for example, > Ron Klinger's Power Acol system), should be > permitted in most events. Artificial but *strong* > calls are unlikely to disconcert opponents during > the auction, since such opponents almost always > would be intending to Pass anyway. >=20 > However, systems where a response to an opening bid > is: >=20 > (a) totally artificial, and > (b) potentially weak >=20 > *would* disconcert unprepared oponents during the > auction. Those relay systems, in my personal > opinion, should be restricted to fewer events than > Power Acol is allowed. >=20 > Best wishes >=20 > Richard James Hills > = -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - > ------------ > Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please > advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. > =A0This > 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 svenpran@online.no Wed Dec 10 23:07:42 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 00:07:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Question 1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c3bf72$6a3f5be0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > James Hudson ......... > But the partner of the relay bidder, though ceding full control, knows > with what sort of hand the relayer would think he had a reason for > invoking the relay. He should give this information to his opponents, > if asked. >=20 > >>Ed Reppert: > >> Opponents are required to include in their explanation information > >> about relevant calls available but not made. So the first thing > that > >> occurs to me is "are there any other forcing responses to 1S > available, > >> and if so, what do they mean?" >=20 > >Sven Pran: > >Yes, I think this is a valid approach. > >(But I do not think, and do not expect you to think that the > information >on > >such alternative forcing bids should be volunteered without being > asked) >=20 > No, the questioner does not have to ask exactly the right question. > The mere request for information should trigger full disclosure (until > the questioner indicates that he has enough). So in your opinion when I open 1H and partner responds 2NT which I alert = and explains as "game forcing with good fit in hearts" I must also tell my opponents: "We also have 1S and 2 in minor which are forcing for one round and if I then bid a secondary suit (different from his) and partner bid the = fourth suit that would also be forcing to game. Furthermore we have the = following bids which are all directly forcing to game: 2S and 3 in minor showing a good suit, 3S and 4 in minor showing maximum one card in the named suit, = and of course 4NT as Roman key card Blackwood. In addition partner could bid = 5NT which would request me to bid 7S with at least 2 of the three highest = honors in Hearts and otherwise bid 6".=20 Are you serious? (I hope I haven't missed any forcing bids). Sven From blml@blakjak.com Wed Dec 10 23:21:37 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:21:37 +0000 Subject: [blml] Question 1 In-Reply-To: <000001c3bf56$3a3dfee0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c3bf56$3a3dfee0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >> >............. >> >> They can assume it, but will they be right? We had a ruling a year >> or >> >> two ago at Brighton where a pair was playing 1H as a "forcing relay" >> >> over 1D. To be legal it had to be constructive. They argued that it >> >> was, despite the fact that it was made on 6 HCP, and the AC agreed, >> even >> >> though the TDs had not. >> >> >> >> So if you were told that a 1H response to 1D was a forcing relay, >> >> constructive, would you assume it could be made on 6 HCP? >> > >> >Yes I would, inasmuch as I accept a natural 1H bid over a 1D opening as a >> >bid that is forcing for one round and can be made on as little as 6HCP. >> >> So what about the normal players who when they make a constructive bid >> show 11 HCP - because that is the normal understanding of constructive - >> game try values? Do you not think htat they should tell opponents what >> they play rather than hide it? > >I don't understand your position here. Already Goren (and Culbertson before >him) taught us to bid 1H over partner's opening bid in 1D with a four card >suit and 6 HCP (up to at least 15 HCP). This is what I know still the normal >style in "green" (natural) systems. Do you claim that this 1H bid (which was >forcing for one round already with Culbertson) is not "constructive"? Not in my understanding. Constructive is definitely non-minimum as I understand it. Bridge Encyclopaedia: Constructive: A description applied to a bid that suggests game prospects but is not forcing. Anyway, your understanding of relay systems seems wider than mine: you earlier said that you expect certain values for a 2C relay response, but not for a 1H relay response. While all this seems to be true enough, are you sure all your opponents play this way? Would it not be easier if they just said 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 blml@blakjak.com Wed Dec 10 23:23:04 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:23:04 +0000 Subject: [blml] Question 1 In-Reply-To: <000101c3bf57$08d93b20$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c3bf57$08d93b20$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >> Sven Pran wrote >> >Nobody has stated that this is forcing to game, just forcing (for one >> >round). >> > >> >Now place yourself in the position where your LHO opens the auction with >> 1S, >> >your partner passes and your RHO bids 2C. They have declared "green" >> system >> >and there is no alert. >> > >> >By the current rules (in most areas I know about) that mean that the 2C >> bid >> >shows a minimum of three clubs, 10HCP and is forcing for at least one >> round. >> > >> >What questions do you ask and what information do you want. >> > >> >And then please tell the difference from the case when you are informed >> that >> >except for not showing anything about the club suit the 2C bid is the >> same? >> >> No-one has suggested it shows 10 HCP, except you: the actual >> description has no mention of values whatever. > >Sorry, this part is really irrelevant for my question. In a natural system >any call forcing the contract level to two should show at least 10HCP. >(According to Goren and many subsequent authors). > >I would still appreciate an answer to my question. What question? What more do I want? I want them to tell me their agreements. -- 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 Wed Dec 10 23:28:42 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:28:42 +0000 Subject: [blml] Question 1 In-Reply-To: <000001c3bf5e$2bfdf300$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c3bf5e$2bfdf300$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >............. >> >I am playing a green ("natural") system and if I were asked >> > about my partner's bid of 2C over my 1S opening bid I would >> > simply answer "natural". >> > >> >On possible follow-up questions on what this means I would >> >inform them that"natural" means: "Forcing for one round, at >> >least three clubs and at least 10HCP. Requesting me to >> >further describe my opening hand". >> >> That's ok because you are playing a natural system, and the >> opponents can make deductions. for example, your partner >> will not have eight diamonds > >Why not? Finding a contract in major or No trump with the same number of >tricks counts a lot more points than a contract at the same level in minor. >Nothing should prevent partner from looking for a better alternative to >playing in Diamonds. (Eight diamonds provides for a nice amount of >discards). So, because you are looking for an alternative to playing in diamonds, you respond 2C with three clubs and eight diamonds, and this is normal in a natural system? I do not believe you. >> >When playing against partnerships that use relay systems I >> >accept that the relay bidder is the captain and does not >> >disclose anything about his hand with his bids except that >> >he has either the cards or the nerve to do what he does. >> >> You may accept it, but it is not true. Dependent on the >> rest of the system there are only certain hands you and >> your partner will use it on - you know that, opponents do >> not. > >I would like to hear you providing relevant examples to support this >statement. I have already done so. I play a 2C relay response - and I would be cheating if I just told my opponents it is just asking with nothing more. >> Admittedly the opponents could ask you for the meaning of every >> alternative action, but it would be a lot simpler if you just told them >> what the possible hands are - or what possible hands are excluded. >So with this logic I should without being called for this information tell >opponents that when partner opens 1 in a suit he definitely not holds a >higher ranked suit with the same or greater length (at least 5) as the named >suit because then he would have opened in the higher ranked suit? (We >usually tell opponents that we open in the lowest ranked four card suit and >the highest ranked five card suit when asked for the suit length in the >opening bid) > >Or when he opens in 2C (strong artificial) we should tell opponents that >with 20 to 21 HCP and a NT distribution he would instead have opened in 2NT? If you describe it as 23+ if balanced [as I always do] then you do not need to show alternatives. It is the deliberate hiding of the methods that worries me: when people are playing familiar things in a familiar way their opponents can make some deductions without help. >Opponents can always claim misinformation when there are undisclosed >details, but they will have to show probable damage from this alleged MI in >order to have any redress. The deliberate withholding of knowledge is illegal, with or without damage. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From john@asimere.com Wed Dec 10 23:36:30 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:36:30 +0000 Subject: [blml] Question 1 In-Reply-To: References: <000001c3bf16$d17271f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <200312101709.JAA01398@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <9nW+1pB+361$EwpA@asimere.com> In article , David Stevenson writes >John (MadDog) Probst wrote > >>Would we be discussing this if the auction had started 1NT P 2C and the >>same explanation had been given? Sheesh! john > > Probably. If they are playing a relay method that is not Stayman then >the same applies: they know their system , you don't. My friends, the >Keens, play 2C as Keri - and, no, I have no idea what that means. But >they will explain it to me at length if I ask them. > > Be honest, John, do you personally expect to gain at this game by >keeping your opponents in ignorance of your methods? Of course you >don't. Neither should your opponents be gaining this way. David I was suggesting that the 2C call in my suggested auction is "a relay showing nothing about clubs". Now if the auction started this way we would not be having this discussion because everyone (well most everyone except my beginner in this evening's chicago drive) knows that 2C is indeed a relay, forcing and says nothing about clubs. The presumptions one draws from that are whatever they generally are - I don't presume to tell you David what is general bridge knowledge. I do agree that it denies certain hands, and indeed for full explanation of Stayman, I need to explain about wto's and imm jump shifts and 2N invit, and what the responses are etc, so I do agree that there is not full disclosure. That too is true of 1Maj P 2C in our case, and a follow up question of the nature, "what hands does it deny and what rebid structure is adopted", would be appropriate. fwiw I'm still devising new uses for Stayman; I used it to pick off the opponents suit recently, much to their disgust and amusement. I was 2-3 in the majors and scrambled to 2H after the negative response. We played 2S down 5, since nobody can double for penalties these days. I'm sure I could devise new and ever more rapacious methods for 1Maj P 2C as well :) As for full disclosure, it's a tenet of my game with any wild player (particularly currently Tim) that I must bend over backwards to explain all the bizarre things that have happened recently in certain types of auction - even though there are those who think our methods are illegal if such disclosure is made. cheers john > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From jurgenr@t-online.de Wed Dec 10 23:41:30 2003 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 00:41:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Question 1 Message-ID: I thought it was obvious that the explanation given did not amount to "full disclosure", but this is not the question I was asking. The TD judged that the information was sufficient, arguing somewhat like Sven, and his judgment was, of course, accepted. Now consider what it means for "forcing, says nothing about clubs" to be the complete explanation. It means that the bid is independent of the actual hand. There are only 2 cases in which this can be true; either 2C is the only possible response to 1S Pass; or 2C is a completely random bid sometimes made after 1S Pass. In both cases the bid can be made without looking at the cards. Is such a bid compatible with L74B1? More interesting is the question what effect random bids - i.e. bids that have no relation to the bidder's hand - have on the game. It is almost self-evident that opener's partner cannot gain by making a meaningless bid after 1S Pass. Thus one can confidently wait for this technique, should it become fashionable, to die a natural death. However, the situation is quite different for opener's LHO. It is not at all clear that a meaningless bid might not be advantageous, and the effect is, just like the effect of many other esoteric methods, that a random factor is added to the score, presumably favoring the users of such methods on balance, unless the opponents are well prepared. It seems quite clear that any prohibition of "purely destructive methods" would cover the case of random bids. Jürgen From blml@blakjak.com Wed Dec 10 23:43:05 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:43:05 +0000 Subject: [blml] Question 1 In-Reply-To: <000101c3bf72$6a3f5be0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c3bf72$6a3f5be0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >So in your opinion when I open 1H and partner responds 2NT which I alert and >explains as "game forcing with good fit in hearts" I must also tell my >opponents: > >"We also have 1S and 2 in minor which are forcing for one round and if I >then bid a secondary suit (different from his) and partner bid the fourth >suit that would also be forcing to game. Furthermore we have the following >bids which are all directly forcing to game: 2S and 3 in minor showing a >good suit, 3S and 4 in minor showing maximum one card in the named suit, and >of course 4NT as Roman key card Blackwood. In addition partner could bid 5NT >which would request me to bid 7S with at least 2 of the three highest honors >in Hearts and otherwise bid 6". > >Are you serious? (I hope I haven't missed any forcing bids). No, because you are presumably using 2NT whenever you are forcing to game with a good fit in hearts, so it is not analogous. But when you respond 2C to 1S, and you describe it in effect as any 13 cards, that is legitimate only if partner *always* bids 2C. If he only bids 2C on certain hands then opponents have a right to know which hands. When I play a 2C relay I tell my opponents enough so they know what my partner will have. But you are allowing them not to do this. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Dec 11 00:32:22 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:32:22 +1000 Subject: [blml] Negative nonsense? (was Question 1) Message-ID: Sven satirised: >So in your opinion when I open 1H and partner >responds 2NT which I alert and explains as >"game forcing with good fit in hearts" I must >also tell my opponents: > >"We also have 1S and 2 in minor which are >forcing for one round and if I then bid a >secondary suit (different from his) and >partner bid the fourth suit that would also >be forcing to game. Furthermore we have the >following bids which are all directly forcing >to game: 2S and 3 in minor showing a good >suit, 3S and 4 in minor showing maximum one >card in the named suit, and of course 4NT as >Roman key card Blackwood. In addition partner >could bid 5NT which would request me to bid 7H >with at least 2 of the three highest honors >in Hearts and otherwise bid 6". > >Are you serious? (I hope I haven't missed any >forcing bids). Richard riposted: I am serious in wanting *full* disclosure of negative inferences. Given the description of the other Sven System game forcing bids, which may also have a good fit in hearts, I can *now* deduce that a more complete description of the Sven System 2NT response to 1H is: "game forcing with a good fit in hearts, likely to have a reasonably balanced distribution". Negative of non-best wishes RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From adam@irvine.com Thu Dec 11 00:00:55 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:00:55 -0800 Subject: [blml] Question 1 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 11 Dec 2003 00:07:42 +0100." <000101c3bf72$6a3f5be0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <200312110000.QAA12991@mailhub.irvine.com> Sven wrote: > > >Sven Pran: > > >Yes, I think this is a valid approach. > > >(But I do not think, and do not expect you to think that the > > information >on > > >such alternative forcing bids should be volunteered without being > > asked) > > > > No, the questioner does not have to ask exactly the right question. > > The mere request for information should trigger full disclosure (until > > the questioner indicates that he has enough). > > So in your opinion when I open 1H and partner responds 2NT which I alert and > explains as "game forcing with good fit in hearts" I must also tell my > opponents: > > "We also have 1S and 2 in minor which are forcing for one round and if I > then bid a secondary suit (different from his) and partner bid the fourth > suit that would also be forcing to game. Furthermore we have the following > bids which are all directly forcing to game: 2S and 3 in minor showing a > good suit, 3S and 4 in minor showing maximum one card in the named suit, and > of course 4NT as Roman key card Blackwood. In addition partner could bid 5NT > which would request me to bid 7S with at least 2 of the three highest honors > in Hearts and otherwise bid 6". > > Are you serious? (I hope I haven't missed any forcing bids). I certainly don't think you should have to say all that in response to the first question. For an artificial forcing raise, just the information that it's an artificial forcing raise is probably good enough for starters. For many players, it may be necessary to say that it's an artificial forcing raise that probably does not contain a singleton. However, I do think that when a bid is forcing, says practically nothing about the bidder's hand, and does not ask for something specific (like Stayman or Blackwood do), the explainer *ought* to include some additional information to limit the possible types of hands, so that the opponents aren't led to believe that the bid shows any collection of 13 cards. -- Adam From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Wed Dec 10 23:21:48 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:21:48 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] Question 1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, David Stevenson wrote: > >> They can assume it, but will they be right? We had a ruling a year or > >> two ago at Brighton where a pair was playing 1H as a "forcing relay" > >> over 1D. To be legal it had to be constructive. They argued that it > >> was, despite the fact that it was made on 6 HCP, and the AC agreed, even > >> though the TDs had not. > >> > >> So if you were told that a 1H response to 1D was a forcing relay, > >> constructive, would you assume it could be made on 6 HCP? > > > > So what about the normal players who when they make a constructive bid > show 11 HCP - because that is the normal understanding of constructive - > game try values? Do you not think htat they should tell opponents what > they play rather than hide it? It appears usage differs somewhat from place to place. "Constructive," in my US experience, means something more than preemptive but less than a serious game invitation. To cite the three auctions where this word is most frequently used: 1S Pass 2S: normally, something like 5-9HCP and 3-4 spades. If you play "single raise constructive," however, this will be 8-10ish, with the 6HCP hands responding 1NT. (This method seems to be drying up and blowing away.) 1C 1H Pass 1S: we have on the ACBL convention card 3 checkboxes to describe how strong advancer's new-suit bid is: "NF" (overcaller is expected to pass unless he has an exceptional hand), "NFConst" (new suit shows something like 8-11 points, and overcaller can bid again with an above average overcall), and forcing. 1C 1S Pass 3C: A common agreement is that a raise to 3S is preemptive, while a limit raise starts with a 2C cuebid. The in-between hands (say 7-10 with 4 spades) are termed "mixed raises" or "constructive raises." In this light, I can understand someone expecting a little more than 6HCP for a "constructive" response to 1D but would be very surprised to hear anyone expect a call to guarantee 11 if it is described as "constructive" rather than as "invitational+" or similar. GRB From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Dec 11 00:45:01 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:45:01 +1000 Subject: [blml] Relay race (was Question 1) Message-ID: [big snip] RJH: >>However, systems where a response to an opening bid >>is: >> >>(a) totally artificial, and >>(b) potentially weak >> >>*would* disconcert unprepared oponents during the >>auction. Those relay systems, in my personal >>opinion, should be restricted to fewer events than >>Power Acol is allowed. Sven: >Do I understand your comment below that you would >wish to ban for instance the following use of >Stayman after opening bids in 1NT: > >2C intending to pass whatever response the opener >produces because the responder's hand has exactly >zero HCP and the distribution 4-4-4-1 (singleton in >clubs)? > >It is a relay bid (not often thought of as such), it >can be up to 25 HCP (against a 1NT opening bid >showing 15-17) and is certainly forcing for one >round. I believe the use of Stayman on a valueless >hand for such purpose is now generally accepted. RJH: Using the relay response of Stayman on zero points satisfies criterion (b), being potentially weak, but does *not* satisfy criterion (a), totally artificial. In Sven's example, zero HCP Stayman is used only when holding length in both majors, so the opponents have some inferences available if they wish to enter the auction. Best wishes Richard James Hills -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Dec 11 00:04:07 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 00:04:07 -0000 Subject: [blml] AOL Message-ID: <000b01c3bf7a$80b0eda0$bd3887d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott Message-ID: <000001c3bf7e$4bcfcd00$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ............ > >I don't understand your position here. Already Goren (and Culbertson > before > >him) taught us to bid 1H over partner's opening bid in 1D with a four > card > >suit and 6 HCP (up to at least 15 HCP). This is what I know still the > normal > >style in "green" (natural) systems. Do you claim that this 1H bid = (which > was > >forcing for one round already with Culbertson) is not "constructive"? >=20 > Not in my understanding. Constructive is definitely non-minimum as = I > understand it. >=20 > Bridge Encyclopaedia: Constructive: A description applied to a bid > that suggests game prospects but is not forcing. >=20 > Anyway, your understanding of relay systems seems wider than mine: = you > earlier said that you expect certain values for a 2C relay response, = but > not for a 1H relay response. While all this seems to be true enough, > are you sure all your opponents play this way? Would it not be easier > if they just said so? Now maybe we can work towards some consensus: My understanding of a "constructive" bid is that it is part of an = attempt to reach the best contract under the circumstances, not necessarily game. The opposite is a "destructive" bid which is an attempt to destroy the = game. Note that I do not say "destroy for opponents", a preemptive bid for instance certainly has the objective of preventing opponents from = finding their best contract and as such is "destructive" for them but in a way = that at the same time is "constructive" for our side.=20 1H natural after partners opening bid in 1D is IMO certainly = constructive, it allows for the possibility that partner has a 19 HCP hand which = together with my 6 HCP (or more) without losing a game contract. And it can be = the first bid in a series to find the best fit and consequently the best contract while still keeping the door open for stopping in a contract at = the one-level with minimum hands. In a natural system I follow the advice of Goren that in order to keep = the auction open at the one level 6HCP is required while taking the auction = to the two level requires 10 HCP (All opposite an opening bid of 1 in a = suit). I see no reason why this shall not be the "natural requirements" also = for a relay system? However, as there are situations where you will bid with a hand = considerably weaker than 6 HCP against partners opening bid of 1 in a suit so I = believe we must allow a relay bidder to take on the role as captain and bid with strengths not complying with the standards set by Goren. After all, that is his decision (and his funeral in case). Anybody should be able to deduct that a one over one bid should be = around 6HCP or more while a two over one should be showing at least 10 HCP. And = in this evaluation the question of system is rather immaterial. The = combined strength needed to play at a particular level is independent from what system agreements that partnership has. Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Dec 11 01:20:34 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 11:20:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] Random walk (was Question 1) Message-ID: Konrad Ciborowski: >>>As far as I know (which isn't far) Meckstroth - >>>Rodwell play that an overcall of 1S over the >>>strong 1C opener has "no meaning whatsoever - >>>random". Some pairs even play that such an >>>overcall is compulsory. J=FCrgen Rennenkampff: >>It is not at all clear that a meaningless bid >>might not be advantageous, and the effect is, >>just like the effect of many other esoteric >>methods, that a random factor is added to the >>score, presumably favoring the users of such >>methods on balance, unless the opponents are well >>prepared. It seems quite clear that any >>prohibition of "purely destructive methods" would >>cover the case of random bids. Australian Bridge Federation, system regulations: >1.6 YELLOW SYSTEMS (Highly Unusual Openings) > >All systems which do not satisfy the RED >classification are classified as YELLOW. >Accordingly, YELLOW Systems may have some of the >following features: [snip] >(5) Overcalls may include non-descriptive (or >"random") overcalls, such as, "That bid can mean >anything", "He holds thirteen cards", "We make >random overcalls over a Precision 1C regardless of >strength". In such cases, however, partnership >experience must be disclosed. Richard James Hills: In my opinion, the ACBL is too laissez-faire in its non-regulation of "random" overcalls. In my opinion, the ABF's strict HUM classification of "random" overcalls is best. J=FCrgen gives one good reason - purely destructive - for the limited permissability of "random" overcalls. But, in my opinion, an even more important reason for the ABF's HUM restriction of "random" overcalls is the ultimate sentence of the ABF reg: "In such cases, however, partnership experience must be disclosed." Until cyborgs play bridge, a "random" overcall will be an oxymoron. Best wishes RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From svenpran@online.no Thu Dec 11 00:55:33 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 01:55:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Question 1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3bf81$7b245190$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ............ > What question? > > What more do I want? I want them to tell me their agreements. The question was (slightly simplified): Place yourself in the position where your LHO opens the auction with 1S, your partner passes and your RHO bids 2C. They have declared "green" system and there is no alert. Next place yourself in the same position except that this time you are informed that the 2C bid (alerted) does not show anything about the clubs. In both cases you should anticipate (or it will be confirmed if you ask): 1: that the 2C bid is forcing for one round and that the opener is supposed to further describe his hand. And 2: that the 2C bidder takes on the responsibility for bringing the auction to the two-level which normally implies that his hand is strong enough to tolerate this level even against a minimum strength opener. All this was basic with Goren, I believe it is still basic in every "green" (natural) system and I would be surprised if it is not basic also in any system whatever - including "red" (relay) systems. Do you treat these two scenarios differently regarding the information you want disclosed on the auction and their agreements? Sven From svenpran@online.no Thu Dec 11 01:18:40 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:18:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Question 1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3bf84$b62d5b80$6900a8c0@WINXP> > So, because you are looking for an alternative to playing in = diamonds, > you respond 2C with three clubs and eight diamonds, and this is normal > in a natural system? I do not believe you. Sorry, no. I remember when I wrote that answer I was thinking of partner having made an opening bid in 1D (not 1S) and that I was thinking on how = to find the best contract which is not necessarily in diamonds. All my = direct suit raises are limit so in such a case I have to bid some other suit = first to get a better description of partner's hand. My mistake. > >> You may accept it, but it is not true. Dependent on the > >> rest of the system there are only certain hands you and > >> your partner will use it on - you know that, opponents do > >> not. > > > >I would like to hear you providing relevant examples to support this > >statement. >=20 > I have already done so. I play a 2C relay response - and I would be > cheating if I just told my opponents it is just asking with nothing > more. Can I assume that you deny the possibility of relay bids that only = request more information without including any information on the hand on which = such bids are made?=20 =20 > >Or when he opens in 2C (strong artificial) we should tell opponents = that > >with 20 to 21 HCP and a NT distribution he would instead have opened = in > 2NT? >=20 > If you describe it as 23+ if balanced [as I always do] then you do = not > need to show alternatives. It is the deliberate hiding of the methods > that worries me: when people are playing familiar things in a familiar > way their opponents can make some deductions without help. But that will also be incomplete? With a five-card major suit the = strength can often be as low as 20HCP, you will have to mention that as well. >=20 > >Opponents can always claim misinformation when there are undisclosed > >details, but they will have to show probable damage from this alleged = MI > in > >order to have any redress. >=20 > The deliberate withholding of knowledge is illegal, with or without > damage. Sure, but you do not rule "deliberate withholding" because the player = failed to read out the entire "Bridge in a Nutshell" by Goren or a similar compendium relevant to his system do you? Do you penalize every time you (as the TD in charge) hear a pair = disclosing 2C as strong artificial without specifying that it shows at least 20 HCP with a major suit, 24 HCP with a minor suit and at least 22 HCP with an = even distribution? Sven From walt1@verizon.net Thu Dec 11 01:21:03 2003 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:21:03 -0500 Subject: [blml] Relay race (was Question 1) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.0.20031210201852.03772480@incoming.verizon.net> At 07:45 PM 10/12/2003, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Using the relay response of Stayman on zero points >satisfies criterion (b), being potentially weak, but >does *not* satisfy criterion (a), totally artificial. Richard James You've lost me here. 2C saying nothing about the club suit is not totally artificial? Walt From svenpran@online.no Thu Dec 11 01:34:17 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:34:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Question 1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3bf86$e4a29910$6900a8c0@WINXP> > J=FCrgen Rennenkampff > I thought it was obvious that the explanation given did not amount to > "full > disclosure", but this is not the question I was asking. The TD judged = that > the information was sufficient, arguing somewhat like Sven, and his > judgment > was, of course, accepted. >=20 > Now consider what it means for "forcing, says nothing about clubs" to = be > the > complete explanation. It means that the bid is independent of the = actual > hand. There are only 2 cases in which this can be true; either 2C is = the > only possible response to 1S Pass; or 2C is a completely random bid > sometimes made after 1S Pass. In both cases the bid can be made = without > looking at the cards. Is such a bid compatible with L74B1? Discard "random calls". These are what I know generally considered HUC (Highly unusual conventions) and as such illegal in most events. But 2C need not be the only possible response to 1S pass, it need not = even be the only possible forcing bid. Just to give an extreme example: Do you consider it essential in the description of the 2C bid to include an explanation for why the = responder did not immediately bid 4NT (Blackwood)? I think we all agree that a question on further possible inferences from = the 2C bid is not improper (but could very well damage the "NOS" by causing = UI to the partner of the player asking), and the answer to such clarifying question could easily be: "Well, he should have a hand worth at least 10 = HCP (because he forces us to the two-level) and he is obviously interested = in finding the best contract for our side". But would you seriously consider this to be any clarification beyond = what you already could and in fact should assume? Regards Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Dec 11 02:06:37 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:06:37 +1000 Subject: [blml] AC or DC? (was Something different!) Message-ID: Tim West-Meads: >>Anne, you are not suitably qualified to make >>judgement decisions beyond your playing level (nor >>is anybody else). Personally I would have thought >>this was stating the obvious. If the janitor is a >>world-class player he is better qualified to make >>high level judgement rulings than 99% of TDs, [snip] >It has been said before that the primary requirement >for decisions on LAs etc is that the decision makers >should be suitably capable players. This is hardly >news and is the basis for constituting appeals >committees. [snip] Richard James Hills: I disagree with what is, in my opinion, a rather elitist point of view. I prefer the more inclusive AC personnel recommendations of the WBF Code of Practice: "The view is taken that an appeal committee will incorporate a quota of strong players together with other members considered to be of broad bridge experience and to have a balanced objective approach to the decision making process. The chairman of a committee should ensure that the strong players play a leading role in questions of bridge judgement and that the other members of a committee are influential in seeking a balanced judgement when applying law and regulation to the bridge merits inherent in the facts as they appear to the committee. It is desirable that at least one member of a committee should have an insight into the laws of the game, but it is not that member's task nor the function of the committee to establish what law is applicable and how it is to be interpreted; these are matters to be enquired of the Chief Tournament Director (i.e. 'The Director' to which Law 81 refers) or his nominee for the purpose. The committee applies the given interpretation of the law to the facts and circumstances of the case. For the recording of the process and the decisions, together with the basis for them and relevant information, the WBF recommends that each committee should have, or should appoint one of its number to be, its Scribe." Best wishes RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From svenpran@online.no Thu Dec 11 01:42:16 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:42:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Question 1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c3bf88$0237e1a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ............ > But when you respond 2C to 1S, and you describe it in effect as any = 13 > cards, that is legitimate only if partner *always* bids 2C. If he = only > bids 2C on certain hands then opponents have a right to know which > hands. >=20 > When I play a 2C relay I tell my opponents enough so they know what = my > partner will have. But you are allowing them not to do this. I wonder if we are able to make everybody include with their description = of a bid (any bid) the phrase: "And he is showing sufficient strength to = bid on that level" I am not too happy with the limitation indicated in Law 75C: "but he = need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and = experience", I feel that this is too easily abused in order to really conceal = agreements. But frankly I feel that "showing the strength needed for a level" ought = to be accepted as part of such "general knowledge". Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Dec 11 03:04:42 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:04:42 +1000 Subject: [blml] Relay race (was Question 1) Message-ID: RJH: >>Using the relay response of Stayman on zero points >>satisfies criterion (b), being potentially weak, but >>does *not* satisfy criterion (a), totally artificial. Walt: >You've lost me here. 2C saying nothing about the club >suit is not totally artificial? RJH: Sorry, slightly inappropriate terminology. Another pair of examples may clarify my intent: -> 1. 1NT - Pass - 2D (transfer to hearts), or 2. 1NT - Pass - 2D (relay with any 13 cards) In both cases, 2D is artificial, as the bid says nothing about diamonds. But in the first case 2D is not a *totally* artificial call, since it promises an anchor suit of at least 5 hearts. In a competitive auction, example 1 leaves opponents better placed, since they now have the option of bidding hearts as a forcing cuebid. (Perhaps "totally non-descriptive" call would be the mot juste.) Best wishes Richard James Hills -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Dec 11 03:19:01 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:19:01 +1000 Subject: [blml] General genista genera (was Question 1) Message-ID: [snip] >But frankly I feel that "showing the strength >needed for a level" ought to be accepted as part >of such "general knowledge". > >Sven General knowledge or genistal knowledge? I am not yellow, hiding in the bushes. Rather, I belong to the genus of player who hardly ever has the strength needed for a level. :-) Best wishes RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From blml@blakjak.com Thu Dec 11 02:49:28 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:49:28 +0000 Subject: [blml] Question 1 In-Reply-To: <000001c3bf7e$4bcfcd00$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c3bf7e$4bcfcd00$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >> Not in my understanding. Constructive is definitely non-minimum as I >> understand it. >> >> Bridge Encyclopaedia: Constructive: A description applied to a bid >> that suggests game prospects but is not forcing. >> >> Anyway, your understanding of relay systems seems wider than mine: you >> earlier said that you expect certain values for a 2C relay response, but >> not for a 1H relay response. While all this seems to be true enough, >> are you sure all your opponents play this way? Would it not be easier >> if they just said so? >Now maybe we can work towards some consensus: > >My understanding of a "constructive" bid is that it is part of an attempt to >reach the best contract under the circumstances, not necessarily game. And as you have just seen, not only is that not my understanding, but it is not the Bridge Encyclopaedia's understanding either. >The opposite is a "destructive" bid which is an attempt to destroy the game. >Note that I do not say "destroy for opponents", a preemptive bid for >instance certainly has the objective of preventing opponents from finding >their best contract and as such is "destructive" for them but in a way that >at the same time is "constructive" for our side. > >1H natural after partners opening bid in 1D is IMO certainly constructive, >it allows for the possibility that partner has a 19 HCP hand which together >with my 6 HCP (or more) without losing a game contract. And it can be the >first bid in a series to find the best fit and consequently the best >contract while still keeping the door open for stopping in a contract at the >one-level with minimum hands. > >In a natural system I follow the advice of Goren that in order to keep the >auction open at the one level 6HCP is required while taking the auction to >the two level requires 10 HCP (All opposite an opening bid of 1 in a suit). > >I see no reason why this shall not be the "natural requirements" also for a >relay system? And how do we know that this is what this pair play? They said nothing about "natural requirements". >However, as there are situations where you will bid with a hand considerably >weaker than 6 HCP against partners opening bid of 1 in a suit so I believe >we must allow a relay bidder to take on the role as captain and bid with >strengths not complying with the standards set by Goren. > >After all, that is his decision (and his funeral in case). > >Anybody should be able to deduct that a one over one bid should be around >6HCP or more while a two over one should be showing at least 10 HCP. And in >this evaluation the question of system is rather immaterial. The combined >strength needed to play at a particular level is independent from what >system agreements that partnership has. When you say "Anybody" does that include people who have never played that a 2/1 shows ten points, and rarely play against such an agreement? Why cannot the players just tell you this rather than having to deduce it from experience of different systems which, as you have just demonstrated, is different experience between you and me? ----------------- Is all this discussion really necessary to avoid ruling against a pair that are not prepared to follow the dictates of Law 75? -- 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 Dec 11 02:53:28 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:53:28 +0000 Subject: [blml] Question 1 In-Reply-To: <000001c3bf81$7b245190$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c3bf81$7b245190$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >............ >> What question? >> >> What more do I want? I want them to tell me their agreements. > >The question was (slightly simplified): > >Place yourself in the position where your LHO opens the auction with 1S, >your partner passes and your RHO bids 2C. They have declared "green" system >and there is no alert. > >Next place yourself in the same position except that this time you are >informed that the 2C bid (alerted) does not show anything about the clubs. > >In both cases you should anticipate (or it will be confirmed if you ask): >1: that the 2C bid is forcing for one round and that the opener is supposed >to further describe his hand. >And 2: that the 2C bidder takes on the responsibility for bringing the >auction to the two-level which normally implies that his hand is strong >enough to tolerate this level even against a minimum strength opener. > >All this was basic with Goren, I believe it is still basic in every "green" >(natural) system and I would be surprised if it is not basic also in any >system whatever - including "red" (relay) systems. > >Do you treat these two scenarios differently regarding the information you >want disclosed on the auction and their agreements? Completely. You can reach conclusions about what people play with natural methods, and you will usually be right - and if you are not right they are required to tell you. There is no conclusion you can draw about an artificial system - you cannot even reach a conclusion about the minimum strength since they are telling you nothing about their system. The idea that an artificial system will use basic Goren ideas is laughable - why should they? -- 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 Dec 11 02:55:53 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:55:53 +0000 Subject: [blml] Question 1 In-Reply-To: <000001c3bf84$b62d5b80$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c3bf84$b62d5b80$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >Can I assume that you deny the possibility of relay bids that only request >more information without including any information on the hand on which such >bids are made? As a first response to a normal range one-opening? Yes. >> >Opponents can always claim misinformation when there are undisclosed >> >details, but they will have to show probable damage from this alleged MI >> in >> >order to have any redress. >> >> The deliberate withholding of knowledge is illegal, with or without >> damage. >Sure, but you do not rule "deliberate withholding" because the player failed >to read out the entire "Bridge in a Nutshell" by Goren or a similar >compendium relevant to his system do you? > >Do you penalize every time you (as the TD in charge) hear a pair disclosing >2C as strong artificial without specifying that it shows at least 20 HCP >with a major suit, 24 HCP with a minor suit and at least 22 HCP with an even >distribution? Of course not, but giving examples that are not in any way similar to the case in hand proves nothing. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Dec 11 04:56:01 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:56:01 +1000 Subject: [blml] Question 1 Message-ID: Sven rhetorically questioned: [snip] >>Do you penalize every time you (as the TD in charge) hear >>a pair disclosing 2C as strong artificial without >>specifying that it shows at least 20 HCP with a major >>suit, 24 HCP with a minor suit and at least 22 HCP with >>an even distribution? Richard rhadamanthinely replies: Yes, I do penalise. Not only has the "fully" requirement of Law 75A been infracted, but the ABF alert reg provides a specific highlighting of the need for full disclosure: -> ABF alert reg, clause 9.3: >.....the use of "Standard" or "Natural" to describe calls, >signals or leads is not acceptable - nor are the terms >"Weak", "Strong" or "Intermediate" - without appropriate >qualification. Best wishes Richard James Hills -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From adam@tameware.com Thu Dec 11 05:39:19 2003 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 00:39:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia Casebook #28 In-Reply-To: <003201c3bf51$d0ad9980$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <003201c3bf51$d0ad9980$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: At 11:11 AM -0800 12/10/03, Marvin French wrote: >Case 28 involved one of my pet peeves. It happened in a senior game, >and we are not told the strength of the pairs involved. (No, we're >not all weak!) A Stayman 2C was doubled, not Alerted, and next hand >inquired as to the meaning. This unnecessary inquiry led to all >sorts of trouble. In the absence of an Alert, the double of a >low-level artificial bid is default suit/strength showing, not >takeout (which is Alertable). The question forced the opponent to >give an answer that happened to be wrong. She wasn't sure what the >double meant, and guessed wrong, saying "Takeout." Surely this was a clear infraction. If they have no agreement she must say so. >The doubler actually held Jxx xx A10 KJ8753, partner holding Kxx KJ9xx xxx A9. > >Opener, holding AQxx Qx KQx Q10xx, redoubled, and responder passed >with 109x A1084 J7642 2. Down two, -600. > >Opener claimed he would not have redoubled a strength-showing >double, but would have bid 2S. Responder thought opener had better >clubs (!), hence the pass. The TD Panel polled many players about >the redouble and pass of the redouble, with mixed responses, but the >decision was contract changed to 2S making three +140/-140. > >I don't know why opener would not redouble a normal 2C double >(strength/length showing). If partner has something like Axx or Kxx >and game-try strength, 2C might easily make. That is the procedure >I'm familiar with. Double with four decent clubs, pass with three, >make the normal response with two. Partner's redouble is to play. > >The casebook commentators were divided on this one, but most thought >the MI should not go unpunished, not realizing that the MI came as >the result of a stupid question that should not have been asked. > >My opinion is table result stands. Commentator opinions were mixed, >but a small majority went along with the decision. Only one >(Treadwell) would let the table result stand for both sides. A >minority opinion was table result for the redoubler (-600), but the >result of a 2S contract (-110 or -140) for the doubler (because of >the MI). I raised a similar issue in the "Gratuitous Question" thread in March, though the issue was UI, not MI. Your position there was the consistent with your position here. The consensus seemed to be, though, that the laws do not address the source of the UI. Here I see no law that allows us to rule differently depending on whether a question was or was not advisable. Are you suggesting that we should rule differently under the current laws, or that the laws should be modified in this regard? -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From wayne@ebridgenz.com Thu Dec 11 06:36:20 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 19:36:20 +1300 Subject: [blml] Random walk (was Question 1) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000a01c3bfb1$19ec9ec0$aeb337d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On=20 > Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: Thursday, 11 December 2003 1:21 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Random walk (was Question 1) >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Konrad Ciborowski: >=20 > >>>As far as I know (which isn't far) Meckstroth - > >>>Rodwell play that an overcall of 1S over the > >>>strong 1C opener has "no meaning whatsoever - > >>>random". Some pairs even play that such an > >>>overcall is compulsory. >=20 > J=FCrgen Rennenkampff: >=20 > >>It is not at all clear that a meaningless bid > >>might not be advantageous, and the effect is, > >>just like the effect of many other esoteric > >>methods, that a random factor is added to the > >>score, presumably favoring the users of such > >>methods on balance, unless the opponents are well > >>prepared. It seems quite clear that any > >>prohibition of "purely destructive methods" would > >>cover the case of random bids. >=20 > Australian Bridge Federation, system regulations: >=20 > >1.6 YELLOW SYSTEMS (Highly Unusual Openings) > > > >All systems which do not satisfy the RED > >classification are classified as YELLOW. > >Accordingly, YELLOW Systems may have some of the > >following features: >=20 > [snip] >=20 > >(5) Overcalls may include non-descriptive (or > >"random") overcalls, such as, "That bid can mean > >anything", "He holds thirteen cards", "We make > >random overcalls over a Precision 1C regardless of > >strength". In such cases, however, partnership > >experience must be disclosed. >=20 > Richard James Hills: >=20 > In my opinion, the ACBL is too laissez-faire in its > non-regulation of "random" overcalls. >=20 > In my opinion, the ABF's strict HUM classification > of "random" overcalls is best. J=FCrgen gives one > good reason - purely destructive - for the limited > permissability of "random" overcalls. >=20 > But, in my opinion, an even more important reason > for the ABF's HUM restriction of "random" overcalls > is the ultimate sentence of the ABF reg: >=20 > "In such cases, however, partnership experience > must be disclosed." >=20 > Until cyborgs play bridge, a "random" overcall will > be an oxymoron. Not true. It is easy to make a random decisions at=20 the table. =20 Wayne From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Dec 11 06:45:27 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 01:45:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] Question 1 In-Reply-To: <000001c3bf84$b62d5b80$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <9AD35076-2BA5-11D8-9184-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Dec 10, 2003, at 20:18 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > Do you penalize every time you (as the TD in charge) hear a pair > disclosing > 2C as strong artificial without specifying that it shows at least 20 > HCP > with a major suit, 24 HCP with a minor suit and at least 22 HCP with > an even > distribution? Considering that some people on this side of the pond think that a "strong" 2C bid can be a solid 7 card suit, and a side ace, and react to "explain, please" with "huh? it's standard", I think "strong artificial" is insufficient disclosure here, at least. From jurgenr@t-online.de Thu Dec 11 10:39:49 2003 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 11:39:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Question 1 Message-ID: >> Jürgen Rennenkampff: >> I thought it was obvious that the explanation given did not amount to >> "full disclosure", but this is not the question I was asking. >> The TD judged that the information was sufficient, arguing somewhat >> like Sven, and his judgment was, of course, accepted. >> >> Now consider what it means for "forcing, says nothing about clubs" >> to be the complete explanation. It means that the bid is independent >> of the actual >> hand. There are only 2 cases in which this can be true; either 2C is >> the only possible response to 1S Pass; or 2C is a completely random >> bid sometimes made after 1S Pass. In both cases the bid can be made >> without looking at the cards. Is such a bid compatible with L74B1? > Sven: > Discard "random calls". These are what I know generally considered HUC > (Highly unusual conventions) and as such illegal in most events. > > But 2C need not be the only possible response to 1S pass, it need not > even be the only possible forcing bid. > > Just to give an extreme example: Do you consider it essential in the > description of the 2C bid to include an explanation for why the > responder did not immediately bid 4NT (Blackwood)? What you are proving here (and elsewhere) is the obvious fact that it is usually easier to describe the type of hand corresponding to a bid than to describe the types that the bid excludes. > > I think we all agree that a question on further possible inferences > from the 2C bid is not improper (but could very well damage the "NOS" > by causing UI to the partner of the player asking), And this is also the reason why explanations should, whenever possible, give a succint definition of the bid and not invite additional, more specific questions. > and the answer > to such clarifying question could easily be: "Well, he should have > a hand worth at least 10 HCP (because he forces us to the two-level) > and he is obviously interested in finding the best contract for our > side". > But would you seriously consider this to be any clarification > beyond what you already could and in fact should assume? Usually not, but it depends upon where I am and who is explaining. The strength required for a 2-over-1 bid varies greatly from traditional Acol to currently common U.S. 2/1-game-forcing. Here (in Munich, and in DE generally) there is no predominant system. I think you are making a mistake by assuming that what you know and can deduce about bids made in the environment that is familiar to you is also known by a player in a club elsewhere in the world, who may not be familiar with either environment. Of course, the response in 1S Pass 2C is most likely a simple relay. But I still don't know on what type of hand this pair makes such bids and, holding a good 2551 hand, I think I had a justified interest. Nevertheless, these are everyday happenings in club games and not of great significance. What interested me was the question of truly random bidding. Regards, Jürgen >Regards Sven From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Dec 11 12:02:39 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:02:39 +0000 Subject: [blml] Question 1 In-Reply-To: <000001c3bf40$77762730$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Wednesday, December 10, 2003, at 05:10 pm, Sven Pran wrote: > >> Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote: > I have some memory of seeing something somewhere (WBF systems booklet?) >> that "forcing" >> was always taken to mean "forcing from strength" unless specified >> otherwise. Is this >> part of the problem, that this was not made clear? > > I don't think so. The term "forcing" is unambiguous in itself. Whether > it is > forcing for a round or to game may be an important distinction; when > that is > the case it will usually reveal itself soon enough. > Frances may have been thinking of the EBU Orange Book, which defines Forcing: A call which a partnership has agreed cannot be passed. Forcing, without qualification, means forcing from strength: if a forcing bid might be made with a weak hand, you must tell your opponents. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Dec 11 13:36:21 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 08:36:21 -0500 Subject: Fwd: RE: [blml] Question 2 Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031211083534.02b86ec0@pop.starpower.net> Mis-sent to Sven instead of to the list... apologies to Sven for the double post. >At 05:18 PM 12/10/03, Sven wrote: > >>Ed Reppert >>........ >> > Opponents are required to include in their explanation information >> > about relevant calls available but not made. So the first thing that >> > occurs to me is "are there any other forcing responses to 1S >> available, >> > and if so, what do they mean?" >> >>Yes, I think this is a valid approach. >> >>(But I do not think, and do not expect you to think that the >>information on >>such alternative forcing bids should be volunteered without being asked) > >I agree here. In general, I dislike the splitting of hairs over the >precise obligations imposed by L20F1, and believe that one should be >as helpful as possible to opponents who genuinely want to know about >one's methods without worrying about exactly what the law does or does >not require one to reveal. > >It should be noted that asking about follow-ups is riskier than asking >about bids actually made, as should the latter reveal that the >opponents are having a bidding misunderstanding they are legally >constrained from using the information, while information conveyed by >a reply to the former can only preclude a subsequent bidding >misunderstanding that might otherwise have occurred, from which the >Law can offer no protection. > >Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net >1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 >Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 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 Dec 11 13:46:38 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 08:46:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] Question 1 In-Reply-To: References: <000101c3bf72$6a3f5be0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <000101c3bf72$6a3f5be0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031211083520.02b7d2c0@pop.starpower.net> At 06:43 PM 12/10/03, David wrote: > No, because you are presumably using 2NT whenever you are forcing > to game with a good fit in hearts, so it is not analogous. > > But when you respond 2C to 1S, and you describe it in effect as any > 13 cards, that is legitimate only if partner *always* bids 2C. If he > only bids 2C on certain hands then opponents have a right to know > which hands. > > When I play a 2C relay I tell my opponents enough so they know what > my partner will have. But you are allowing them not to do this. Since "relay" isn't a generally well-understood term where I play, I tend to describe such bids as "artificial and forcing, asking for further description". If asked about what sort of hand the bid can be made on, I will reply "any hand with which she thinks she would be best served by getting a further description of mine". In my case, that is full disclosure; surely what those hands might be is covered by "general bridge knowledge" if anything is. If, however, our methods (either explicitly or implicitly) included using the bid merely to "throw a spanner into the works" with a hand that has no genuine interest in a further description from partner, I would consider my response improper. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no Thu Dec 11 15:19:05 2003 From: Harald.Skjaran@bridgefederation.no (Skjaran, Harald) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 16:19:05 +0100 Subject: SV: SV: [blml] Qualification Methods Message-ID: <89FD2BC254969C4297E82458BB27990061EBE5@exchange.idrettsforbundet.no> David Stevenson wrote_ =20 Skjaran, Harald wrote >Hinden, Frances wrote: >One of the features of this event is that you can play in >a heat at a club on a convenient date near where you live. >Only the top few players from each heat then have to travel >to one central venue for the all-play-all final. The same >approach is used for the English National Pairs event >(with regional finals in addition in the middle). > >A one-field qualifying would lead to fewer pairs taking part >in the qualifier a) because you'd have to travel further and >b) because there would be no choice of date. It is obvious >that the multiple heats method of qualification is unlikely to >lead to the top 20 pairs who entered playing in the final, but so what? >All of the players who entered that I would expect to be in >contention to win have qualified, all that's changed is that >the overall field is maybe a bit more random. But rabbit-bashing >is an important pairs skill. > >As for running the qualifier as a Swiss Pairs: why on earth >should we want to do that? I don't know how many boards per >round you are thinking of for a 30-board qualifier, but >I find it very hard to believe that this would be a better >approach to come up with the top 8 pairs from one heat. >----- >With only 30 boards, it seems to me that the "luck factor" in any case=20 >will be so high that the format of the qualification tournament won't=20 >be very important for the outcome. Very strange attitude. OK, let us all abandon playing in any single=20 session event, such as a club evening. Or is is just possible that some people just play bridge and if they=20 play better, do better? No, whatever can I be thinking of, tournaments=20 are decided by organisers, aren't they. Sorry, Harald, I am not really getting at you, but I do not understand= why players do not expect to do better by playing better. ----- Come on, David. Of course playing well gives a "good" result. And of course all should keep on playing club evenings or other events of t= he same kind. I was commenting on the fact that I believe posters in this thread put to m= uch weight on the qualification method in such a short event. How on earth = can you suggest my post to imply that " tournaments are decided by organise= rs, aren't they", when in fact I say that the format of the tournament won'= t be very important for the outcome. That's quite the opposite, I believe. Regards, Harald Skj=E6ran --=20 David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =3D( + )=3D Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ************************************************************************** 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 TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Thu Dec 11 18:18:20 2003 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:18:20 -0600 Subject: [blml] Question 1 Message-ID: Sven Pran: >Sure, but you do not rule "deliberate withholding" because the player >failed to read out the entire "Bridge in a Nutshell" by Goren or a similar >compendium relevant to his system do you? I think Sven is here guilty of "black-and-white thinking," ignoring the grays. There is a middle ground between stonewalling--refusing to give the opponents material information about your system--and fillibustering--rambling on interminably about picayune details that are almost certainly irrelevant to the actual situation at the table. We don't want to insist on fillibustering, but that doesn't mean we have to tolerate stonewalling. The middle ground--a concise disclosure of all the information that is likely to be relevant--is what we should demand. James Hudson From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Dec 11 19:10:23 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 11:10:23 -0800 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia Casebook #28 References: <003201c3bf51$d0ad9980$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <003c01c3c01a$6eefd540$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Adam Wildavsky" > At 11:11 AM -0800 12/10/03, Marvin French wrote: > > > >My opinion is table result stands. Commentator opinions were mixed, > >but a small majority went along with the decision. Only one > >(Treadwell) would let the table result stand for both sides. A > >minority opinion was table result for the redoubler (-600), but the > >result of a 2S contract (-110 or -140) for the doubler (because of > >the MI). > > I raised a similar issue in the "Gratuitous Question" thread in > March, though the issue was UI, not MI. Your position there was > consistent with your position here. The consensus seemed to be, > though, that the laws do not address the source of the UI. Here I see > no law that allows us to rule differently depending on whether a > question was or was not advisable. > > Are you suggesting that we should rule differently under the current > laws, or that the laws should be modified in this regard? Disclosure methods are a matter of SO regulation according to L40B. No need to modify the laws. Just tell players that information plainly disclosed in accordance with disclosure regulations should not be made the subject of unnecessary questioning. I repeat, unnecessary (i.e., details not requested). I think it is in the power of SOs to then say that the answers to such unnecessary questions are AI. If not, the Laws should say that forcing opponents to create UI unnecessarily results in AI, not UI. Of course default meanings of common calls should be defined. Then, the absence of an Alert discloses the meaning. Meanwhile, we all know the default meaning of such doubles as 1NT-P-2C-X (suit-showing), 1NT-2D-X (penalty). No Alert means the double has the default meaning, so the meaning has been disclosed "in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization." It has often happened that my partner has been asked unnecessary questions, gets confused during the badgering, and doesn't say exactly the right thing. The answers may be clearly shown on our CC, or have a default meaning, but the opponent prefers trying to create troublesome UI for our side. This should not be allowed. The senior in this case thought at first s/he knew what the double meant, then realized later that s/he was wrong, it had the default meaning. Like most players, who are uninformed about the Laws, s/he didn't know s/he could correct the MI during the auction. So s/he gets penalized in spite of the fact that the "infraction" arose because of an unnecessary stupid question. Don't like that. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From svenpran@online.no Thu Dec 11 19:56:36 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:56:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Question 1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3c020$e2614da0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > James Hudson ......... > I think Sven is here guilty of "black-and-white thinking," ignoring = the > grays. There is a middle ground between stonewalling--refusing to = give > the opponents material information about your system--and > fillibustering--rambling on interminably about picayune details that = are > almost certainly irrelevant to the actual situation at the table. We > don't want to insist on fillibustering, but that doesn't mean we have = to > tolerate stonewalling. The middle ground--a concise disclosure of all > the information that is likely to be relevant--is what we should > demand. Black and white or not, I think you (and Eric Landau in one of his = recent postings) have described my position very well. I have absolutely no sympathy for concealing information in any way and = in the original post starting this thread I frowned over the remark = indicating that a further (relevant) information on a bid was refused. (Maybe I = ought to have made my frown clearer?) However, I am fully aware of the danger = when too much information is included in an answer. And I do not forget the fact that if some information was not offered = (NB.: Not deliberately concealed!) and afterwards it should turn out that this information in fact was essential, the consequence of such omission is = of course at the risk of the party giving the (incomplete) information. However, it is also my firm opinion that MI itself does not = automatically lead to redress or penalty, there must be some consequence from the MI = to some demonstrated damage. Furthermore, although very surprising to me, I must accept that many (?) players apparently make bids at levels 2 or higher without the minimum strength generally considered necessary (together with a minimum = partner) to play at that level, making it necessary to specifically tell opponents = when the strength according to agreements is sufficient rather than alert = them when the strength can be assumed insufficient (e.g. relay bids on a = possibly valueless hand). To me it has always been obvious that before forcing the auction to a certain level in a non-competitive auction you should have the strength = to feel comfortable being at that level (either because your side can successfully play a contract at that level or because a pre-empt at that level can turn out successful).=20 Therefore I have never imagined the necessity of explicitly informing opponents that the calls in a non-competitive auction show hands with adequate strength for the levels (regardless of what other information = on that hand is by agreements available to me). And I consider the combined strength to play a contract at any = particular level to be independent on which system and agreements the partnership = uses. OK, bridge is not what I expected in this matter. You always learn = something new. Sven=20 From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Dec 11 22:18:48 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:18:48 -0500 Subject: [blml] Random walk (was Question 1) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031211171209.031637a0@pop.starpower.net> At 08:20 PM 12/10/03, richard.hills wrote: >In my opinion, the ACBL is too laissez-faire in its >non-regulation of "random" overcalls. That, of course, is the same ACBL that regulates automatic penalties for certain exercises of obvious bridge judgment, such as opening a 10-12 HCP 1NT with a well-distributed 9 HCP and a fistful of 10s and 9s. In general, they are further from being laissez-fair in their attitude towards bidding agreements than most other NCBOs. Random overcalls, however, are indeed an exception. It might be a bit churlish to suggest that this unusual exception and the fact that the ACBL's leading partnership, Meckstroth and Rodwell, like and use random overcalls (of specifically 1S, IIRC) are somehow related. 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 Dec 11 22:28:53 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:28:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] Question 1 In-Reply-To: <000001c3bf86$e4a29910$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031211172128.03156cf0@pop.starpower.net> At 08:34 PM 12/10/03, Sven wrote: >I think we all agree that a question on further possible inferences >from the >2C bid is not improper (but could very well damage the "NOS" by causing UI >to the partner of the player asking), and the answer to such clarifying >question could easily be: "Well, he should have a hand worth at least >10 HCP >(because he forces us to the two-level) and he is obviously interested in >finding the best contract for our side". > >But would you seriously consider this to be any clarification beyond what >you already could and in fact should assume? I certainly would. I have on many occasions picked up hands with zero-counts on which I would be delighted to be allowed to play at the two-level opposite partner's opening bid, and regretted not being able to drive to the two-level without, in my methods, misdecribing my hand. In no way does my willingness to play at the two-level by itself imply that I hold a hand worth at least 10 HCP; that is critical additional information which must be disclosed. That one forces to the two-level implies only that one is willing to declare a contract at the two-level, not that one expects to make it and have a good chance for overtricks. 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 Dec 11 22:55:06 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:55:06 -0500 Subject: [blml] Question 1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031211174311.0315fda0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:56 PM 12/10/03, richard.hills wrote: >Sven rhetorically questioned: > >[snip] > > >>Do you penalize every time you (as the TD in charge) hear > >>a pair disclosing 2C as strong artificial without > >>specifying that it shows at least 20 HCP with a major > >>suit, 24 HCP with a minor suit and at least 22 HCP with > >>an even distribution? > >Richard rhadamanthinely replies: > >Yes, I do penalise. Not only has the "fully" requirement >of Law 75A been infracted, but the ABF alert reg provides >a specific highlighting of the need for full disclosure: I hope Richard doesn't guest-direct at my club, or I fear I shall be repeatedly penalized. If my partnership opens 2C without an alert, I typically get asked, "What's that?" and reply with (if it's true), "Artificial and strong". (In my case, that is almost always all the information my opponents wanted -- they know that I often play 2C natural and weak, and were checking to make sure I didn't forget to alert). If they want more, they say, "What does it show?" and I respond with, "At least 20 HCP with a major, 24..." or whatever. This seems to me to be perfectly normal, and is always accepted without complaint. But then, of course, every time I (as the TD in charge) hear, "I don't have to answer that," or, "It's just bridge" (the local catchphrase invoking the "general knowledge and experience" clause of L75C), I am on that pair like a ton of bricks. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From roger-eymard@wanadoo.fr Thu Dec 11 23:32:11 2003 From: roger-eymard@wanadoo.fr (Roger Eymard) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 00:32:11 +0100 Subject: pronoun, about Re: [blml] Philadelphia Casebook #28 References: <003201c3bf51$d0ad9980$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <003c01c3c01a$6eefd540$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <003001c3c03f$002c4600$6400a8c0@supersuperbe> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 8:10 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Philadelphia Casebook #28 ........................................ > The senior in this case thought at first s/he knew what the double > meant, then realized later that s/he was wrong, it had the default > meaning. Like most players, who are uninformed about the Laws, s/he > didn't know s/he could correct the MI during the auction. So s/he gets > penalized in spite of the fact that the "infraction" arose because of > an unnecessary stupid question. Don't like that. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > > (to everybody) : Sorry, english is not my native tongue. However, I love that language, and it's often a pleasure to read the posts, from that point of view. (to Marvin French) : Does political correctness obligate you to deform english to that extent? Please, use "she" everywhere if you must no longer use "he" ! I wonder if anybody would be offended by seeing a feminine touch in the interlacing of threads... With respect to the substance, thank you for your most valuable contributions. Regards Roger _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Thu Dec 11 09:43:55 2003 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 09:43:55 -0000 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia NABC Appeals References: <003201c3bf51$d0ad9980$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000401c3c041$3d3449b0$2a1e2850@multivisionoem> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 7:11 PM Subject: [blml] Philadelphia NABC Appeals > > This unnecessary inquiry led to all sorts of trouble. In the > absence of an Alert, the double of a low-level artificial bid is > default suit/strength showing, not takeout (which is Alertable). > The question forced the opponent to give an answer that > happened to be wrong. She wasn't sure what the double > meant, and guessed wrong, saying "Takeout." The doubler > actually held Jxx xx A10 KJ8753, partner holding > Kxx KJ9xx xxx A9. Opener, holding AQxx Qx KQx Q10xx, > redoubled, and responder passed with 109x > A1084 J7642 2 Down two, -600. > > Opener claimed he would not have redoubled a strength-showing > double, but would have bid 2S. Responder thought opener had > better clubs (!), hence the pass. The TD Panel polled many players > about the redouble and pass of the redouble, with mixed responses, > but the decision was contract changed to 2S making three +140/-140. > ===== \X/ ===== > > The casebook commentators were divided on this one, but most > thought the MI should not go unpunished, not realizing that the MI > came as the result of a stupid question that should not have been > asked. > > +=+ The WBFLC had a very difficult and (several ways) divided discussion on this topic in Monaco. Simply put, my stance is that it is a matter for the Director/AC to judge in each case whether there is a "demonstrable bridge reason" for the question. Some take the view that merely to know in that instant what is happening is a demonstrable bridge reason (Law 73F2). The reason being, presumably, the pleasure and enjoyment of knowing what is going on - but is this a *bridge* reason? However, these are opinions - it is not the WBFLC's remit to judge cases but only to interpret law, and the meaning of the words is clear enough. They were not put there to be vitiated by a sweeping tolerance of all and any questions. The AC has to decide where to draw the line, and it is a problem; I maintain the view I took in 1997 when we added the words to strengthen the law - if 'Pass' is your only LA on your hand regardless of what you learn, there is no reason at that point to ask, thus to ask inevitably creates an inference and risks causing damage. To say 'I always ask' is not a sure solution - see the minutes - and it is, of course, a technical infraction to enquire about a specific call during the auction. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From adam@irvine.com Fri Dec 12 00:03:44 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 16:03:44 -0800 Subject: [blml] Re: pronoun, about Re: [blml] Philadelphia Casebook #28 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 12 Dec 2003 00:32:11 +0100." <003001c3c03f$002c4600$6400a8c0@supersuperbe> Message-ID: <200312120003.QAA20567@mailhub.irvine.com> Roger wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Marvin French" > To: > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 8:10 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Philadelphia Casebook #28 > > > ........................................ > > The senior in this case thought at first s/he knew what the double > > meant, then realized later that s/he was wrong, it had the default > > meaning. Like most players, who are uninformed about the Laws, s/he > > didn't know s/he could correct the MI during the auction. So s/he gets > > penalized in spite of the fact that the "infraction" arose because of > > an unnecessary stupid question. Don't like that. > > > > Marv > > Marvin L. French > > San Diego, California > > > > > (to everybody) : > Sorry, english is not my native tongue. However, I love that language, and > it's often a pleasure to read the posts, from that point of view. > (to Marvin French) : > Does political correctness obligate you to deform english to that extent? > Please, use "she" everywhere if you must no longer use "he" ! Using "she" in this context, when referring to a bridge player who didn't know what system she was playing and was uninformed about the Laws, could be taken by some to be sexist language impugning female bridge players. I've had experience with this one. A long time ago, I was writing some sort of technical document and decided to mix up the pronouns---using "he" some of the time and "she" at other times to refer to persons of unknown sex. Somebody complained about that when one of my "she"'s was used to refer to a computer user, who would most likely be a data-entry worker, causing my colleague to complain about relegating women to a "pink-collar ghetto". These days, the only way to avoid saying anything that might be construed by somebody as offensive or racist or sexist or something-else-ist is to Super Glue your mouth shut. -- Adam From adam@irvine.com Fri Dec 12 00:12:23 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 16:12:23 -0800 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia Casebook #28 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 11 Dec 2003 11:10:23 PST." <003c01c3c01a$6eefd540$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <200312120012.QAA20985@mailhub.irvine.com> Marvin wrote: > Disclosure methods are a matter of SO regulation according to L40B. No > need to modify the laws. Just tell players that information plainly > disclosed in accordance with disclosure regulations should not be made > the subject of unnecessary questioning. I repeat, unnecessary (i.e., > details not requested). > > I think it is in the power of SOs to then say that the answers to such > unnecessary questions are AI. If not, the Laws should say that forcing > opponents to create UI unnecessarily results in AI, not UI. > > Of course default meanings of common calls should be defined. Then, > the absence of an Alert discloses the meaning. > > Meanwhile, we all know the default meaning of such doubles as > 1NT-P-2C-X (suit-showing), 1NT-2D-X (penalty). No Alert means the > double has the default meaning, so the meaning has been disclosed "in > accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization." I don't think I agree: (1) I don't agree with the phrase "we all". Maybe 99% of us know; but I'm sure there are plenty of less-experienced players who *don't* know the default meaning of 1NT-P-2C-X, and who think it sounds like takeout. Heck, I've run into players who think 1NT-X is takeout. (2) There are an even greater number of players who are confused about what's supposed to be alerted in the ACBL, since the rules are not straightforward and are far from clear at times. Based on that, I don't think a question about the meaning of the double is "unnecessary"---opener may well take a look at whom he's playing against and decide that he shouldn't assume it means what he thinks it should mean, or what the regulations say it's supposed to mean in the absence of an Alert. -- Adam From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Dec 12 01:25:39 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:25:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: pronoun, about Re: [blml] Philadelphia Casebook #28 In-Reply-To: <200312120003.QAA20567@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <1809A838-2C42-11D8-8265-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Dec 11, 2003, at 19:03 US/Eastern, Adam Beneschan wrote: > These days, the only way to avoid saying anything that might be > construed by somebody as offensive or racist or sexist or > something-else-ist is to Super Glue your mouth shut. The people who need their mouths Super Glue'd shut are the ones who object to perfectly ordinary speech as "offensive". From blml@blakjak.com Fri Dec 12 01:39:10 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 01:39:10 +0000 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia Casebook #28 In-Reply-To: <003c01c3c01a$6eefd540$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <003201c3bf51$d0ad9980$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <003c01c3c01a$6eefd540$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marvin French wrote >Disclosure methods are a matter of SO regulation according to L40B. No >need to modify the laws. Just tell players that information plainly >disclosed in accordance with disclosure regulations should not be made >the subject of unnecessary questioning. I repeat, unnecessary (i.e., >details not requested). > >I think it is in the power of SOs to then say that the answers to such >unnecessary questions are AI. If not, the Laws should say that forcing >opponents to create UI unnecessarily results in AI, not UI. > >Of course default meanings of common calls should be defined. Then, >the absence of an Alert discloses the meaning. This does not work insofar as different people play the same thing di9fferently. In fact, I am surprised how much North American players seem to expect to work in the dark over opponents' methods, and I think it is because of a presumption that their opponents play things their way. >Meanwhile, we all know the default meaning of such doubles as >1NT-P-2C-X (suit-showing), 1NT-2D-X (penalty). No Alert means the >double has the default meaning, so the meaning has been disclosed "in >accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization." However, what strength is shown by such doubles? ACBL CCs are very good for some things, but not for giving details. Opponents have a right to such details. >It has often happened that my partner has been asked unnecessary >questions, gets confused during the badgering, and doesn't say exactly >the right thing. The answers may be clearly shown on our CC, or have >a default meaning, but the opponent prefers trying to >create troublesome UI for our side. This should not be allowed. Just because you see a question as unnecessary does not make it so. Badgering is not permitted, but asking questions about things does not become badgering just because you are playing it in a particular way and assume your opponents should know this. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From mfrench1@san.rr.com Fri Dec 12 05:24:35 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:24:35 -0800 Subject: [blml] Re: pronoun, about Re: [blml] Philadelphia Casebook #28 References: <200312120003.QAA20567@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <005801c3c070$40d24ca0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Adam Beneschan" Marv wrote: > > ........................................ > > > The senior in this case thought at first s/he knew what the double > > > meant, then realized later that s/he was wrong, it had the default > > > meaning. Like most players, who are uninformed about the Laws, s/he > > > didn't know s/he could correct the MI during the auction. So s/he gets > > > penalized in spite of the fact that the "infraction" arose because of > > > an unnecessary stupid question. Don't like that. > > > > > > > > > > > (to everybody) : > > Sorry, english is not my native tongue. However, I love that language, and > > it's often a pleasure to read the posts, from that point of view. > > (to Marvin French) : > > Does political correctness obligate you to deform english to that extent? > > Please, use "she" everywhere if you must no longer use "he" ! > It's all in fun, Adam. Don't be so serious. When I write "s/he" please read "she or he," for which it is shorthand, a saving of keystrokes. WTP? Do we have to be very formal on BLML? From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Dec 12 07:18:37 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:18:37 +1000 Subject: [blml] Re: pronoun, about Re: [blml] Philadelphia Casebook #28 Message-ID: Marvin French: >>When I write "s/he" please read "she or he," for which it is >>shorthand, a saving of keystrokes. WTP? Do we have to be >>very formal on BLML? C.S. Lewis: >An essential part of the ordination exam ought to be a >passage from some recognised theological work set for >translation into vulgar English - just like doing Latin >prose. Failure on this part should mean failure on the whole >exam. It is absolutely disgraceful that we expect >missionaries to the Bantus to learn Bantu, but never ask >whether our missionaries to the Americans or English can >speak American or English. Any fool can write learned >language: the vernacular is the real test. If you can't turn >your faith into it, then either you don't understand it or >you don't believe it. Richard James Hills: Perhaps Law 73F2 should be translated into vulgar English. If two senior members of the WBF LC drafting sub-committee interpret the current text of Law 73F2 in diametrically different ways, due to its Kaplanesque formal language, how can any fool like myself know what is Lawful? Best wishes RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Dec 12 13:04:30 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 08:04:30 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: pronoun, about Re: [blml] Philadelphia Casebook #28 In-Reply-To: <200312120003.QAA20567@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031212080009.02b8c380@pop.starpower.net> At 07:03 PM 12/11/03, Adam wrote: >Using "she" in this context, when referring to a bridge player who >didn't know what system she was playing and was uninformed about the >Laws, could be taken by some to be sexist language impugning female >bridge players. > >I've had experience with this one. A long time ago, I was writing >some sort of technical document and decided to mix up the >pronouns---using "he" some of the time and "she" at other times to >refer to persons of unknown sex. Somebody complained about that when >one of my "she"'s was used to refer to a computer user, who would most >likely be a data-entry worker, causing my colleague to complain about >relegating women to a "pink-collar ghetto". > >These days, the only way to avoid saying anything that might be >construed by somebody as offensive or racist or sexist or >something-else-ist is to Super Glue your mouth shut. I suggest that partner and TDs always be "she", and opponents and AC members always "he". That way: (a) We won't offend the grammatical antediluvians who object to "they" in the singular. (b) We won't ever have to stop to think about which pronoun to use. (c) We will, in the long run, offend both sexes equally. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From toddz@att.net Fri Dec 12 14:42:46 2003 From: toddz@att.net (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 09:42:46 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: pronoun, about Re: [blml] Philadelphia Casebook #28 In-Reply-To: <200312120003.QAA20567@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Beneschan > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 7:04 PM > Subject: [blml] Re: pronoun, about Re: [blml] > Philadelphia Casebook #28 > > using "he" some of the time and "she" at other times to > refer to persons of unknown sex. Gender should be the deciding factor and not sex. Perhaps this distinction is still largely academic, but where it exists gender is the social role while sex is a biological fact. -Todd From adam@irvine.com Fri Dec 12 17:10:40 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 09:10:40 -0800 Subject: [blml] Re: pronoun, about Re: [blml] Philadelphia Casebook #28 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:24:35 PST." <005801c3c070$40d24ca0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <200312121710.JAA16985@mailhub.irvine.com> Marv wrote: > From: "Adam Beneschan" > > > > (to everybody) : > > > Sorry, english is not my native tongue. However, I love that > > > language, and > > > it's often a pleasure to read the posts, from that point of view. > > > (to Marvin French) : > > > Does political correctness obligate you to deform english to that > > > extent? > > > Please, use "she" everywhere if you must no longer use "he" ! > > > It's all in fun, Adam. Don't be so serious. I didn't write the above. I feel it necessary to make this clear since I hate being accused of being serious (although as a native Californian I don't mind being accused of not having English as my native tongue . . .) (P.S. I guess it's my fault for altering the subject line by inserting another [blml] in front, messing up everybody's threading. Sorry.) > When I write "s/he" please read "she or he," for which it is > shorthand, a saving of keystrokes. WTP? Do we have to be very formal > on BLML? The main problem with s/he is that it over-emphasizes feminine and masculine genders, which is itself a form of sexism since it excludes the neuter gender and thus might be offensive to those who do not consider themselves to fit into either the masculine or feminine social role. I suggest using s/h/it instead. -- Adam From mfrench1@san.rr.com Fri Dec 12 17:34:48 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 09:34:48 -0800 Subject: [blml] Re: pronoun, about Re: [blml] Philadelphia Casebook #28 References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031212080009.02b8c380@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <002601c3c0d6$40bbf520$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Eric Landau" > > I suggest that partner and TDs always be "she", and opponents and AC > members always "he". That way: > > (a) We won't offend the grammatical antediluvians who object to "they" > in the singular. > (b) We won't ever have to stop to think about which pronoun to use. > (c) We will, in the long run, offend both sexes equally. > > Sounds good to me. I used to write bridge articles using "he" for opener, overcaller, and takeout doubler, but "she" for responder and advancer. After all, the man (at the time of the writing, anyway) was supposed to make the first move in our culture. This wasn't merely a gesture toward sex neutrality, as the practice made some text involving partnership interchanges easier to follow. Editors such as Jeff Rubens didn't care for the idea. My system notes, 300 pages or so, continue this custom for the sake of clarity. Partners tell me the notes read very well. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Dec 12 22:59:50 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 22:59:50 -0000 Subject: [blml] Re: pronoun, about Re: [blml] Philadelphia Casebook #28 References: Message-ID: <000f01c3c103$c9705230$fa25e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 7:18 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: pronoun, about Re: [blml] Philadelphia Casebook #28 Perhaps Law 73F2 should be translated into vulgar English. If two senior members of the WBF LC drafting sub-committee interpret the current text of Law 73F2 in diametrically different ways, due to its Kaplanesque formal language, how can any fool like myself know what is Lawful? +=+ Never take a man at his word. :-) But 1. Not merely two; we had several members at different points of the compass, each with a different degree of torque.. 2. The problem is not understanding the meaning of the law. We all agree on that. The question is "what is a 'demonstrable bridge reason' ?" ;-) ~ G ~ +=+ From prince_martine2003@yahoo.com Sat Dec 13 11:56:03 2003 From: prince_martine2003@yahoo.com (Prince Martine) Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 06:56:03 -0500 Subject: [blml] READ CEREFULLY AND GET BACK TO ME Message-ID: <200312131156.hBDBu3w05672@dedicated2.poconobizhosting.com> >From The Desk of Barrister Prince Martine Mobile No:234-803-4060625 Private E-Mail:prince_martine2003@yahoo.com Attn:Nancy, I am Barrister Prince Martine (SAN) personal attorney to MR.Arnell Edgar,a Citizen of your country, who worked with Aero contractors here in Nigeria.This company deals with air flight chartered services. My client was a pilot in the said company. On the 1st of January 2002, my client, his wife and their three children were involved in a aero plane crash. Unfortunately, all the occupants of the plane lost their lives as the aeroplane caught fire after the crash. Since then I have made several enquiries from your embassy to locate any Of myclients extended relatives, this has also proved unsuccessful.After these several unsuccessful attempts, I decided to track his name over the Internet, to locate any member of his family hence I Contacted you. My aim of contacting you is for to accept to claim the money and property left behind by my client prior to his death before they get confiscated or declared unserviceable by the Bank where this huge deposits were lodged particularly, ! the OCEANIC BANK Of Nigeria where the deceased had an account valued at about US$14 Million dollars. The bank had issued me a notice to provide the next Of kin have the account confiscated within the next 14 official Working days. Since I have been unsuccessful in locating the relatives for over 1 Year now I seek your consent to present you as the beneficiary of the deceased assets since you are from The Same Country With Him.Once you agree to accept the S$14million dollars into your account,I will forward your contact information to the bank for the onward transfer of the money into your designated bank account. As soon as you confirm the receipt of the money into your account,I will now come over to you country for the sharing of the money. All I require is your honest Co-operation to enable us in seeing this deal through. I guarantee that this will be executed under legitimate arrangement that will protect you from any breach of the law. Please get in touch With me by ema! illing Me Through My Private: Email:prince_martine2003@yahoo.com, address and include your private phone and fax number to enable us discuss further,Including Your Bank Details were you want this Fund to be Remmited.Await For Your Kind Response and Understanding Towards Actualizing This Fund in a Very Shortest Time.Thanks and God Bless You. Barrister. Prince Martine. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sat Dec 13 17:41:32 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 09:41:32 -0800 Subject: [blml] Re: pronoun, about Re: [blml] Philadelphia Casebook #28 References: <000f01c3c103$c9705230$fa25e150@endicott> Message-ID: <002901c3c1a0$5a2afa40$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Grattan Endicott" Richard Hills wrote: > Perhaps Law 73F2 should be translated into > vulgar English. If two senior members of the > WBF LC drafting sub-committee interpret > the current text of Law 73F2 in diametrically > different ways, due to its Kaplanesque > formal language, how can any fool like myself > know what is Lawful? > > +=+ Never take a man at his word. :-) Grattan: > But > 1. Not merely two; we had several members > at different points of the compass, each with > a different degree of torque.. > 2. The problem is not understanding the > meaning of the law. We all agree on that. The > question is "what is a 'demonstrable bridge > reason' ?" ;-) > We know that hesitating with a singleton has no demonstratable bridge reason, simple enough. I have some opponents who will hesitate before playing from three small, claiming later they were trying to decide whether to give count or not. That is a demonstrable bridge reason for a highly misleading action, and I wish L73F2 could be written to disallow it. Perhaps "legitimate" instead of "demonstrable." Hesitating with a singleton has a bridge reason, which is to deceive, but it is not legitimate. Deciding whether to give count is a bridge reason, but we could say it is not legitmate when a hesitation is likely to deceive. I.e., it is not a good enough bridge reason. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From svenpran@online.no Sat Dec 13 18:10:28 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:10:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: pronoun, about Re: [blml] Philadelphia Casebook #28 In-Reply-To: <002901c3c1a0$5a2afa40$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c3c1a4$63ebc920$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Marvin French ............. > We know that hesitating with a singleton has no demonstratable bridge > reason, simple enough. At the moment dummy is displayed all three active players have the right to a pause for thought on planning their play and defense respectively. Consequently if declarer follows suit from dummy immediately to trick one then his RHO should be allowed a pause at this time regardless of what card(s) he holds. This matter was the subject of a recent thread here on blml and I see no reason to resume that discussion, but I can say this much: As a director I shall never accept any complaint against a defender (RHO to declarer) who delays his play to the first trick up to about 10 seconds after dummy has become faced on the table. And if he demonstrates any bridge reason for spending even more time on his planning before playing to trick one I shall allow him that as well. > I have some opponents who will hesitate before playing from three > small, claiming later they were trying to decide whether to give count > or not. That is a demonstrable bridge reason for a highly misleading > action, and I wish L73F2 could be written to disallow it. Of course. > Perhaps "legitimate" instead of "demonstrable." Hesitating with a > singleton has a bridge reason, which is to deceive, but it is not > legitimate. Deciding whether to give count is a bridge reason, but we > could say it is not legitmate when a hesitation is likely to deceive. > I.e., it is not a good enough bridge reason. I don't think we need any rewriting of the laws to understand that. Sven From Steve Willner" > From: "Sven Pran" > When a disclosure happens to fit the actual hand although it is > misinformation related to agreements, under what circumstances can opponents > claim damage? Several explanations and examples were given, but I don't think the simplest answer ever was. Just consider what would have happened if the infraction had not occurred. (I hope it's obvious that mis-explaining one's agreements is an infraction.) If that result is better for the NOS, adjust the score. Of course "would have happened" is judged in the L12C2 sense of "likely" and "at all probable," or you can use L12C3 where it applies. In general, "what would have happened without the irregularity" is the way to judge a wide variety of cases. I may have more to say on it in other contexts. From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Dec 14 01:07:36 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 01:07:36 -0000 Subject: [blml] "Correct" misinformation. (Offspring from "Welcome back from the grave") References: <001f01c3c1c1$34d30780$43054e41@cable.rcn.com> Message-ID: <001701c3c1de$d1f1efa0$837587d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 9:36 PM Subject: Fw: [blml] "Correct" misinformation. (Offspring from "Welcome back from the grave") > > In general, "what would have happened without > the irregularity" is the way to judge a wide variety > of cases. I may have more to say on it in other > contexts. > +=+ Yup, or even Yep. In a way it would be strange if we did not compare the distortion with the truth, the variation with the true course, the diversion with the normal path. The difficulty always is to make the judgement, but there is no excuse for shirking the task. ~ G ~ +=+ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Dec 14 01:59:47 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:59:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: pronoun, about Re: [blml] Philadelphia Casebook #28 In-Reply-To: <002901c3c1a0$5a2afa40$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <31A576BB-2DD9-11D8-A409-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Saturday, Dec 13, 2003, at 12:41 US/Eastern, Marvin French wrote: > We know that hesitating with a singleton has no demonstratable bridge > reason, simple enough. Pfui. There may or may not be a bridge reason for a hesitation. If there is one, possession of a singleton does not negate it. Unless you assert that thinking about anything other than what to play to *this* trick has no possible bridge reason. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Dec 14 06:48:48 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 06:48:48 -0000 Subject: [blml] Re: pronoun, about Re: [blml] Philadelphia Casebook #28 References: <200312121710.JAA16985@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <02aa01c3c20e$54c170c0$b39468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Adam Beneschan] The main problem with s/he is that it over-emphasizes feminine and masculine genders...and thus might be offensive to those who do not consider themselves to fit into either the masculine or feminine social role. I suggest using s/h/it instead. [Nigel] Political perfection, Adam! (One for Grattan's notebook?) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 12/12/2003 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Dec 14 08:38:52 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 08:38:52 -0000 Subject: [blml] Question 1 References: <000101c3bf72$6a3f5be0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <03f601c3c21d$b4b35e80$b39468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Jürgen Rennenkampff] After 1S Pass 2C, alerted, the explanation was "forcing" and "nothing to do with Clubs... Question 1. If this explanation is in fact complete is such a convention allowed? [Konrad Ciborowski] It is - unless the SO decides otherwise. All the time I assume that this is really their agreement (not relay or catch-all bid in which case the explanation is woefully inadequate). [Nigel] Cibor said it all. IMO, disclosure legislation in TFLB should be more complete; so that SOs wouldn't need to plug the gaps. IMO, random calls should be allowed and should be described as such, provided that they are honestly random, with no negative inferences whatsoever. [James Hudson] No, the questioner does not have to ask exactly the right question. The mere request for information should trigger full disclosure (until the questioner indicates that he has enough). [Nigel] IMO, James is right about ACBL laws and the spirit of the laws. TFLB needs editing here -- it should just specify full disclosure without mealy-mouthed qualifications about "general knowledge and experience" and so on. [Sven Pran] By the current rules (in most areas I know about) that mean that the 2C bid shows a minimum of three clubs, 10HCP and is forcing for at least one round. What questions do you ask and what information do you want. And then please tell the difference from the case when you are informed that except for not showing anything about the club suit the 2C bid is the same? [Nigel] In the UK, weak-notrumpers would not expect more than 8 points for a 2C reply (Even less is possible, for example (xx xx xx AKTxxxx) Anyway, in Sven's first case I would often want to know about the frequency of 3 clubs. IMO, Sven's second case is *completely* different. For example, does it still make sense to double for takeout? [Gordon Rainsford] ...EBU Orange Book, which defines Forcing: A call which a partnership has agreed cannot be passed. Forcing, without qualification, means forcing from strength: if a forcing bid might be made with a weak hand, you must tell your opponents. [Nigel] David Stevenson and Gordon are right to distinguish nuances in the meaning of "forcing" "constructive" and so on. Thus, a "forcing" 2H transfer over 1N may be weaker than a 2H limit raise of 1H. Full disclosure should not over-rely on common interpretation of jargon. [Richard James Hills] rhadamanthinely replies: Yes, I do penalise [a pair disclosing 2C as strong artificial]. Not only has the "fully" requirement of Law 75A been infracted, but the ABF alert reg provides a specific highlighting of the need for full disclosure. [The American Heritage Dictionary] Rhad`a*man"thine (?), a. Of or pertaining to Rhadamanthus; rigorously just. In Greek Mythology, Rhadamanthus is a son of Zeus and Europa who, in reward for his exemplary sense of justice, was made a judge of the underworld after his death [Nigel] In general I agree with Richard. However, common sense dictates that you must be allowed to give a succinct explanation and offer to explain further details -- or to *clearly* imply that your explanation is incomplete. Hence I also agree with Eric Landoau because the word "artificial" is quite adequate to imply that there is more to elucidate, if necessary. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 12/12/2003 From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Dec 14 09:56:17 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 09:56:17 -0000 Subject: [blml] Re: pronoun, about Re: [blml] Philadelphia Casebook #28 References: <200312121710.JAA16985@mailhub.irvine.com> <02aa01c3c20e$54c170c0$b39468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <001201c3c228$b0790f30$2518e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 6:48 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: pronoun, about Re: [blml] Philadelphia Casebook #28 > [Adam Beneschan] > The main problem with s/he is that it > over-emphasizes feminine and masculine > genders...and thus might be offensive to > those who do not consider themselves to fit > into either the masculine or feminine social > role. I suggest using s/h/it instead. > > [Nigel] > Political perfection, Adam! > (One for Grattan's notebook?) > +=+ The thought police might censor every message containing it. No, I stick with '****'. I am also minded that our discussions have a very limited agenda at present or I am reading badly. Not a sparkle of an idea for days, so back to my texts. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Dec 14 17:55:06 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:55:06 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: pronoun, about Re: [blml] Philadelphia Casebook #28 In-Reply-To: <001201c3c228$b0790f30$2518e150@endicott> Message-ID: On Sunday, Dec 14, 2003, at 04:56 US/Eastern, Grattan Endicott wrote: > The thought police might censor every message > containing it. No, I stick with '****'. Jerry Pournelle used to have a discussion forum on GEnie some years ago. His policy there was "when you say '****', everybody knows what you mean, so it's just a copout. If you mean to say 'shit', go ahead and say it. But be aware that excessive use of such words tends to convince people you should be ignored." From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Dec 14 22:34:40 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 08:34:40 +1000 Subject: [blml] Claim jumping Message-ID: Extracts from the December 2003 Editorial of The Bridge World. Holly Day wrote: [snip] >>In my experience, claiming rarely saves >>time, sometimes because of the explanation >>involved and sometimes because of a >>disagreement. Therefore, a tournament >>player should not claim except when able >>to "win the rest of the tricks with any >>continuing legal play." Jeff Rubens replied: [big snip] >And mechanical context plays a role as >well. For example, in an event with a >strict time limit for two boards per >round (as in an ordinary matchpoint game), >there is usually little useful time to be >gained from a claim but a lot to lose from >a dispute; in that context, it makes sense >to restrict claims, perhaps even as strictly >as correspondent Day suggests. In contrast, >in a long head-to-head match, where it is >imperative to encourage claims so as to >provide sufficient time for the more >difficult deals, wider latitude should be >permitted. -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Dec 14 23:11:15 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 09:11:15 +1000 Subject: [blml] Thinking about thinking (was pronoun) Message-ID: Marvin French: >>We know that hesitating with a singleton has no >>demonstrable bridge reason, simple enough. Ed Reppert: >Pfui. There may or may not be a bridge reason >for a hesitation. If there is one, possession of >a singleton does not negate it. > >Unless you assert that thinking about anything >other than what to play to *this* trick has no >possible bridge reason. Richard James Hills: I do make that assertion. I argue that the implications of Law 73A2, Law 73D2, and Law 73F2, are that a bridge reason for a hesitation *only* exists for the current trick. (Exception: A sponsoring organisation may regulate a mandatory pause under the bracketed option of Law 73A2.) Best wishes RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From HarrisR@missouri.edu Sun Dec 14 23:25:59 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 17:25:59 -0600 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia Casebook #28 In-Reply-To: <200312120012.QAA20985@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200312120012.QAA20985@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: >Marvin wrote: > >> Disclosure methods are a matter of SO regulation according to L40B. No >> need to modify the laws. Just tell players that information plainly >> disclosed in accordance with disclosure regulations should not be made >> the subject of unnecessary questioning. I repeat, unnecessary (i.e., >> details not requested). >> >> I think it is in the power of SOs to then say that the answers to such >> unnecessary questions are AI. If not, the Laws should say that forcing >> opponents to create UI unnecessarily results in AI, not UI. >> >> Of course default meanings of common calls should be defined. Then, >> the absence of an Alert discloses the meaning. >> >> Meanwhile, we all know the default meaning of such doubles as >> 1NT-P-2C-X (suit-showing), 1NT-2D-X (penalty). No Alert means the >> double has the default meaning, so the meaning has been disclosed "in >> accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization." Adam writes: >I don't think I agree: (1) I don't agree with the phrase "we all". >Maybe 99% of us know; but I'm sure there are plenty of >less-experienced players who *don't* know the default meaning of >1NT-P-2C-X, and who think it sounds like takeout. Heck, I've run into >players who think 1NT-X is takeout. Actually, I play 1NT-X as take-out with one partner. Whenever I have a penalty double of 1NT, she never thinks she has enough to leave it in. (The notion that I should have it beat in my hand? I've not yet convinced her.) I also play 1NT-X as take-out (two or three suits, but not clubs) and 1NT-2C as take-out (two or three suits, clubs is one of the suits.) This works pretty well, so far. >(2) There are an even greater >number of players who are confused about what's supposed to be alerted >in the ACBL, since the rules are not straightforward and are far from >clear at times. Based on that, I don't think a question about the >meaning of the double is "unnecessary"---opener may well take a look >at whom he's playing against and decide that he shouldn't assume it >means what he thinks it should mean, or what the regulations say it's >supposed to mean in the absence of an Alert. > > -- Adam I agree with #2. REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Dec 14 23:38:38 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 18:38:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] Claim jumping In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sunday, Dec 14, 2003, at 17:34 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au quoted Jeff Rubens: >> In contrast, in a long head-to-head match, where it is imperative to >> encourage claims so >> as to provide sufficient time for the more difficult deals, wider >> latitude should be permitted. IMO, if you enter a time-constrained match (a speedball, or two-board rounds, or whatever) the choice whether to claim or not should still belong to the player. Likewise in the long head-to-head match. Playing against good players, I have rarely had a claim contested unless I screwed it up. I have occasionally been asked why the heck I haven't claimed. :-) IOW, they know what's going on. Playing against poor players, it's a crap shoot. Usually because they *don't* know what's going on. So against those players, I try not to claim unless (a) it's obvious and (b) I need to at least *try* to save some time. But I would not be happy if the laws or the conditions of contest prohibited me from claiming for any reason. And I'm not sure that a regulation (i.e., a condition of contest) with such a constraint would be legal, under the current laws. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 15 00:02:21 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 19:02:21 -0500 Subject: [blml] Thinking about thinking (was pronoun) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sunday, Dec 14, 2003, at 18:11 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > I do make that assertion. I argue that the > implications of Law 73A2, Law 73D2, and Law 73F2, > are that a bridge reason for a hesitation *only* > exists for the current trick. > > (Exception: A sponsoring organisation may regulate > a mandatory pause under the bracketed option of > Law 73A2.) Hm. Were you one of those who argued that absent a regulation from the SO mandating a pause at trick one, *any* pause on that trick is illegal? If so, I would ask you what you think "undue" in law 73A2 means. I would also suggest that in the situation where declarer plays quickly to trick one, "robbing" 3rd seat of his due time to contemplate his defense, *declarer* has violated 73A2 ("undue hesitation or haste"). I would say that the word "undue" in 73A2 implies a need for a bridge reason. I see no implication there that such a reason cannot apply to later tricks. In fact, the implication of the parenthetical expression is quite the opposite. 73D2 requires intent on the part of the player acting out of tempo. Difficult to prove. And leaves open the argument that he was not attempting to deceive, but thinking about subsequent tricks. Of course, we can ignore that, but should we? 73F2 is interesting. The header implies that this law applies when 73D2 has been violated (or is presumed to have been violated). Yet the body contains the infamous phrase "could have known" - which seems to me to translate to "if an opponent claims he was misled, then the player who acted out of tempo intended to deceive". As I said, difficult to prove, and a lousy assumption to make, IMO. IAC, I don't see any implication that thinking about the later defense is not a "demonstrable bridge reason" for taking extra time. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 15 02:27:33 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 12:27:33 +1000 Subject: [blml] How forcing is forcing? Message-ID: Monte Carlo Appeal No. 7 Event: Transnational Teams Round: 9 Teams: Germany versus England (Closed Room) Board 29. Both Vul. Dealer North. S T 8 6 5 H K Q 9 8 D A 8 3 2 C 5 S 9 4 S A J 7 H A T 7 4 3 2 H J 5 D T 4 D K Q J 9 7 6 C A 9 3 C 8 2 S K Q 3 2 H 6 D 5 C K Q J T 7 6 4 West North East South J Carroll T Gotard T Hanlon J Piekarek - Pass 1NT 3C 3H All Pass Lead: C5 Result: 3H made three, +140 for E/W. Present: South, East and West. The Facts: 1NT was 14-16 HCP, 3C was preemptive and 3H was intended as forcing. The Director: South called the TD during the bidding of the next board (Board 30). He told him that he had asked West the meaning of his 3H bid when it was passed and West said that it was forcing. (East had neither alerted nor explained the 3H bid to North.) South said he did not want to help E/W if they were having a bidding misunderstanding and so he passed 3H. Later he told the TD that if he had been told that 3H was non-forcing (which he believed it was) he would have bid 3S. Ruling: No damage, table result stands (Law 40C). Appellants: N/S appealed. South said he believed that West's hand was evidence that 3H was not forcing as he would simply have bid 4H over 3C if he had wanted to force to game. Also, after the hand was over and E/W were discussing the bidding East said he thought 3H was non-forcing. The players: West said he intended 3H as forcing and believed his partnership notes supported that position. (E/W's notes said, in a section on interference over their 1NT openings: "Double and rebid of a new suit are non-forcing except 3H over 2S.") East said that during the auction he had not been 100% sure that 3H was forcing (though he thought it probably was). But since he had opened light (strategically), had no convenient rebid (he lacked both a club stopper for 3NT and a third heart to bid 4H), and was uncertain whether 3H had been forcing he decided to pass and hope he was right. He agreed with West, after reviewing their system notes, that responder's 3H bid (over 2S, 2NT, 3C or 3D) was clearly forcing in their methods. The Committee: After considering the players' statements and reviewing E/W's system notes the Committee was convinced that West's 3H bid had been forcing and that East had simply deviated from his announced methods for the reasons stated. Thus, there had been no misinformation: South had been told the correct meaning of 3H according to E/W's agreements. The Committee's Decision: As there had been no infraction of misinformation the table result (3H made three, +140 for E/W) was allowed to stand. Deposit: The deposit was returned. (The Committee believed the appeal may well have been based on an erroneous statement on the Appeal Form that there had been "No Damage" to N/S. In fact, N/S had been damaged but only by East's decision to pass 3H and not from any misinformation. A more accurate statement would have been that the table result stood because there was no infraction --- i.e., no misinformation.) Appeals Committee: John Wignall (New Zealand, chair), Rich Colker (USA, scribe), Jean-Paul Meyer (France), Jeffrey Polisner (USA), Nissan Rand (Israel) * * * RJH questions: In the East-West partnership, does East a habit of opening light? In the East-West partnership, does East also have a habit of "back-seat driving", by passing forcing bids after opening light? If the answer to either of these questions is Yes, then East-West did commit a CPU infraction under Law 40B. It is not clear from the AC writeup whether the AC asked these questions. Best wishes Richard James Hills -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Dec 15 03:03:37 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 03:03:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] Claim jumping References: Message-ID: <013201c3c2b8$096b3de0$dd9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> IMO, Jeff Ruben's recommendation not to claim is illegal according to current laws. The laws do need reform but this would be a retrograde step, slowing up the game, even more. Richard Hills and others have pointed out the obvious solution. It is a pity that we may have to wait years for it to become law.... The claim procedure is for is for declarer to face his hand and nominate a number of tricks. (analogous to what happens in on-line games). To dispute the claim, opponents, may keep their cards concealed and defend double dummy. Either side is potentially open to time-wasting penalties -- declarer for not claiming -- and opponents for playing on hopelessly. The main problem is that TDs and ACs would no longer be able to parade their expertise or rule in favour of their friends: by pointing out to irate defenders that for the befuddled and deranged declarer to fail to notice the double squeeze would be irrational. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 12/12/2003 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 15 05:05:46 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:05:46 +1000 Subject: [blml] Field of Dreams Message-ID: Monte Carlo, Appeal No. 6 Event: Bermuda Bowl Round: Q.F. Teams: USA II versus Poland Appeals Committee: John Wignall (Chair); Grattan Endicott; Jean-Paul Meyer; Nissand Rand; Barry Rigal. Board 8. None Vul. Dealer West. S K 9 6 4 3 H A 2 D 8 6 4 C Q 6 5 S A J 7 2 S 8 5 H Q J 9 3 H K T 8 7 6 5 4 D J 9 D T 2 C J T 7 C 3 2 S Q T H - D A K Q 7 5 3 C A K 9 8 4 West North East South Jassem Wolff Gawrys Morse Pass Pass 1NT+ 2C* X^ Pass 2H 3D 3H 4D Pass 5D + 15-17 * ASTRO =3D minors ^ Staymanic Result: NS +420 The Facts: At the end of the session the USA Captain approached the Director and asked for a ruling on the basis that the odd 3H bid reflected an undisclosed habit of psyching. The Director: Consulted players and discussed the matter at length with the Chief Director and colleagues. Reached a conclusion that the 3H bid was sufficiently strange to suggest that the USA Captain's protest was justified. Noted however, that South had opportunity to recognize that with a strong No-trump on his right, a positive response on his left, and a free 4D bid from North, his own holding revealed remarkable total values distributed among the four hands. Ruling: Allowed NS only part of the benefit of the doubt, adjusting the score to allow Six Diamonds bid 25% of the time. For insufficient disclosure of partnership agreements EW to be penalized 3 imps in their score. Appellants: East-West appealed. Present: South and the US Captain; East-West and the Polish Captain. The players: Mr. Jassem (West) explained, in excellent English, that he thought that another board in the same match displayed inconsistent judgement by the Directors, the possibility of a three card holding in a suit that was expected to be short not having been indicated by opponents although known. (The US Captain agreed that, if so, this was a failure on the part of his pair.) As to his 3H bid West argued that it was entirely justified by bridge considerations. He held a hand where, on the bidding, there would be likely losers in the minor suits, and which contained nine losers; the question of point count was not the sole matter to be judged. Additionally there was no evidence to suggest that psyches had happened previously in his partnership with Mr.Gawrys (Mr. Gawrys acknowledged that it is not unknown for him to psyche in other partnerships). The convention card announced that they may psyche 'rarely', which is a fair statement, West suggested, since it is lawful to psyche even though there had been no past psyche in this particular partnership. East added that the Director had formed his opinion about their psyching experience without asking them. West added that, as is only human, he felt humiliated that the Directors had not believed their assertion that they had no understanding about psyching. The USA Captain stated that he had considered it proper to draw attention to the possible irregularity by entering a protest. The Committee: Enquired what had prompted East to psyche. He drew attention to the state of the match in which Poland was behind by 50 imps. Asked whether he might psyche again Mr. Gawrys responded that it is his right under the Laws to do so. The committee addressed itself to South's actions. He said that he had suspected there might have been a psyche and if over 4H North had bid 5D he would have raised to six. As it was he had thought of bidding 6D over North's 4D bid, but could picture hands where this would be wrong. The Committee's Decision: {deliberately omitted} If you were the AC, how would you have ruled? Best wishes Richard James Hills -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Dec 15 06:13:36 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 22:13:36 -0800 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia Casebook #28 References: <200312120012.QAA20985@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <000401c3c2d2$95d08fa0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Robert E. Harris" > >Marvin wrote: > > > >> Disclosure methods are a matter of SO regulation according to L40B. No > >> need to modify the laws. Just tell players that information plainly > >> disclosed in accordance with disclosure regulations should not be made > >> the subject of unnecessary questioning. I repeat, unnecessary (i.e., > >> details not requested). > >> > >> I think it is in the power of SOs to then say that the answers to such > >> unnecessary questions are AI. If not, the Laws should say that forcing > >> opponents to create UI unnecessarily results in AI, not UI. > >> > >> Of course default meanings of common calls should be defined. Then, > >> the absence of an Alert discloses the meaning. > >> > >> Meanwhile, we all know the default meaning of such doubles as > >> 1NT-P-2C-X (suit-showing), 1NT-2D-X (penalty). No Alert means the > >> double has the default meaning, so the meaning has been disclosed "in > >> accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization." > > > Adam writes: > > > >I don't think I agree: (1) I don't agree with the phrase "we all". > >Maybe 99% of us know; but I'm sure there are plenty of > >less-experienced players who *don't* know the default meaning of > >1NT-P-2C-X, and who think it sounds like takeout. Heck, I've run into > >players who think 1NT-X is takeout. My "we" does not include that 1% who know hardly anything. > > > Actually, I play 1NT-X as take-out with one partner. Whenever I have > a penalty double of 1NT, she never thinks she has enough to leave it > in. (The notion that I should have it beat in my hand? I've not yet > convinced her.) > > I also play 1NT-X as take-out (two or three suits, but not clubs) and > 1NT-2C as take-out (two or three suits, clubs is one of the suits.) > This works pretty well, so far. If you do not play a double of 1NT as penalty, then it must be Alerted. If it is not Alerted, it has to be penalty. If someone asks me what my partner's unAlerted double means, I reply that my knowledge of the meaning comes not from a special partnership agreement, but from my general knowledge and experience, and therefore it is not disclosable (L75C). And no, partnership experience does not make such an agreement "special." We have to disclose special partnership agreements, but we don't have to teach bridge. > > >(2) There are an even greater > >number of players who are confused about what's supposed to be alerted > >in the ACBL, since the rules are not straightforward and are far from > >clear at times. Based on that, I don't think a question about the > >meaning of the double is "unnecessary"---opener may well take a look > >at whom he's playing against and decide that he shouldn't assume it > >means what he thinks it should mean, or what the regulations say it's > >supposed to mean in the absence of an Alert. Double of Stayman 2C (and artificial bid) shows clubs unless the double is Alerted. If it is takeout and not Alerted, that is misinformation and any damage resulting can be redressed. There is no need to inquire, it is unnecessary. If asked, I would give the same reply as above, citing L75C. If we should inquire about all doubles, then there would be no need to mention doubles in the Alert Procedure. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Dec 15 08:36:57 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 09:36:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] How forcing is forcing? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3FDD72A9.4070803@hdw.be> Richard asks a few interesting questions, but I don't believe they matter: richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > Teams: Germany versus England (Closed Room) > England ? > J Carroll T Gotard T Hanlon J Piekarek ?? > > The Director: South called the TD during the bidding of the next board > (Board 30). He told him that he had asked West the meaning of his 3H > bid when it was passed and West said that it was forcing. (East had > neither alerted nor explained the 3H bid to North.) South said he did > not want to help E/W if they were having a bidding misunderstanding > and so he passed 3H. Later he told the TD that if he had been told > that 3H was non-forcing (which he believed it was) he would have bid > 3S. > > Ruling: No damage, table result stands (Law 40C). > [snip] > RJH questions: > > In the East-West partnership, does East a habit of opening light? In > the East-West partnership, does East also have a habit of "back-seat > driving", by passing forcing bids after opening light? > > If the answer to either of these questions is Yes, then East-West did > commit a CPU infraction under Law 40B. It is not clear from the AC > writeup whether the AC asked these questions. > Probably true, but hardly important. South knows that West intended his bid to be forcing. Yet East passes. South may believe what he wants, either that EW are having a misunderstanding, or that East shows a subminimal hand. He may even ask West about this. Nothing is stated that he did ask this, so how can EW be convicted of insufficient disclosure. "my partner just passed on a forcing bid" is that alertable? South is authorized to draw the conclusions that he wants. He concludes they were having a misunderstanding. He was wrong. Pity on him. If South had asked: "does your partner ever psyche in this position, or open subminimally" and "how likely is it that he has forgotten the system?", and if he then had received the wrong answers to those ones, then Richard is right with his CPU. not now. > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Mon Dec 15 08:12:41 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 09:12:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 12 References: <16764E45-2882-11D8-BBF1-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <8WTDVIAuR00$EwC2@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <00e501c3c2ec$994ff390$0283b6d4@LNV> > Ed Reppert wrote > > >On Saturday, Dec 6, 2003, at 19:57 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > > > >> When I read it I thought they were just trying to say in a nice way > >> what we already knew: when you make an adjustment, it is assigned if at > >> all possible. For example, L82C refers to awarding a score [speaking > >> from memory] but in fact we all know here this means assigning if there > >> was a result. I am not among 'we all' here. I agree with David that we should assign if at all possible, but this is not the same as saying that after a board has been played out no artificial score may be given anymore. There are more than a couple of countries like the ACBL and the NBB, or organizations like the EBL and the WBF, where artificial scores are given in cases where a result has been obtained. Those entities consider 'no result can be obtained' in L12c3 as saying that the TD can not assign a convincing score. I am sure that the ACBL is not going to change its guidance in this respect, the more so because the WBF drafting committee seems to support this interpretation as Grattan has explained. ton > > > >Perhaps. But I *know* that ACBL directors have ruled artAS when the > >situation called for an asAS, and it struck me that this statement > >might be their basis for doing so. If so, it ought to be stricken from > >the guidance ACBL provides to its TDs. > > I do not see this. The statement is that in such cases they should > assign. > > -- > David Stevenson From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Dec 15 09:39:35 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 09:39:35 -0000 Subject: [blml] Field of Dreams References: Message-ID: <001901c3c2ef$5a99b160$269868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Richard James Hills asked our opinion on Bermuda Bowl qualifying appeal 8 at Monte Carlo] LA/W East opened a strong 1N on 85 KT87654 T2 32 After the auction 1N (2C) X (P); 2H (3D) ? West bid only 3H when holding AJ72 QJ93 J9 JT7 West passed again at the end of the full auction... 1N (2C) X (P); 2H (3D) 3H (4D); P (5D) [Nigel] East-West's actions seem consistent with a "red" psyche-field. There is no imputation of underhand behaviour by the actual pair but an adverse ruling is necessary, in order that a pair of lesser reputation may be ruled against, in similar circumstances. I would award both sides the score for 5DXX+1 by South providing the TD advised that such a ruling is legal. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 11/12/2003 From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Mon Dec 15 13:00:35 2003 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 08:00:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Field of Dreams In-Reply-To: <001901c3c2ef$5a99b160$269868d5@tinyhrieuyik> from "Nigel Guthrie" at Dec 15, 2003 09:39:35 AM Message-ID: <200312151300.hBFD0Z01029136@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Nigel Guthrie writes: > > [Richard James Hills asked our opinion on Bermuda > Bowl qualifying appeal 8 at Monte Carlo] > LA/W East opened a strong 1N on 85 KT87654 T2 32 > After the auction 1N (2C) X (P); 2H (3D) ? > West bid only 3H when holding AJ72 QJ93 J9 JT7 > West passed again at the end of the full auction... > 1N (2C) X (P); 2H (3D) 3H (4D); P (5D) > > [Nigel] > East-West's actions seem consistent with a "red" > psyche-field. There is no imputation of underhand > behaviour by the actual pair but an adverse ruling > is necessary, in order that a pair of lesser > reputation may be ruled against, in similar > circumstances. I would award both sides the score > for 5DXX+1 by South providing the TD advised that > such a ruling is legal. > Of course it *isn't* legal unless you're ruling a concealed partnership understanding. The EBU's psychings regs that you're invoking here a) don't apply at the Bermuda Bowl b) have no support under the laws And I'm stunned that a pair with more than 3 decades of experience at the top level would claim to be unaware of the possibility of a psychic 1NT call by a team 50 imps down. (Yeah I know, it was the captain that did so. Still, I'd have been ashamed if a captain had filed a protest.) From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Dec 15 13:42:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:42 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Field of Dreams In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Monte Carlo, Appeal No. 6 > > Event: Bermuda Bowl Round: Q.F. > > Teams: USA II versus Poland > > Appeals Committee: John Wignall (Chair); Grattan Endicott; Jean-Paul > Meyer; Nissand Rand; Barry Rigal. > > Board 8. None Vul. Dealer West. > > S K 9 6 4 3 > H A 2 > D 8 6 4 > C Q 6 5 > S A J 7 2 S 8 5 > H Q J 9 3 H K T 8 7 6 5 4 > D J 9 D T 2 > C J T 7 C 3 2 > S Q T > H - > D A K Q 7 5 3 > C A K 9 8 4 > > West North East South > Jassem Wolff Gawrys Morse > Pass Pass 1NT+ 2C* > X^ Pass 2H 3D > 3H 4D Pass 5D > > + 15-17 > > * ASTRO = minors > > ^ Staymanic > > > If you were the AC, how would you have ruled? 3H is cautious but hardly bizarre, certainly if one needs a swing and partner might have KQx,AKxx,xxx,Kxx you would't want to be in game on this auction. What seems bizarre in the TD ruling is that one would choose to bid only 3H if one suspected that pard had psyched 1N with a weak hand and long hearts (a textbook holding). Now one has LoTT protection at the 4 level and can take away opp's bidding space. On a slightly different note it seems appalling to me that a pair in the Bermuda Bowl thinks this sort of psych needs any special disclosure. OK the psych would come as a surprise at the ladies knitting circle but amongst experienced players? Even without a psych Morse's 5D, when he had an obvious 4H available, was hardly a master bid. Why could the opposing hands not be xxxxx,Qxxxxx,x,xx opposite AJxx,AKJx,Jx,JTx. Tim From adam@irvine.com Mon Dec 15 17:46:54 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 09:46:54 -0800 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia Casebook #28 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 14 Dec 2003 22:13:36 PST." <000401c3c2d2$95d08fa0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <200312151746.JAA01918@mailhub.irvine.com> Marv wrote: > > >[Adam wrote:] > > >(2) There are an even greater number of players who are confused > > >about what's supposed to be alerted in the ACBL, since the rules > > >are not straightforward and are far from clear at times. Based > > >on that, I don't think a question about the meaning of the double > > >is "unnecessary"---opener may well take a look at whom he's > > >playing against and decide that he shouldn't assume it means what > > >he thinks it should mean, or what the regulations say it's > > >supposed to mean in the absence of an Alert. > > Double of Stayman 2C (and artificial bid) shows clubs unless the > double is Alerted. You and I and probably everyone else on this mailing list knows that, but that's missing the point. There are a number of players who don't know that, and the question is how to deal with them. (1) One way is to presume they're following the rules and that thus the double shows clubs, and then call the director afterwards if it turned out they didn't know the rules and you got damaged. The Laws certainly give us the right to use this approach. (2) Another is to ask what the double means; the Laws give us that right also. Against certain less-experienced players in some events (such as a Stratified), relying on approach #1 seems over-lawyerly. It smacks of trying to win by waiting until the opponents violate some rule and then pouncing. Not everyone will feel that way, and will use approach #1 with everyone; up to a point, that's fine with me if that's how they want to play. But I don't want to see option #2 prohibited, as you seem to be arguing it should be. (I haven't read the actual write-up so I don't know what event this case occurred in. If this happened in an NABC+ event I might be more inclined to agree with you. If it was in a regionally-rated Stratified or the lower flight of a Stratiflighted, it's a different story.) -- Adam From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 15 18:13:26 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:13:26 -0500 Subject: [blml] Field of Dreams In-Reply-To: <001901c3c2ef$5a99b160$269868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <60978C36-2F2A-11D8-832E-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Dec 15, 2003, at 04:39 US/Eastern, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > East-West's actions seem consistent with a "red" > psyche-field. There is no imputation of underhand > behaviour by the actual pair but an adverse ruling > is necessary, in order that a pair of lesser > reputation may be ruled against, in similar > circumstances. I'm sorry. If there's logic in this, it escapes me. > I would award both sides the score for 5DXX+1 by South > providing the TD advised that such a ruling is legal. I infer that you suspect such a ruling would not be legal. So do I. From blml@blakjak.com Mon Dec 15 18:20:51 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 18:20:51 +0000 Subject: [blml] Law 12 In-Reply-To: <00e501c3c2ec$994ff390$0283b6d4@LNV> References: <16764E45-2882-11D8-BBF1-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <8WTDVIAuR00$EwC2@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00e501c3c2ec$994ff390$0283b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: Ton Kooijman wrote >> Ed Reppert wrote >> >On Saturday, Dec 6, 2003, at 19:57 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: >> > >> >> When I read it I thought they were just trying to say in a nice way >> >> what we already knew: when you make an adjustment, it is assigned if at >> >> all possible. For example, L82C refers to awarding a score [speaking >> >> from memory] but in fact we all know here this means assigning if there >> >> was a result. >I am not among 'we all' here. I agree with David that we should assign if at >all possible, but this is not the same as saying that after a board has been >played out no artificial score may be given anymore. There are more than a >couple of countries like the ACBL and the NBB, or organizations like the EBL >and the WBF, where artificial scores are given in cases where a result has >been obtained. Those entities consider 'no result can be obtained' in L12c3 >as saying that the TD can not assign a convincing score. I am sure that the >ACBL is not going to change its guidance in this respect, the more so >because the WBF drafting committee seems to support this interpretation as >Grattan has explained. I do not understand this answer: Ton says he does not agree, and then writes something that agrees with what I wrote. In my view the advice from the ACBL in the book was that you assign if possible: that is what I said: that is what ton said. The fact that not everyone does, and not everyone agrees as to what "if possible" means seems irrelevant. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Dec 15 19:06:12 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 19:06:12 -0000 Subject: [blml] Field of Dreams References: Message-ID: <00c901c3c33e$894e3ae0$ad9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Tim West-Meads] What seems bizarre in the TD ruling is that one would choose to bid only 3H if one suspected that pard had psyched 1N with a weak hand and long hearts (a textbook holding). Now one has LoTT protection at the 4 level and can take away opp's bidding space. {Nigel] Good point; although, before a competition, I don't think that a partnership should learn the same set of psyching rules, unless the text-book be also made available to opponents :) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 11/12/2003 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Dec 15 19:36:28 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 19:36:28 -0000 Subject: Fw: [blml] Field of Dreams Message-ID: <00ec01c3c342$c7969be0$ad9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Ed Reppert] I'm sorry. If there's logic in this, it escapes me. [Nigel] My reasoning is that: if West trusts his partner's bids, then opponents have at most 15HCP and total tricks are at most 18. Hence most Wests would double, five diamonds, unless they felt that their partner's bids were most suspect than their opponents. Since the East-West CC announces "rarely" under "psyche frequency", only Tim or a close relative would allow West to claim that inference. It is worse than that, however. Under the current daft laws, if East-west have committed an infraction, then in order for North-South to be awarded an adjustment, they must eschew any action that a TD or AC can designate as "wild or gambling." Hence if they sense that the auction has a nasty smell, they may be inhibited from shooting 6D even when they would do so under normal circumstances. What is your reasoning Ed? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 11/12/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 11/12/2003 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Dec 15 20:04:46 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:04:46 -0000 Subject: [blml] Claim jumping References: <013201c3c2b8$096b3de0$dd9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <010c01c3c346$c3a4f280$ad9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> In a private email, Ed Reppert kindly pointed out that my remark below is a fire-hazard... {The main problem is that TDs and ACs would no longer be able to parade their expertise or rule in favour of their friends: by pointing out to irate opponents that for the befuddled and deranged claimer to fail to notice the double squeeze would be irrational} I am sorry Ed, I should have appended a smiley :) Nepotism is rare; but I still feel that overly subjective laws, capriciously enforced, may give the *impression* of inequity. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 11/12/2003 From adam@irvine.com Mon Dec 15 20:32:01 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 12:32:01 -0800 Subject: [blml] Claim jumping In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 15 Dec 2003 03:03:37 GMT." <013201c3c2b8$096b3de0$dd9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <200312152031.MAA06998@mailhub.irvine.com> Nigel wrote: > IMO, Jeff Ruben's recommendation not to claim is > illegal according to current laws. The laws do > need reform but this would be a retrograde step, > slowing up the game, even more. > > Richard Hills and others have pointed out the obvious > solution. It is a pity that we may have to wait years > for it to become law.... > > The claim procedure is for is for declarer to face > his hand and nominate a number of tricks. (analogous > to what happens in on-line games). To dispute the > claim, opponents, may keep their cards concealed and > defend double dummy. Either side is potentially > open to time-wasting penalties -- declarer for not > claiming -- and opponents for playing on hopelessly. > > The main problem is that TDs and ACs would no longer > be able to parade their expertise or rule in favour > of their friends: by pointing out to irate defenders > that for the befuddled and deranged declarer to fail > to notice the double squeeze would be irrational. IMHO, that's not the main problem; the main problem (in F2F bridge) is that declarer could gain against inexperienced opponents by claiming when missing a queen and then looking to see who's the first to object (or even who's the first to make a face). This procedure works better in on-line bridge. -- Adam From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 15 21:54:31 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 07:54:31 +1000 Subject: [blml] Know bid Message-ID: Imps; Dlr: West; Vul: NS NS system: Acol EW system: Precision The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass Pass Pass ? You, North, hold: Q96 QT7 JT8 AKQJ What call do you make? Best wishes Richard James Hills -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Dec 15 21:01:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:01 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: Fw: [blml] Field of Dreams In-Reply-To: <00ec01c3c342$c7969be0$ad9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > [Nigel] > My reasoning is that: if West trusts his partner's > bids, then opponents have at most 15HCP and total > tricks are at most 18. Hence most Wests would double, > five diamonds, unless they felt that their partner's > bids were most suspect than their opponents. Since > the East-West CC announces "rarely" under "psyche > frequency", only Tim or a close relative would allow > West to claim that inference. Let me get this straight. East/West are 50 IMPs down and it looks like someone at the table has psyched when pard is third-in-hand non- vulnerable and you think it needs some sort of partnership understanding to work out whose bid is suspect! Sheesh. Tim From adam@irvine.com Mon Dec 15 21:12:04 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:12:04 -0800 Subject: [blml] Know bid In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 16 Dec 2003 07:54:31 +1000." Message-ID: <200312152111.NAA08444@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard wrote: > Imps; Dlr: West; Vul: NS > > NS system: Acol > EW system: Precision > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass Pass Pass ? > > You, North, hold: > > Q96 > QT7 > JT8 > AKQJ > > What call do you make? 1NT. This looks just barely good enough for a 12-14 notrump. -- Adam From svenpran@online.no Mon Dec 15 22:17:04 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:17:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 12 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3c359$2c1d9df0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson > >I am not among 'we all' here. I agree with David that we=20 > >should assign if at all possible, but this is not the same > >as saying that after a board has been played out no=20 > >artificial score may be given anymore. There are more than > >a couple of countries like the ACBL and the NBB, or=20 > >organizations like the EBL and the WBF, where artificial=20 > >scores are given in cases where a result has been obtained. ........ > In my view the advice from the ACBL in the book was that you assign = if > possible: that is what I said: that is what ton said. The fact that = not > everyone does, and not everyone agrees as to what "if possible" means > seems irrelevant. I take it that the guideline: "No artificial score after a result has = been obtained" (if it exists anywhere) must be wrong. As a matter of fact, although I no longer remember the actual case I do remember that we have had a case in Norway where after the board was = played and a result obtained the Director ruled that an irregularity had caused = the obtained result to be meaningless, and that it was impossible to = determine an assigned adjusted score to be awarded in its place. Consequently he awarded an artificial adjusted score, a ruling that if I still remember correct was sustained by the AC. I prefer to stick to Law 12 as it is: If the Director rules that no (meaningful) result can be obtained then he is free to award an = artificial adjusted score.=20 But the advice to Norwegian Directors is that artificial scores shall = only be used when there is no other alternative. Regards Sven From blml@blakjak.com Mon Dec 15 23:08:38 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:08:38 +0000 Subject: [blml] Know bid In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote: >Imps; Dlr: West; Vul: NS > >NS system: Acol >EW system: Precision > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >Pass Pass Pass ? > >You, North, hold: > >Q96 >QT7 >JT8 >AKQJ > >What call do you make? 1C. WTP? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From richard_willey@symantec.com Mon Dec 15 23:25:26 2003 From: richard_willey@symantec.com (Richard Willey) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:25:26 -0800 Subject: [blml] Know bid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: RJH wrote: >Imps; Dlr: West; Vul: NS > >NS system: Acol >EW system: Precision > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >Pass Pass Pass ? > >You, North, hold: > >Q96 >QT7 >JT8 >AKQJ > >What call do you make? This looks like a "standard" Precision 13-15 HCP 1NT opening. While the hand "nominally" has 15 HCP, it devalues signigicantly based on 4333 shape, AKQJ in clubs, and a ridiculous number of Quacks. Its worth noting that the K-R hand evaluator judges this as 12.95 HCP - if anything this hand is slightly too weak for 1NT. I'm not sure where suggestions that this be opened with a strong club are coming from. From david.barton@boltblue.com Mon Dec 15 23:39:11 2003 From: david.barton@boltblue.com (David Barton) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:39:11 -0000 Subject: [blml] Know bid References: Message-ID: <001401c3c364$a5cc9560$0307a8c0@PlusNet> I don't bid anything. I am North and it is South to bid!!!!! ********************************** David.Barton@BoltBlue.com ********************************** ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Willey" To: Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 11:25 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Know bid > RJH wrote: > > >Imps; Dlr: West; Vul: NS > > > >NS system: Acol > >EW system: Precision > > > >The bidding has gone: > > > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > >Pass Pass Pass ? > > > >You, North, hold: > > > >Q96 > >QT7 > >JT8 > >AKQJ > > > >What call do you make? > > This looks like a "standard" Precision 13-15 HCP 1NT opening. > > While the hand "nominally" has 15 HCP, it devalues signigicantly based on > 4333 shape, AKQJ in clubs, and a ridiculous number of Quacks. > Its worth noting that the K-R hand evaluator judges this as 12.95 HCP - if > anything this hand is slightly too weak for 1NT. > I'm not sure where suggestions that this be opened with a strong club are > coming from. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran@online.no Mon Dec 15 23:40:39 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 00:40:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Know bid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3c364$d8975c50$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Richard Willey > RJH wrote: >=20 > >Imps; Dlr: West; Vul: NS > > > >NS system: Acol > >EW system: Precision > > > >The bidding has gone: > > > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > >Pass Pass Pass ? > > > >You, North, hold: > > > >Q96 > >QT7 > >JT8 > >AKQJ > > > >What call do you make? >=20 > This looks like a "standard" Precision 13-15 HCP 1NT opening. NS system: Acol =20 > While the hand "nominally" has 15 HCP, it devalues signigicantly based = on > 4333 shape, AKQJ in clubs, and a ridiculous number of Quacks. > Its worth noting that the K-R hand evaluator judges this as 12.95 HCP = - if > anything this hand is slightly too weak for 1NT. > I'm not sure where suggestions that this be opened with a strong club = are > coming from. If their NT range includes 15HCP I shall open 1NT, otherwise 1C. And as David said: WTP? Sven From richard_willey@symantec.com Mon Dec 15 23:47:31 2003 From: richard_willey@symantec.com (Richard Willey) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:47:31 -0800 Subject: [blml] Know bid In-Reply-To: <000001c3c364$d8975c50$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: URK Sorry about that However, my choice of bids doesn't change This looks like a 13 HCP balanced hand. I'm going to open 1NT > Richard Willey > RJH wrote: > > >Imps; Dlr: West; Vul: NS > > > >NS system: Acol > >EW system: Precision > > > >The bidding has gone: > > > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > >Pass Pass Pass ? > > > >You, North, hold: > > > >Q96 > >QT7 > >JT8 > >AKQJ > > > >What call do you make? > > This looks like a "standard" Precision 13-15 HCP 1NT opening. NS system: Acol > While the hand "nominally" has 15 HCP, it devalues signigicantly based on > 4333 shape, AKQJ in clubs, and a ridiculous number of Quacks. > Its worth noting that the K-R hand evaluator judges this as 12.95 HCP - if > anything this hand is slightly too weak for 1NT. > I'm not sure where suggestions that this be opened with a strong club are > coming from. If their NT range includes 15HCP I shall open 1NT, otherwise 1C. And as David said: WTP? Sven From adam@irvine.com Mon Dec 15 23:57:17 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:57:17 -0800 Subject: [blml] Know bid In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:25:26 PST." Message-ID: <200312152357.PAA13298@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard Willey wrote: > RJH wrote: > > >Imps; Dlr: West; Vul: NS > > > >NS system: Acol > >EW system: Precision > > > >The bidding has gone: > > > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > >Pass Pass Pass ? > > > >You, North, hold: > > > >Q96 > >QT7 > >JT8 > >AKQJ > > > >What call do you make? > > This looks like a "standard" Precision 13-15 HCP 1NT opening. Sure does. But usually when I bid, I bid in the context of my own system, not the opponents'. (Emphasis on "usually". Sometimes when I bid it's in the context of some system that is not our own system, nor the opponents', nor a system played by anyone else on the planet.) -- Adam From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Tue Dec 16 00:24:08 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 00:24:08 +0000 Subject: [blml] Know bid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2A0D778D-2F5E-11D8-8E0A-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Monday, December 15, 2003, at 09:54 PM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > > Imps; Dlr: West; Vul: NS > > NS system: Acol > EW system: Precision > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass Pass Pass ? > > You, North, hold: > > Q96 > QT7 > JT8 > AKQJ > > What call do you make? I hope I'm playing online bridge, so that I can' ask for an "UNDO", since I passed my fifteen count when it was my turn to bid. I better do it quickly, since it'll be too late for the software to deal with if partner passes fourth in hand. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From mamos@blueyonder.co.uk Tue Dec 16 00:36:12 2003 From: mamos@blueyonder.co.uk (mamos) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 00:36:12 -0000 Subject: [blml] Know bid References: Message-ID: <00c101c3c36c$9b60c300$ae692452@mikeamos> 1NT (12-14) seems perfect mike ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 9:54 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Know bid Imps; Dlr: West; Vul: NS NS system: Acol EW system: Precision The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass Pass Pass ? You, North, hold: Q96 QT7 JT8 AKQJ What call do you make? Best wishes Richard James Hills ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA). DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From blml@blakjak.com Tue Dec 16 00:37:51 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 00:37:51 +0000 Subject: [blml] Know bid In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <+niQlPFfPl3$EwIK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Hi Richard Willey >RJH wrote: > >>Imps; Dlr: West; Vul: NS >> >>NS system: Acol >>EW system: Precision >> >>The bidding has gone: >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>Pass Pass Pass ? >> >>You, North, hold: >> >>Q96 >>QT7 >>JT8 >>AKQJ >> >>What call do you make? > >This looks like a "standard" Precision 13-15 HCP 1NT opening. > >While the hand "nominally" has 15 HCP, it devalues signigicantly based on >4333 shape, AKQJ in clubs, and a ridiculous number of Quacks. >Its worth noting that the K-R hand evaluator judges this as 12.95 HCP - if >anything this hand is slightly too weak for 1NT. >I'm not sure where suggestions that this be opened with a strong club are >coming from. I am sure several others will point this out, and I shall be very gentle - EW are playing Precision: the player in fourth whose opening is being questioned is South. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Dec 16 01:14:29 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 01:14:29 -0000 Subject: Fw: [blml] Field of Dreams References: Message-ID: <006a01c3c371$f540eee0$3a9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Tim West-Meads] Let me get this straight. East/West are 50 IMPs down and it looks like someone at the table has psyched when pard is third-in-hand non-vulnerable and you think it needs some sort of partnership understanding to work out whose bid is suspect! [Nigel] Of course, it is a matter of opinion, however... First of all, IMO it is *not* obvious to West that anybody has psyched; although it is clear that somebody's *judgement* is suspect. Secondly, if you psyche at all, you should psyche to some purpose (: perhaps the partnership text-book suggests them third in hand not vul -- and it will certainly recommend them when you are behind with little to lose). So, OK, I agree that this is a likely psyche context. You and opponents may know this *but* you have declared that partner psyches "rarely" (and presumably in circumstances that he judges suitable). So, on this board, it is indeed fortuitous that West was able to discount the possibility of poor judgement by an opponent and instead diagnose a "rare" psyche by partner. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 11/12/2003 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Dec 16 01:16:07 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 01:16:07 -0000 Subject: [blml] Know bid Message-ID: <007e01c3c372$2f7e4bc0$3a9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Richard James Hills] Imps; Dlr: West; Vul: NS NS system: Acol EW system: Precision WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass Pass Pass ? You, North, hold: Q96 QT7 JT8 AKQJ What call do you make? [David Barton] I don't bid anything. I am North and it is South to bid!!!!! [Nigel] 1N, Obviously you're a ventriloquist, or you could not afford to pass with all those points :) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 11/12/2003 From john@asimere.com Tue Dec 16 01:32:30 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 01:32:30 +0000 Subject: [blml] Know bid In-Reply-To: <00c101c3c36c$9b60c300$ae692452@mikeamos> References: <00c101c3c36c$9b60c300$ae692452@mikeamos> Message-ID: In article <00c101c3c36c$9b60c300$ae692452@mikeamos>, mamos writes >1NT (12-14) seems perfect > >mike >----- Original Message ----- >From: >To: >Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 9:54 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] Know bid > > > > > > >Imps; Dlr: West; Vul: NS > >NS system: Acol >EW system: Precision > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >Pass Pass Pass ? > >You, North, hold: > >Q96 >QT7 >JT8 >AKQJ > >What call do you make? I am *so* tempted to pass, but I will open 1C and pass the response. > >Best wishes > >Richard James Hills >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >---------- > Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please >advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This >email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged >and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. >Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, >except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be >the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous >Affairs (DIMIA). DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the >Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >---------- > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Dec 16 02:20:22 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 12:20:22 +1000 Subject: [blml] Know bid Message-ID: Imps; Dlr: West; Vul: NS NS system: Acol EW system: Precision The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass Pass Pass ? You, North, hold: Q96 QT7 JT8 AKQJ What call do you make? * * * The correct call is, of course, "Director!" The only blmlers who *carefully* read the problem were Gordon Rainsford and David Barton, who noted that North had accidentally Passed in second seat with a 15-count. North, of course, would like to use Law 25A to change their initial Pass to something more descriptive of their values. Unfortunately, South has been hesitating in fourth seat, wondering whether: AKT K543 9542 T4 is sufficient strength for a light fourth hand opening. Given that South's hesitation may have caused North to wake up from their doze, as TD, how would you rule? Best wishes Richard James Hills -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From blml@blakjak.com Tue Dec 16 02:21:28 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 02:21:28 +0000 Subject: [blml] Know bid In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote >Imps; Dlr: West; Vul: NS > >NS system: Acol >EW system: Precision > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >Pass Pass Pass ? > >You, North, hold: > >Q96 >QT7 >JT8 >AKQJ > >What call do you make? > >* * * > >The correct call is, of course, "Director!" > >The only blmlers who *carefully* read the >problem were Gordon Rainsford and David Barton, >who noted that North had accidentally Passed in >second seat with a 15-count. > >North, of course, would like to use Law 25A to >change their initial Pass to something more >descriptive of their values. > >Unfortunately, South has been hesitating in >fourth seat, wondering whether: > >AKT >K543 >9542 >T4 > >is sufficient strength for a light fourth hand >opening. > >Given that South's hesitation may have caused >North to wake up from their doze, as TD, how >would you rule? Of course, if I was ruling, I would be there. Has North really managed to convince me that his pass was inadvertent? If so, then I let him change it. His partner's dithering, while UI, does not suggest any choice between LAs, because North's only LA is to change his call to the one he intended originally. -- 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 nancy@dressing.org Tue Dec 16 02:39:32 2003 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy) Date: 15 Dec 2003 18:39:32 -0800 Subject: [blml] Christmas Greetings from Nancy Message-ID: <0705f32390210c3HOME@home.pacprod.com> Hi! You have a Personalized Electronic Christmas Greeting Card from Nancy waiting for you at Pacific Products Gallery! To view your card, simply click on this address: http://roadrunner.pacprod.com/cgi-bin/GRCard.exe?cm=b4044c151824243n Just connect to the above web site and then click on the "View My Card" button. The "View My Card" button is located on the left hand side of your screen. We'll keep your greeting card in our system for 90 days. Enjoy! *********Check These Out!********* EARN MONEY FROM YOUR WEBSITE!!! Earn commissions on any of our more than 4,000 unique gifts and collectibles when you join the Pacific Products Gallery Partner Program. Visit the link below for all the exciting details and start earning today! http://www.pacprod.com/partners/home.htm ==================================== HEAR WHO'S CALLING YOU WHILE YOUR ONLINE!!! Get the FREE the Internet Answering Machine... Click here or cut and paste this URL into your browser window to download the free software! http://www.pacprod.com/callwave ==================================== Joke Of The Day - http://www.pacprod.com/jokes.pl Random Quotes - http://www.pacprod.com/quotes/quotes.htm Today In History - http://www.pacprod.com/cgi-bin/today.pl 1000's Of Gifts And Collectibles - http://www.pacprod.com ************************************** From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Dec 16 02:38:36 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:38:36 -0500 Subject: [blml] Know bid Message-ID: <244ED610-2F71-11D8-832E-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Dec 15, 2003, at 18:25 US/Eastern, Richard Willey wrote: > I'm not sure where suggestions that this be opened with a strong club > are > coming from. E and W are playing precision. They both passed. South is opening. I go with 1NT. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Dec 16 02:41:23 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:41:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] Know bid In-Reply-To: <001401c3c364$a5cc9560$0307a8c0@PlusNet> Message-ID: <56A45984-2F71-11D8-832E-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Dec 15, 2003, at 18:39 US/Eastern, David Barton wrote: > I don't bid anything. > > I am North and it is South to bid!!!!! LOL! So it is. :-) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Dec 16 03:02:10 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 22:02:10 -0500 Subject: [blml] Know bid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3DA5DBC0-2F74-11D8-832E-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Dec 15, 2003, at 21:20 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Given that South's hesitation may have caused > North to wake up from their doze, as TD, how > would you rule? Hm. The information that North shouldn't have passed isn't "extraneous", it's in his hand. Therefore North is not prevented from attempting to change his call by South's hesitation. However,the hesitation *does* convey that South was considering opening, and that may, at some point, constrain North's choice of call. I apply Law 25B. If East accepts the change, the auction and play proceed, and I come back to see if the score needs adjusting afterward. If East doesn't accept, North either allows pass to stand, and south must then pass, or he bids and they're stuck with average minus at best (and the score still might get adjusted). From juana_michael_su@as.airnet.ne.jp Tue Dec 16 04:26:53 2003 From: juana_michael_su@as.airnet.ne.jp (Juana Michael) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 04:26:53 +0000 Subject: [blml] =?ISO-8859-1?b?SGkgdGhlcmU=?= Message-ID:
REFINANCE NOW AND SAVE BIG!
If you are paying more than 3.6% on your mortgage, we can save you money!

NO COST OR OBLIGATION

QUICK AND EASY FORM

GUARANTEED LOWEST RATES ON THE PLANET

APPROVAL REGARDLESS OF CREDIT HISTORY!

Start saving today

Show Me The Lowest Rates




withdraw From walt1@verizon.net Tue Dec 16 07:47:17 2003 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 02:47:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] Know bid In-Reply-To: <001401c3c364$a5cc9560$0307a8c0@PlusNet> References: <001401c3c364$a5cc9560$0307a8c0@PlusNet> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.0.20031216024642.0355c020@incoming.verizon.net> Why did you pass? Walt At 06:39 PM 15/12/2003, David Barton wrote: >I don't bid anything. > >I am North and it is South to bid!!!!! > >********************************** >David.Barton@BoltBlue.com >********************************** > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Richard Willey" >To: >Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 11:25 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] Know bid > > > > RJH wrote: > > > > >Imps; Dlr: West; Vul: NS > > > > > >NS system: Acol > > >EW system: Precision > > > > > >The bidding has gone: > > > > > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > >Pass Pass Pass ? > > > > > >You, North, hold: > > > > > >Q96 > > >QT7 > > >JT8 > > >AKQJ > > > > > >What call do you make? > > > > This looks like a "standard" Precision 13-15 HCP 1NT opening. > > > > While the hand "nominally" has 15 HCP, it devalues signigicantly based on > > 4333 shape, AKQJ in clubs, and a ridiculous number of Quacks. > > Its worth noting that the K-R hand evaluator judges this as 12.95 HCP - if > > anything this hand is slightly too weak for 1NT. > > I'm not sure where suggestions that this be opened with a strong club are > > coming from. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Tue Dec 16 09:56:48 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 10:56:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Know bid In-Reply-To: <3DA5DBC0-2F74-11D8-832E-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c3c3ba$ec244840$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > > Given that South's hesitation may have caused > > North to wake up from their doze, as TD, how > > would you rule? >=20 > Hm. The information that North shouldn't have passed isn't > "extraneous", it's in his hand. Therefore North is not prevented from > attempting to change his call by South's hesitation. However,the > hesitation *does* convey that South was considering opening, and that > may, at some point, constrain North's choice of call. I apply Law 25B. It is too late for L25B. There are three possibilities: 1: North convinces the director that the pass was inadvertent: Law 25A applies. North is allowed to make his change after which the auction continues normally. No UI, no penalty. 2: North "discloses" to the world that he regrets his pass but does not = in fact try to make another call: Law 16A applies to South. South may not select any action that can have been suggested etc. 3: North actually tries to change his call: Law 31B applies. East may = accept the new bid, otherwise it is treated as a bid out of rotation at = partner's turn to call and South must pass for the rest of the auction etc. > If East accepts the change, the auction and play proceed, and I come > back to see if the score needs adjusting afterward. If East doesn't > accept, North either allows pass to stand, and south must then pass, = or > he bids and they're stuck with average minus at best (and the score > still might get adjusted). Another confusion caused by L25B. When are we going to get rid of that = law? Regards Sven From blml@blakjak.com Tue Dec 16 17:34:45 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:34:45 +0000 Subject: [blml] EBU White book 2004 Message-ID: This publication is now available for download from the EBU site as a PDF document. See http://www.ebu.co.uk/laws_ethics/2004whitebook.htm It contains EBU interpretations of laws: EBU understandings of WBFLC minutes: EBU regulations: advice on how to direct: the WBF Code of Practice. It is supplementary to the Laws of bridge, and to the Orange book, which contains the regulations that generally interest the players. It applies in England and Wales from 1-1-2004 except for certain items which should not be brought in part way through a competition year. The page above lists the relevant items. The EBU Tournament Committee expects to bring them in basically on 1-9-2004, or at the start of a competition if there is one that does not run over a traditional year [September to August]. It is expected that the WBU T&MPC and other sponsoring organisations will follow suit. One change is in Victory point scales. Because there is a lot of stationery still around it is expected that in several cases the new Victory point scales will only apply once the old stationery has run out! The WBU regulation [paraphrased] says that the EBU White book applies except when WBU regulations say otherwise. This makes it easy for them to have a default position, without them being forced to follow any specific regulation with which they disagree. Other sponsoring organisations that do not have detailed regulations in many areas are encouraged to do the same. For example, suppose the South Mumbai and District Championship Pairs finishes in a tie. Hopefully they have a tie-splitting procedure. But suppose they do not? Bloodshed might be avoided if the South Mumbai and District Bridge and Chess Association had previously said that the EBU White book applies if the SMDBCA has not issued any other regulation: now you just look up tie-splitting in the White book. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Dec 16 23:05:05 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:05:05 +1000 Subject: [blml] Field of Dreams Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie wrote: >>My reasoning is that: if West trusts his partner's >>bids, then opponents have at most 15HCP and total >>tricks are at most 18. Hence most Wests would double, >>five diamonds, unless they felt that their partner's >>bids were most suspect than their opponents. [snip] Richard James Hills replies: I disagree with Nigel's "Walter the Walrus" reasoning. If all of East, North and South have their bids, then: S 9 6 4 3 H 7 6 5 4 2 D 6 4 C Q 6 S A J 7 2 S K Q T 8 H Q J 9 3 H A K T 8 D J 9 D K 2 C J T 7 C 4 3 2 S 5 H - D A Q T 8 7 5 3 C A K 9 8 4 On this layout, with no psyche, West's double of 5D would give EW the poor score of -650 (or -1000 if South redoubled). A double of 5D by West would be a "points-schmoints" action, given that West holds *zero* defensive values in the minor two-suiter that South has promised. If West hopes that East has values in the minors, West can be assured that a Bermuda Bowl East can do their own doubling, if East does indeed have values in the minors. The actual Appeals Committee majority decision: [snip] >Considered that for West the auction carried no >evidence that a psyche had occurred, [snip] Best wishes RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Dec 16 22:11:01 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:11:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] Know bid In-Reply-To: <000001c3c3ba$ec244840$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Tuesday, Dec 16, 2003, at 04:56 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > It is too late for L25B. So it is. My bad, I misread it. > There are three possibilities: > > 1: North convinces the director that the pass was inadvertent: Law 25A > applies. North is allowed to make his change after which the auction > continues normally. No UI, no penalty. Urm. South hesitated - there may be UI from that, > 2: North "discloses" to the world that he regrets his pass but does > not in > fact try to make another call: Law 16A applies to South. South may not > select any action that can have been suggested etc. If south's hesitation indicates he was contemplating bidding, as it seems to me to do, then south must pass, no? > 3: North actually tries to change his call: Law 31B applies. East may > accept > the new bid, otherwise it is treated as a bid out of rotation at > partner's > turn to call and South must pass for the rest of the auction etc. > >> If East accepts the change, the auction and play proceed, and I come >> back to see if the score needs adjusting afterward. If East doesn't >> accept, North either allows pass to stand, and south must then pass, >> or >> he bids and they're stuck with average minus at best (and the score >> still might get adjusted). > > Another confusion caused by L25B. When are we going to get rid of that > law? The confusion was caused by my inability to read plain English, not by L25B :-). IAC, my answer to your question is "I dunno. Ask Grattan." :-) From svenpran@online.no Tue Dec 16 22:55:31 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 23:55:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Know bid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3c427$b5730ad0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > > There are three possibilities: > > > > 1: North convinces the director that the pass was inadvertent: Law = 25A > > applies. North is allowed to make his change after which the auction > > continues normally. No UI, no penalty. >=20 > Urm. South hesitated - there may be UI from that, I did write: If "North convinces the Director that the pass was inadvertent".=20 I don't know about every Director, but if I got the feeling that North = was in any way influenced by South's manners I would certainly not be = convinced that his pass was inadvertent but rather that he got second thoughts. = Exit L25A. > > 2: North "discloses" to the world that he regrets his pass but does > > not in > > fact try to make another call: Law 16A applies to South. South may = not > > select any action that can have been suggested etc. >=20 > If south's hesitation indicates he was contemplating bidding, as it > seems to me to do, then south must pass, no? Exactly how South gets his choices limited by UI from North depends. The hesitation or whatever by South is UI to North but does itself not = influence the choices available to South. >=20 > > 3: North actually tries to change his call: Law 31B applies. East = may > > accept > > the new bid, otherwise it is treated as a bid out of rotation at > > partner's > > turn to call and South must pass for the rest of the auction etc. > > > >> If East accepts the change, the auction and play proceed, and I = come > >> back to see if the score needs adjusting afterward. If East doesn't > >> accept, North either allows pass to stand, and south must then = pass, > >> or > >> he bids and they're stuck with average minus at best (and the score > >> still might get adjusted). > > > > Another confusion caused by L25B. When are we going to get rid of = that > > law? >=20 > The confusion was caused by my inability to read plain English, not by > L25B :-). IAC, my answer to your question is "I dunno. Ask Grattan." = :-) Well, for L25A it is in time until partner makes a call, for L25B the = change must occur before LHO makes any call. It is pretty easy to mix these two time limits. And I consider L25B a foreign element which should never have made it to = the laws. I cross fingers and hope for 2005. Sven From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Dec 17 00:04:39 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:04:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] Know bid In-Reply-To: <000001c3c427$b5730ad0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <9BE7425A-3024-11D8-9920-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Dec 16, 2003, at 17:55 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > I did write: If "North convinces the Director that the pass was > inadvertent". > > I don't know about every Director, but if I got the feeling that North > was > in any way influenced by South's manners I would certainly not be > convinced > that his pass was inadvertent but rather that he got second thoughts. > Exit > L25A. I meant that UI from South's hesitation might affect North's later bidding. If there is any. :-) >> If south's hesitation indicates he was contemplating bidding, as it >> seems to me to do, then south must pass, no? > > Exactly how South gets his choices limited by UI from North depends. > The > hesitation or whatever by South is UI to North but does itself not > influence > the choices available to South. In the given scenario south was probably contemplating opening in fourth seat. If north makes available to south through UI the fact that he (north) has an opening hand, this demonstrably suggests that south should open. Therefore he cannot, he must pass. I suppose south may have been contemplating something else beside "should I open or should I pass", but I can't imagine what. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Dec 17 00:35:41 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 00:35:41 -0000 Subject: [blml] Field of Dreams References: Message-ID: <003901c3c435$b459ca40$609468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Richard James Hills replies: I disagree with Nigel's "Walter the Walrus" reasoning. If all of East, North and South have their bids, then: S 9 6 4 3 H 7 6 5 4 2 D 6 4 C Q 6 S A J 7 2 S K Q T 8 H Q J 9 3 H A K T 8 D J 9 D K 2 C J T 7 C 4 3 2 S 5 H - D A Q T 8 7 5 3 C A K 9 8 4 On this layout, with no psyche, West's double of 5D would give EW the poor score of -650 (or -1000 if South redoubled). A double of 5D by West would be a "points-schmoints" action, given that West holds *zero* defensive values in the minor two-suiter that South has promised. If West hopes that East has values in the minors, West can be assured that a Bermuda Bowl East can do their own doubling, if East does indeed have values in the minors. The actual Appeals Committee majority decision: Considered that for West the auction carried no evidence that a psyche had occurred, [Richard] Your suggested North hand S:9643 H:76542 D:64 C:Q6 must be worth more than a constructive diamond raise. He has fairly short spades in the context of the bidding so surely he can risk a 4S splinter? :) Seriously, it is always easy to construct deals where opponents can make contracts with few trumps and few points. IMO, If your opponents never make a doubled contract then you are not doubling enough. IMO, it is losing Bridge not to double in such situations, especially when you are 50 imps behind. Of course, if I suspect that partner has psyched, I don't double. However, I accept that it is a matter of judgement and your judgement may be better than mine. Luckily, for East-West, the committee's judgement appears to have been nearly as good as yours and Tim's. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 16/12/2003 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Dec 17 00:58:50 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:58:50 +1000 Subject: [blml] Know bid Message-ID: David Stevenson: >Of course, if I was ruling, I would be >there. Has North really managed to >convince me that his pass was >inadvertent? > >If so, then I let him change it. His >partner's dithering, while UI, does not >suggest any choice between LAs, because >North's only LA is to change his call to >the one he intended originally. Richard James Hills: I do not know how North's mind works. (At the table, I was West.) However, as TD, I would tend to rule that a stupid Pass is hardly ever completely inadvertent. This is because Pass is the *default* call. A Pass is a bridge player's normal call in the auction. It takes an effort of will to realise that the cards a player holds justify a different call. Therefore, without convincing evidence to the contrary, I would rule that North's Pass was due to a careless failure to properly take note of their honours, and was *not* a Law 25A inadvertent call. Best wishes RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Dec 17 01:48:30 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:48:30 +1000 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) Message-ID: Marvin French: >>Double of Stayman 2C (and artificial bid) shows clubs unless the >>double is Alerted. Adam Beneschan: >You and I and probably everyone else on this mailing list knows that, Richard James Hills: Quibble. Not everyone on this list is from ACBL-land. Not everyone on this list has SOs with alert regs inscribed with arcane and gnomic glyptography. Adam Beneschan: >but that's missing the point. There are a number of players who don't= >know that, and the question is how to deal with them. (1) One way is >to presume they're following the rules and that thus the double shows >clubs, and then call the director afterwards if it turned out they >didn't know the rules and you got damaged. The Laws certainly give us= >the right to use this approach. (2) Another is to ask what the double= >means; the Laws give us that right also. > >Against certain less-experienced players in some events (such as a >Stratified), relying on approach #1 seems over-lawyerly. It smacks of= >trying to win by waiting until the opponents violate some rule and >then pouncing. Not everyone will feel that way, and will use approach= >#1 with everyone; up to a point, that's fine with me if that's how >they want to play. But I don't want to see option #2 prohibited, as >you seem to be arguing it should be. Richard James Hills: ACBL sea-lawyers (always reliant on #1) could be returned to the stygian sepulchres where they belong, if the ACBL sensibly adopted a modification to their alert regs along these lines -> ABF Alert regs (extract): >>>11.1 >>>Tournament Directors will not allow players to manipulate these >>>Regulations to their advantage. For example, opponents must be >>>allowed enough time to alert; a speedy action out of tempo >>>followed by a claim for a late alert will receive little >>>sympathy. Likewise, experienced players claiming damage through >>>a technical failure to alert will need to present a strong case. >>> >>>11.2 >>>When players claim damage due to a failure to alert (but are >>>likely to have been aware of probable alternative meanings of a >>>call), their claim will be unsuccessful if they could have >>>enquired as to the meaning of the call before the damage >>>occurred. Best wishes RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From blml@blakjak.com Wed Dec 17 01:43:59 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 01:43:59 +0000 Subject: [blml] Know bid In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote >David Stevenson: > >>Of course, if I was ruling, I would be >>there. Has North really managed to >>convince me that his pass was >>inadvertent? >> >>If so, then I let him change it. His >>partner's dithering, while UI, does not >>suggest any choice between LAs, because >>North's only LA is to change his call to >>the one he intended originally. > >Richard James Hills: > >I do not know how North's mind works. (At >the table, I was West.) However, as TD, I >would tend to rule that a stupid Pass is >hardly ever completely inadvertent. > >This is because Pass is the *default* call. >A Pass is a bridge player's normal call in >the auction. It takes an effort of will to >realise that the cards a player holds >justify a different call. > >Therefore, without convincing evidence to >the contrary, I would rule that North's >Pass was due to a careless failure to >properly take note of their honours, and >was *not* a Law 25A inadvertent call. If I rule it was inadvertent then there was compelling evidence. I do not know what you are suggesting. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Dec 17 02:04:13 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:04:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] Know bid Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >In the given scenario South was probably contemplating >opening in fourth seat. If North makes available to >south through UI the fact that he (North) has an opening >hand, this demonstrably suggests that South should open. >Therefore he cannot, he must pass. I suppose South may >have been contemplating something else beside "should I >open or should I pass", but I can't imagine what. Richard James Hills: At the table, North realised the UI problems that an unsuccessful TD call would create for their side. So, North kept a poker face throughout, did not summon the director, and hoped that South would eventually decide to open the bidding. Alas, South's hand evaluation was too good, so South passed, and North-South dropped 12 imps when 3NT proved to be cold as the cards lay. Best wishes RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Dec 17 02:01:31 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:01:31 -0800 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia Casebook #28 References: <200312151746.JAA01918@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <001601c3c441$b33ddc80$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Adam Beneschan" > > Marv wrote: > > > > >[Adam wrote:] > > > >(2) There are an even greater number of players who are confused > > > >about what's supposed to be alerted in the ACBL, since the rules > > > >are not straightforward and are far from clear at times. Based > > > >on that, I don't think a question about the meaning of the double > > > >is "unnecessary"---opener may well take a look at whom he's > > > >playing against and decide that he shouldn't assume it means what > > > >he thinks it should mean, or what the regulations say it's > > > >supposed to mean in the absence of an Alert. > > > > Double of Stayman 2C (and artificial bid) shows clubs unless the > > double is Alerted. > > You and I and probably everyone else on this mailing list knows that, > but that's missing the point. There are a number of players who don't > know that, and the question is how to deal with them. (1) One way is > to presume they're following the rules and that thus the double shows > clubs, and then call the director afterwards if it turned out they > didn't know the rules and you got damaged. The Laws certainly give us > the right to use this approach. (2) Another is to ask what the double > means; the Laws give us that right also. > > Against certain less-experienced players in some events (such as a > Stratified), relying on approach #1 seems over-lawyerly. It smacks of > trying to win by waiting until the opponents violate some rule and > then pouncing. Not everyone will feel that way, and will use approach > #1 with everyone; up to a point, that's fine with me if that's how > they want to play. In general whatever I write applies to ACBL Life Masters and higher-ranking players, okay?. I personally am very understanding with the inexperienced, following Kaplan's suggestion to me that I not invoke L75C when opponents are either inexperienced or from another country (where "general knowledge" over here may not apply). If Stratified events were done away with, letting C players compete on an equal basis (in every respect) with others in a good game of bridge or in a game of their own, these problems would go away. > But I don't want to see option #2 prohibited, as > you seem to be arguing it should be. > > (I haven't read the actual write-up so I don't know what event this > case occurred in. If this happened in an NABC+ event I might be more > inclined to agree with you. If it was in a regionally-rated > Stratified or the lower flight of a Stratiflighted, it's a different > story.) It was in a two-session Senior Pairs at the Philadelphia NABC, no doubt stratified. The masterpoint holdings of the players were not included in the writeup. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Dec 17 04:42:39 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:42:39 -0800 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) References: Message-ID: <002301c3c458$36c2ad40$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> >From Richard Hills Marvin French: >>Double of Stayman 2C (and artificial bid) shows clubs unless the >>double is Alerted. Adam Beneschan: >You and I and probably everyone else on this mailing list knows that, Richard James Hills: Quibble. Not everyone on this list is from ACBL-land. Not everyone on this list has SOs with alert regs inscribed with arcane and gnomic glyptography. Marv: Many on the list from other zones play in ACBL events. I think they are interested in ACBL regulations. I have to endure the endless discussions about the junk you guys play over there and down there, but I would never think of complaining. Over here and up here we have a Delete key on our keyboards. Adam Beneschan: >but that's missing the point. There are a number of players who don't >know that, and the question is how to deal with them. (1) One way is >to presume they're following the rules and that thus the double shows >clubs, and then call the director afterwards if it turned out they >didn't know the rules and you got damaged. The Laws certainly give us >the right to use this approach. (2) Another is to ask what the double >means; the Laws give us that right also. > Richard James Hills: ACBL sea-lawyers (always reliant on #1) could be returned to the stygian sepulchres where they belong, if the ACBL sensibly adopted a modification to their alert regs along these lines -> ABF Alert regs (extract): >>>11.1 >>>Tournament Directors will not allow players to manipulate these >>>Regulations to their advantage. For example, opponents must be >>>allowed enough time to alert; a speedy action out of tempo >>>followed by a claim for a late alert will receive little >>>sympathy. Likewise, experienced players claiming damage through >>>a technical failure to alert will need to present a strong case. >>> >>>11.2 >>>When players claim damage due to a failure to alert (but are >>>likely to have been aware of probable alternative meanings of a >>>call), their claim will be unsuccessful if they could have >>>enquired as to the meaning of the call before the damage >>>occurred. Marv: We have those principles in ACBL-land. But when the meaning is highly unexpected we are not "probably aware" of it and are due redress if there is damage. I have no mercy on high-level players, especiallly pros, who have not bothered to learn ACBL regulations. If they don't have two CCs on the table, completed and legible, if they don't use the Alert process correctly, if they don't wait a while before calling when I put out the STOP card, I call the cops. I want to add something. I play often with an inexperienced player whose main interest is not the game of bridge and so will never be "experienced." When an opponent asks an unnecessary question of this partner, say a question that is plainly answered on the CC or a call has the plain default meaning, the reply may come out a bit garbled, which is UI to me. When an opponent asks me such a question, if I were to answer it my partner could quite possibly learn something from the answer. I do not like that opponents can create UI for our side unnecesarily, and I refuse to do it if I am within the Laws. For instance. I open the bidding with 1C-1H by a Life Master-3S by partner, unAlerted. The default meaning is a preemptive type hand with a bunch of spades and not much else. Questioned about 3S by the overcaller when 3S comes around, I say it is not the subject of a special partnership agreement, all I know about the bid comes from general knowledge and experience. Big brouhaha, I must explain and so forth. But if I were to give that unnecessary explanation my partner may realize that her 3S bid was an underbid. Then, when her RHO bids 4H, she cannot bid 4S because of the UI. Without the UI, she could of course bid 4S. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Dec 17 06:50:44 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:50:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) Message-ID: Richard James Hills: >>Quibble. Not everyone on this list is from ACBL-land. Not everyone >>on this list has SOs with alert regs inscribed with arcane and >>gnomic glyptography. Marv: >Many on the list from other zones play in ACBL events. I think they >are interested in ACBL regulations. I have to endure the endless >discussions about the junk you guys play over there and down there, >but I would never think of complaining. Over here and up here we >have a Delete key on our keyboards. Richard James Hills: I am indeed interested in ACBL alert regs, as a horrible example of what *not* to do. In a nutshell, the ACBL alert regs concentrate too much on the individual "trees", and lose sight of the overall "wood" of full disclosure. But these are not merely the complaints of an uppity descendent of convicts. The red-white-and-blue American Splendor of Jeff Rubens devoted his Bridge World November 2003 editorial to a detailed critique of the fundamental flaws in the ACBL alert regs. Bound for Botany Bay, RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Dec 17 14:22:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:22 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: Fw: [blml] Field of Dreams In-Reply-To: <006a01c3c371$f540eee0$3a9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: > [Tim West-Meads] > Let me get this straight. East/West are 50 IMPs > down and it looks like someone at the table has > psyched when pard is third-in-hand non-vulnerable > and you think it needs some sort of partnership > understanding to work out whose bid is suspect! > > [Nigel] > Of course, it is a matter of opinion, however... > > First of all, IMO it is *not* obvious to West > that anybody has psyched; although it is clear > that somebody's *judgement* is suspect. In my book when the values shown round the table give the impression of exceeding the total values available it "looks like" someone has psyched. > Secondly, if you psyche at all, you should psyche > to some purpose (: perhaps the partnership text-book > suggests them third in hand not vul -- and it will > certainly recommend them when you are behind with > little to lose). So, OK, I agree that this is a > likely psyche context. You and opponents may know > this *but* you have declared that partner psyches > "rarely" (and presumably in circumstances that he > judges suitable). So the partnership psychs once per 100 boards rather than once per 50. Assume that each hand has a "psych suitability index", frequent psychers will psych when this index hits say 0.95, rare psychers when it hits 0.97 (random psychers won't bother to think about suitability). A player's frequency of psyching is a function of what variety of hands/positions he considers suitable. 3rd in non-vul and 50 down starts the index at about 0.8 before one even looks at the hand! While players may not think in exactly these terms experienced ones should be expected to recognise the situations. > So, on this board, it is indeed > fortuitous that West was able to discount the > possibility of poor judgement by an opponent and > instead diagnose a "rare" psyche by partner. In order to adjust the "diagnosis" of such a psych must be based on partnership experience. Since I would expect a competent player in a pick-up partnership to diagnose the likely psych this one is a matter of knowing how to play bridge rather than knowing partner. Tim From blml@blakjak.com Wed Dec 17 14:52:14 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:52:14 +0000 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <002301c3c458$36c2ad40$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <002301c3c458$36c2ad40$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marvin French wrote >I want to add something. I play often with an inexperienced player whose main >interest is not the game of bridge and so will never be "experienced." When >an opponent asks an unnecessary question of this partner, say a question that >is plainly answered on the CC or a call has the plain default meaning, the >reply may come out a bit garbled, which is UI to me. When an opponent asks me >such a question, if I were to answer it my partner could quite possibly learn >something from the answer. I do not like that opponents can create UI for our >side unnecesarily, and I refuse to do it if I am within the Laws. > >For instance. I open the bidding with 1C-1H by a Life Master-3S by partner, >unAlerted. The default meaning is a preemptive type hand with a bunch of >spades and not much else. Questioned about 3S by the overcaller when 3S comes >around, I say it is not the subject of a special partnership agreement, all I >know about the bid comes from general knowledge and experience. Big brouhaha, >I must explain and so forth. But if I were to give that unnecessary >explanation my partner may realize that her 3S bid was an underbid. Then, when >her RHO bids 4H, she cannot bid 4S because of the UI. Without the UI, she >could of course bid 4S. There are two problems with this. First, you ascribe bad motives to opponents unnecessarily. While some of them may have the motives you describe, some of them may merely want to know the detail that you know from your partnership experience, that they have a right to know under Law 75A. Second, you do not allow as 'special' some experience which surely is. If the bidding goes 1C 1H 3S do you play the same minimum number of spades as I do? There is every chance that you do not: you know how many spades partner is likely to have, I do not, and I bet it is not on your CC. The minimum number of spades is a 'special' agreement between you and your partner and needs to be disclosed. When I play I ask a lot of questions. This is because it affects my game not to know. In the example case I doubt that I would ask before the end of the auction, but I would surely ask then because I am going to try to count the hand. I dislike the fact that [a] you ascribe bad motives to my asking and [b] that you intend to hide the answer from me. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Dec 17 17:13:47 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:13:47 -0800 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) References: <002301c3c458$36c2ad40$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000401c3c4c1$23872ee0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "David Stevenson" > Marvin French wrote > > >I want to add something. I play often with an inexperienced player whose main > >interest is not the game of bridge and so will never be "experienced." When > >an opponent asks an unnecessary question of this partner, say a question that > >is plainly answered on the CC or a call has the plain default meaning, the > >reply may come out a bit garbled, which is UI to me. When an opponent asks me > >such a question, if I were to answer it my partner could quite possibly learn > >something from the answer. I do not like that opponents can create UI for our > >side unnecesarily, and I refuse to do it if I am within the Laws. > > > >For instance. I open the bidding with 1C-1H by a Life Master-3S by partner, > >unAlerted. The default meaning is a preemptive type hand with a bunch of > >spades and not much else. Questioned about 3S by the overcaller when 3S comes > >around, I say it is not the subject of a special partnership agreement, all I > >know about the bid comes from general knowledge and experience. Big brouhaha, > >I must explain and so forth. But if I were to give that unnecessary > >explanation my partner may realize that her 3S bid was an underbid. Then, when > >her RHO bids 4H, she cannot bid 4S because of the UI. Without the UI, she > >could of course bid 4S. > > There are two problems with this. First, you ascribe bad motives to > opponents unnecessarily. I don't see that inference. I ascribe ignorance to the opponents, not bad motives. > While some of them may have the motives you > describe, some of them may merely want to know the detail that you know > from your partnership experience, that they have a right to know under > Law 75A. Why does everyone ignore L75C? L75A refers to SPECIAL partnership agreements and SPECIAL information. That such things as an opening bid of 3x, or a double jump response in a new suit, are preemptive, weak, nothing special, known by general knowledge and experience, and therefore the meanings need not be disclosed, per L75C. > > Second, you do not allow as 'special' some experience which surely is. > If the bidding goes 1C 1H 3S do you play the same minimum number of > spades as I do? There is every chance that you do not: you know how > many spades partner is likely to have, I do not, and I bet it is not on > your CC. The minimum number of spades is a 'special' agreement between > you and your partner and needs to be disclosed. > > When I play I ask a lot of questions. This is because it affects my > game not to know. In the example case I doubt that I would ask before > the end of the auction, but I would surely ask then because I am going > to try to count the hand. I dislike the fact that [a] you ascribe bad > motives to my asking and [b] that you intend to hide the answer from me. Not bad motives at all. You have every right to ask if there is any partnership experience that would result in my knowing more about the bid than you do. My reply in this case would be no, because it was the first time this partner ever made this bid with me. That was 8 years ago and it hasn't happened since. If it happens again, I would explain to you that, as I remember, the 3S bid accords with elementary textbook instruction, nothing special. That is, there is not enough partnership experience to tell whether there is a pattern of deviation from what should be expected. I will not tell you that the bid shows a very weak hand with a good long suit of 7 or more cards, no defense, and is likely to vary a bit with vulnerability. That would be teaching bridge, which I am not obligated to do. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Dec 17 17:41:53 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:41:53 -0000 Subject: Fw: [blml] Field of Dreams References: Message-ID: <003201c3c4c5$0fb7a1c0$d99468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Tim West-Meads] A player's frequency of psyching is a function of what variety of hands/positions he considers suitable. 3rd in non-vul and 50 down starts the index at about 0.8 before one even looks at the hand! While players may not think in exactly these terms experienced ones should be expected to recognise the situations. [Nigel] I concede a good point, well argued. [Tim] In order to adjust the "diagnosis" of such a psych must be based on partnership experience. Since I would expect a competent player in a pick-up partnership to diagnose the likely psych this one is a matter of knowing how to play bridge rather than knowing partner. [Nigel] Thanks to such kind instruction and by dint of painful experience I flatter myself that I'm gradually learning how to play bridge. Eventually, I hope to harvest the fruits of my labours when, like Tim, I become competent enough to judge that partner has psyched rather than an opponent misjudged -- however rare the former and frequent the latter. BTW, IMO, anyone who can reduce their error-rate to less than two per board is world-champion material. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 15/12/2003 From blml@blakjak.com Wed Dec 17 18:12:52 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 18:12:52 +0000 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <000401c3c4c1$23872ee0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <002301c3c458$36c2ad40$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <000401c3c4c1$23872ee0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marvin French wrote >From: "David Stevenson" >> While some of them may have the motives you >> describe, some of them may merely want to know the detail that you know >> from your partnership experience, that they have a right to know under >> Law 75A. >Why does everyone ignore L75C? L75A refers to SPECIAL partnership agreements >and SPECIAL information. That such things as an opening bid of 3x, or a double >jump response in a new suit, are preemptive, weak, nothing special, known by >general knowledge and experience, and therefore the meanings need not be >disclosed, per L75C. The trouble with this argument that you have given over the years is that it is usually not true. You have special agreements as to detail and you do not have protection against telling opponents that detail. When you say something is nothing special what do you mean? For example: KQxxxx xxx xx xx K9xxxx xxx xx xx A9xxxx Axx xx xx KQxxx xxx xxx xx J8xxxx xxx KQ Kx How many of those are weak 2S openings at white [nv v nv]? You know how many are in *your* partnership: I know how many are in my partnership [two]: several people I know would say four. Your agreement as to what constitutes a weak two opening is a 'special' agreement, and it will not be on the card. >> Second, you do not allow as 'special' some experience which surely is. >> If the bidding goes 1C 1H 3S do you play the same minimum number of >> spades as I do? There is every chance that you do not: you know how >> many spades partner is likely to have, I do not, and I bet it is not on >> your CC. The minimum number of spades is a 'special' agreement between >> you and your partner and needs to be disclosed. >> >> When I play I ask a lot of questions. This is because it affects my >> game not to know. In the example case I doubt that I would ask before >> the end of the auction, but I would surely ask then because I am going >> to try to count the hand. I dislike the fact that [a] you ascribe bad >> motives to my asking and [b] that you intend to hide the answer from me. > >Not bad motives at all. You have every right to ask if there is any >partnership experience that would result in my knowing more about the bid than >you do. My reply in this case would be no, because it was the first time this >partner ever made this bid with me. That was 8 years ago and it hasn't >happened since. If it happens again, I would explain to you that, as I >remember, the 3S bid accords with elementary textbook instruction, nothing >special. That is, there is not enough partnership experience to tell whether >there is a pattern of deviation from what should be expected. I will not tell >you that the bid shows a very weak hand with a good long suit of 7 or more >cards, no defense, and is likely to vary a bit with vulnerability. That would >be teaching bridge, which I am not obligated to do. If this is the first time you have had this bid with this partner then you say so, and any further questions by me would be harassment - and anyway I would not ask any. But you have given the impression over the years, Marv, that you would not answer this question anyway, even if you had played with this partner a lot, and knew that with this partner it will always be a seven card suit to two honours, and will never have a void. But your opponents have a right to the 'special' understanding that he will always have two honours, and will never have a void. -- 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 gesta@tiscali.co.uk Wed Dec 17 09:05:26 2003 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:05:26 -0000 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) References: Message-ID: <001501c3c4e6$b2ddac20$251e2850@multivisionoem> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 6:50 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) ------------- \x/ ------------------------ Richard James Hills: But these are not merely the complaints of an uppity descendent of convicts. Bound for Botany Bay, < +=+ It was a serious mistake. We lost a lot of people with initiative that way; they took their genes with them. ~ G ~ +=+ From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Dec 17 22:05:27 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:05:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <000401c3c4c1$23872ee0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <002301c3c458$36c2ad40$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031217165003.00a827b0@pop.starpower.net> At 12:13 PM 12/17/03, Marvin wrote: >Not bad motives at all. You have every right to ask if there is any >partnership experience that would result in my knowing more about the >bid than >you do. My reply in this case would be no, because it was the first >time this >partner ever made this bid with me. That was 8 years ago and it hasn't >happened since. If it happens again, I would explain to you that, as I >remember, the 3S bid accords with elementary textbook instruction, nothing >special. That is, there is not enough partnership experience to tell >whether >there is a pattern of deviation from what should be expected. I will >not tell >you that the bid shows a very weak hand with a good long suit of 7 or more >cards, no defense, and is likely to vary a bit with vulnerability. >That would >be teaching bridge, which I am not obligated to do. But if Marv need not tell his opponents that the bid shows a very weak hand with a good long suit of 7 or more cards, no defense, and is likely to vary a bit with vulnerability, then I need not tell my opponents that the bid shows a weak hand with a very good 6-card suit or any 7- card suit or longer, little or no defense, and is likely to vary a lot with vulnerability. Apparently our individual versions of what is "just bridge" differ somewhat, albeit not very much. But it is enough that the opponents should be entitled to the details. The point, of course, is that "general knowledge and experience" is *not* the same thing as the way Marv, or I, or anyone else, was taught as, or would now teach, a novice to play the game. I think the intent and effect of the "general knowledge and experience" clause is that, for example, when partner bids 4S, an opponent inquires as to the meaning, and I reply that it shows "any hand with which she wants to play 4S but has no interest in slam", the opponent is not entitled, absent some partnership agreement, to be told what those hands are. But that's about as far as it goes -- or should. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Dec 17 22:13:11 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:13:11 -0800 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box Message-ID: <002801c3c4ea$f91685a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> The ACBL Board passed a new bidding box regulation effective 1 January 2001, which I missed completely. It was not well-publicized, and still does not appear on the ACBL website (but will soon, the webmaster tells me). All ACBL TDs were notified about it in their (very private) monthly newsletter, but club TDs of my acquaintance are unaware of it. The regulation changed the description of when a call is made from "removed from the bidding box with intent" to the following: "Players must choose a call before touching any card in the box. A call is considered made when a bidding card is removed from the bidding box and held touching or nearly touching the table or maintained in such a position to indicate that the call has been made. " It seems to me that the second sentence contradicts the first. If I can remove a bid card from the box, move it halfway toward me, and put it back with no repercussion other than the UI, then I have not been compelled to "choose a call before touching any card in the box." Just imagine the cheating one could get away with. I would like to know the opinion of others about this regulation, and please compare it with whatever regulation governs in your area. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From HarrisR@missouri.edu Wed Dec 17 22:17:08 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:17:08 -0600 Subject: [blml] Know bid In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Richard Hills asks: >Imps; Dlr: West; Vul: NS > >NS system: Acol >EW system: Precision > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >Pass Pass Pass ? > >You, North, hold: > >Q96 >QT7 >JT8 >AKQJ > >What call do you make? > 1NT, whether playing 11-14 with H. Polowy or 15-17 with all my other partners. REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From ray2nan@earthlink.net Wed Dec 17 22:22:34 2003 From: ray2nan@earthlink.net (Ray Fiorillo) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:22:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) Message-ID: <410-2200312317222234718@earthlink.net> I agree. We should really be stressing that you must do all of your thinking and make your decision before touching the box. Too much fiddling with the box does in itself give UI. Ray Fiorillo > [Original Message] > From: > To: > Date: 12/17/2003 10:49:14 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) > > > > > > Richard James Hills: > > >>Quibble. Not everyone on this list is from ACBL-land. Not everyone > >>on this list has SOs with alert regs inscribed with arcane and > >>gnomic glyptography. > > Marv: > > >Many on the list from other zones play in ACBL events. I think they > >are interested in ACBL regulations. I have to endure the endless > >discussions about the junk you guys play over there and down there, > >but I would never think of complaining. Over here and up here we > >have a Delete key on our keyboards. > > Richard James Hills: > > I am indeed interested in ACBL alert regs, as a horrible example of > what *not* to do. In a nutshell, the ACBL alert regs concentrate > too much on the individual "trees", and lose sight of the overall > "wood" of full disclosure. > > But these are not merely the complaints of an uppity descendent of > convicts. The red-white-and-blue American Splendor of Jeff Rubens > devoted his Bridge World November 2003 editorial to a detailed > critique of the fundamental flaws in the ACBL alert regs. > > Bound for Botany Bay, > > RJH > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- > Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please > advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.  This > email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged > and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. > Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, > except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be > the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous > Affairs (DIMIA).  DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the > Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From HarrisR@missouri.edu Wed Dec 17 22:40:22 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:40:22 -0600 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia Casebook #28 In-Reply-To: <000401c3c2d2$95d08fa0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <200312120012.QAA20985@mailhub.irvine.com> <000401c3c2d2$95d08fa0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marv writes >From: "Robert E. Harris" > >> >Marvin wrote: >> > >> >> Disclosure methods are a matter of SO regulation according to >L40B. No >> >> need to modify the laws. Just tell players that information >plainly >> >> disclosed in accordance with disclosure regulations should not >be made >> >> the subject of unnecessary questioning. I repeat, unnecessary >(i.e., >> >> details not requested). >> >> >> >> I think it is in the power of SOs to then say that the answers >to such >> >> unnecessary questions are AI. If not, the Laws should say that >forcing >> >> opponents to create UI unnecessarily results in AI, not UI. >> >> >> >> Of course default meanings of common calls should be defined. >Then, >> >> the absence of an Alert discloses the meaning. >> >> >> >> Meanwhile, we all know the default meaning of such doubles as >> >> 1NT-P-2C-X (suit-showing), 1NT-2D-X (penalty). No Alert means >the >> >> double has the default meaning, so the meaning has been >disclosed "in >> >> accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization." >> >> >> Adam writes: >> >> >> >I don't think I agree: (1) I don't agree with the phrase "we all". >> >Maybe 99% of us know; but I'm sure there are plenty of >> >less-experienced players who *don't* know the default meaning of >> >1NT-P-2C-X, and who think it sounds like takeout. Heck, I've run >into >> >players who think 1NT-X is takeout. > >My "we" does not include that 1% who know hardly anything. >> >> >> Actually, I play 1NT-X as take-out with one partner. Whenever I >have >> a penalty double of 1NT, she never thinks she has enough to leave it >> in. (The notion that I should have it beat in my hand? I've not >yet >> convinced her.) Actually, our card is so marked and alerted when it comes up. (It almost never does, as I always have a set in hand when I double 1NT with her, and she always takes it out. > > >> I also play 1NT-X as take-out (two or three suits, but not clubs) >and >> 1NT-2C as take-out (two or three suits, clubs is one of the suits.) >> This works pretty well, so far. > >If you do not play a double of 1NT as penalty, then it must be >Alerted. If it is not Alerted, it has to be penalty. If someone asks >me what my partner's unAlerted double means, I reply that my knowledge >of the meaning comes not from a special partnership agreement, but >from my general knowledge and experience, and therefore it is not >disclosable (L75C). And no, partnership experience does not make such >an agreement "special." I play this with a second partner. Of course we alert. So does every one else in our local clubs. They all play DONT or Cap. or some similar scheme. We just simplified things so we can bid suits other than clubs at the 2 level. > >We have to disclose special partnership agreements, but we don't have >to teach bridge. >> >> >(2) There are an even greater >> >number of players who are confused about what's supposed to be >alerted >> >in the ACBL, since the rules are not straightforward and are far >from >> >clear at times. Based on that, I don't think a question about the >> >meaning of the double is "unnecessary"---opener may well take a >look >> >at whom he's playing against and decide that he shouldn't assume it >> >means what he thinks it should mean, or what the regulations say >it's >> >supposed to mean in the absence of an Alert. > >Double of Stayman 2C (and artificial bid) shows clubs unless the >double is Alerted. If it is takeout and not Alerted, that is >misinformation and any damage resulting can be redressed. There is no >need to inquire, it is unnecessary. If asked, I would give the same >reply as above, citing L75C. > >If we should inquire about all doubles, then there would be no need to >mention doubles in the Alert Procedure. > Well, there may be others who don't have the same sort of general bridge knowledge and experience that you do. When you are pretty darn sure what your partners calls mean and you are asked, you must answer with a description, at least that seems to be the clear meaning of the laws. Many on this list would require a lot less than "pretty darn sure" level of certainty. If I were playing with a stranger from within the nearest 400 miles of here with only a good notion of partners level of experience, I'd certainly feel obliged to come up with an answer even if the whole discussion we'd had was, "Let's play Standard American." I'd be pretty sure to guess correctly the meaning of 95% of my partner's calls. And I'd explain the lack of discussion and point out the possibilities in terms of common midwestern practice. Of course, by the end of the first few rounds, we'd have more agreements. Unless all we did was pass. 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 Wed Dec 17 22:46:29 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 23:46:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: <002801c3c4ea$f91685a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c3c4ef$9c82ee00$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Marvin French > The ACBL Board passed a new bidding box regulation effective=20 > 1 January 2001, which I missed completely. It was not well- > publicized, and still does not appear on the ACBL website=20 > (but will soon, the webmaster tells me). All ACBL TDs were=20 > notified about it in their (very private) monthly newsletter, > but club TDs of my acquaintance are unaware of it. >=20 > The regulation changed the description of when a call is made=20 > from "removed from the bidding box with intent" to the following: >=20 > "Players must choose a call before touching any card in the box.=20 > A call is considered made when a bidding card is removed from=20 > the bidding box and held touching or nearly touching the table > or maintained in such a position to indicate that the call has > been made. " >=20 > It seems to me that the second sentence contradicts the first. > If I can remove a bid card from the box, move it halfway toward > me, and put it back with no repercussion other than the UI, then > I have not been compelled to "choose a call before touching any > card in the box." >=20 > Just imagine the cheating one could get away with. >=20 > I would like to know the opinion of others about this regulation, > and please compare it with whatever regulation governs in your area. Without bothering to look up the exact words in our regulation this = seems identical to the regulation we have had in force here in Norway for = years. I cannot say that we have much difficulties with that. The effect of this regulation is that we (normally) rule UI whenever a player starts fumbling in the bid box selecting one call, then another = and so on but not to the extent that anybody can tell what call(s) he is contemplating. (We do of course not penalize "fumbling" which obviously = is caused by searching the desired bid cards in a possibly scrambled bid = box). Correspondingly we rule call made when we (the opponents) can tell the = exact call he is about to make.=20 One point is worth mentioning here: If a player apparently (suddenly) discovers that he has made a call different from the one he intended to = make we allow the use of Law25A during the full period until his partner has = made a call (as is the text in Law 25A)! The condition "without pause for thought" is ruled to depend upon the time elapsed from the moment he discovered his failure (not when he actually made his call!) until he announced that he intended to call differently.=20 However, (and that is why I used the word "normally" above) the use of = bid boxes is one case where we are very lenient with inexperienced players. Those are generally just informed in a very "polite" manner how they are supposed to use the bid box. Regards Sven From adam@irvine.com Wed Dec 17 22:48:14 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:48:14 -0800 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:13:11 PST." <002801c3c4ea$f91685a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <200312172248.OAA14017@mailhub.irvine.com> Marv wrote: > The ACBL Board passed a new bidding box regulation effective 1 January 2001, > which I missed completely. It was not well-publicized, and still does not > appear on the ACBL website (but will soon, the webmaster tells me). All ACBL > TDs were notified about it in their (very private) monthly newsletter, but > club TDs of my acquaintance are unaware of it. > > The regulation changed the description of when a call is made from "removed > from the bidding box with intent" to the following: > > "Players must choose a call before touching any card in the box. A call is > considered made when a bidding card is removed from the bidding box and held > touching or nearly touching the table or maintained in such a position to > indicate that the call has been made. " > > It seems to me that the second sentence contradicts the first. If I > can remove a bid card from the box, move it halfway toward me, and > put it back with no repercussion other than the UI, then I have not > been compelled to "choose a call before touching any card in the > box." > > Just imagine the cheating one could get away with. If by "compelled" you are referring to the possibility of enforcement, in that one is not really compelled to choose a call because there's no penalty if one doesn't---I don't see how this makes anything worse. OK, maybe a little. I'm not able to find the bidding box regulations on the ACBL website (I think they just switched ISP's last weekend and are still having problems). But if the previous regulation said "a call is considered made when a bidding card is removed from the box with intent", it couldn't be enforced either because there's no way to tell for sure what a player's intent is. Under the old regulation, someone could decide to bid 2C, pull the 2C out of the box, then change his/her mind and bid 3C, then put the 2C back and pull the 3C out, and if challenged claim that the 2C was a mispull. (And the regulations have to be written to allow for the possibility of mispulls, especially given how the bid box cards I'm used to have a tendency to stick together.) That kind of cheating was, it seems to me, just as possible under the older regulation as under the newer one. The newer one might make it easier to cheat by pulling a card from one section of the box and putting it back and pulling a card from the other section. The advantage of the newer regulation should be clear, though---it sets an objective standard for when a call has been made, rather than requiring directors to try to read minds. -- Adam From HarrisR@missouri.edu Wed Dec 17 22:48:25 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:48:25 -0600 Subject: [blml] Know bid In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I wrote: >Richard Hills asks: > >>Imps; Dlr: West; Vul: NS >> >>NS system: Acol >>EW system: Precision >> >>The bidding has gone: >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>Pass Pass Pass ? >> >>You, North, hold: >> >>Q96 >>QT7 >>JT8 >>AKQJ >> >>What call do you make? >> > >1NT, whether playing 11-14 with H. Polowy or 15-17 with all my other partners. Suckered again. I'm so used to seeing "East" when "West" is meant, and north and south similarly confused, that I guess I don't read the directions anymore. Anyway, when this happened to me at the Albuquerque Nationals (in a side game) I kept a straight face and said nothing. My partner soon figured out what had happened and got pretty cross, as we'd missed a nice 3NT contract. Fortunately, it was going down against routine defense. 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 Wed Dec 17 22:51:54 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:51:54 -0600 Subject: [blml] Re: Season's Greetings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As we say nowadays, Happy Holidays. I'm off to see my relatives (and my wife's relatives, too!) Xmas in Tucson. New Years in LA. Two doses of grandchildren (and daughter and son-in-law) in Albuquerque. No bridge? Bah, humbug! REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From richard_willey@symantec.com Wed Dec 17 23:04:04 2003 From: richard_willey@symantec.com (Richard Willey) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:04:04 -0800 Subject: [blml] Once more into the breach In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031217165003.00a827b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: SXQgc2hvdWxkIGNvbWUgYXMgbm8gZ3JlYXQgc3VycHJpc2UgdG8gYW55b25lIG9uIHRoaXMgbWFp bGluZyB0aGF0IEkgaGF2ZSANCmEgc3Ryb25nIGludGVyZXN0IHJlZ2FyZGluZyBob3cgY29tcHV0 ZXJpemVkIHBsYXlpbmcgZW52aXJvbm1lbnRzIGltcGFjdCANCnRoZSBMYXdzIG9yIEJyaWRnZSBh bmQgdmljZSB2ZXJzYS4gIE92ZXIgdGhlIGxhc3QgbW9udGggb3Igc28sIEkgaGF2ZSANCm5vdGlj ZWQgYSBudW1iZXIgb2YgdGhyZWFkcyBvbiB0aGlzIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdCBpbiB3aGljaCB0aGUg Y29tcHV0ZXJpemVkIA0KcGxheWluZyBlbnZpcm9ubWVudCBtaWdodCBkcmFzdGljYWxseSBpbXBh Y3QgdGhlIHJlZ3VsYXRvcnkgc3RydWN0dXJlLCBhbmQgDQp2aWNlIHZlcnNhLiAgQ2FzZSBpbiBw b2ludDogUmlnaHQgbm93IHRoZXJlIGlzIGFuIG9uLWdvaW5nIGRpc2N1c3Npb24gDQpyZWdhcmQg 4oCcZ2VuZXJhbCBicmlkZ2Uga25vd2xlZGdl4oCdIGFuZCB0aGUgZXh0ZW50IHRvIHdoaWNoIHBh cnRuZXJzaGlwIA0KdW5kZXJzdGFuZGluZ3MgY2FuIGFuZCBzaG91bGQgYmUgZGlzY2xvc2VkLiAg SSB3b3VsZCBsaWtlIHRvIHBvc2UgdGhlIA0KZm9sbG93aW5nIGh5cG90aGV0aWNhbDoNCg0KSXQg aXMgMjAgeWVhcnMgZnJvbSBub3cgYW5kIHRoZSB2YXN0IG1ham9yaXR5IG9mIG1ham9yIGJyaWRn ZSB0b3VybmFtZW50cyANCmFyZSBoZWxkIHVzaW5nIGEgY29tcHV0ZXJpemVkIHBsYXlpbmcgZW52 aXJvbm1lbnQuDQoNCkkgYW0gcGxheWluZyBhIDEwIGJvYXJkIFN3aXNzIHRlYW1zIG1hdGNoIGFn YWluc3QgVGVhbSBYWVouDQoNCldlIGFyZSBSZWQsIFRoZXkgYXJlIFdoaXRlDQoNClRoZSBhdWN0 aW9uIGhhcyBzdGFydGVkDQoNCihQKSDigJMgMUgg4oCTICgxTikgLSA/Pz8NCg0KVGhlIOKAnEdy ZWF0IEJyaWRnZSBTZXJ2ZXIgaW4gdGhlIFNreeKAnSBoYXMgYSByZWNvcmQgb2YgZXZlciBoYW5k IHdoZXJlIFJITyANCm92ZXJjYWxsIDFOVCwgd2hpdGUgdmVyc3VzIHJlZCBvcHBvc2l0ZSBhIHBh c3NlZCBoYW5kIHBhcnRuZXIuICBHaXZlbiB0aGlzIA0KaW5mb3JtYXRpb24sIEkgY291bGQgZ2Vu ZXJhdGUgYSBzdW1tYXJ5IGRlc2NyaXB0aW9uIG9mIFJIT+KAmXMgYmlkZGluZyANCmhpc3Rvcnku ICBGb3IgZXhhbXBsZSwgSSBjb3VsZCBwbG90IGEgZnJlcXVlbmN5IGRpc3RyaWJ1dGlvbiBvZiBS SE/igJlzIEhpZ2ggDQpDYXJkIFBvaW50cy4gIElmIHRoZSBkaXN0cmlidXRpb24gd2VyZSBiaW1v ZGFsLCB0aGlzIHdvdWxkIGluZGljYXRlIGEgDQpjZXJ0YWluIHByb2NsaXZpdHkgdG8gcHN5Y2hl Lg0KDQpJIGFyZ3VlIHRoYXQgdGhpcyB0eXBlIG9mIGFuYWx5c2lzIGNhbiBwcm92aWRlIG11Y2gg bW9yZSBleHBsaWNpdCANCmluZm9ybWF0aW9uIHJlZ2FyZGluZyBwYXJ0bmVyc2hpcCB1bmRlcnN0 YW5kaW5ncyB0aGFuIGlzIGN1cnJlbnRseSANCmF2YWlsYWJsZSB0byBtb3N0IHBhcnRuZXJzaGlw cy4gIE15IHF1ZXN0aW9uIHRoZW4gYmVjb21lczoNCg0KU2hvdWxkIHRoaXMgdHlwZSBvZiBhbmFs eXNpcyBvZiBiaWRkaW5nIGhpc3RvcnkgYmVjb21lIGF1dGhvcml6ZWQgDQppbmZvcm1hdGlvbj8g DQoNCk9uIHRoZSBvbmUgaGFuZCwgd2Ugd2FudCB0byBwcm92aWRlIHRoZSBvcHBvbmVudHMgd2l0 aCBmdWxsIGRpc2Nsb3N1cmUgb2YgDQptZXRob2RzLiANCg0KT24gdGhlIG90aGVyIHdlIGhhdmUg YmFucyBhZ2FpbnN0IGV4dGVybmFsIGFpZHMgdG8gY29tcHV0YXRpb24uICBbSXQgc2VlbXMgDQpj bGVhciB0aGF0IHN1bW1hcnkgc3RhdGlzdGljcyBoYXZlIHZhbHVlIGhvd2V2ZXIsIG5vLW9uZSBj YW4gZXhwZWN0IHRvIA0KcHJvY2VzcyBhIGxpc3Qgb2YgMjAwIGhhbmRzXQ0KDQoNCiANClJpY2hh cmQgV2lsbGV5DQoNClN0cmF0ZWdpYyBNYXJrZXRpbmcNClN5bWFudGVjIENvcnBvcmF0aW9uDQpP ZmZpY2U6DQooNDA4KSA1MTctNzc0MA0KSW50ZXJvZmZpY2U6IA0KNiBbNDA4XSA3NzQwDQpNb2Jp bGU6DQooNDA4KSA0MTAtNzExMg0KOiANCkhhaWwgQW50cw0KDQoNCg0K From nancy@dressing.org Wed Dec 17 23:10:32 2003 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 18:10:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box References: <002801c3c4ea$f91685a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <005801c3c4f2$f924e3e0$6401a8c0@hare> In my clubs, the bid is considered made if the card is lifted from the box. The only change allowed is if the bidder notices that he has pulled the wrong card. All players are cautioned not to touch a bid card unless they have decided that this would be their bid. Beginners have problems with this but they learn quickly when they are warned about it by either the director or other players at the table. I am surprised that club directors in your area are not aware of this regulation. I am not on the directors' mailing list but I do believe that it was written about in the bulletin. Could be wrong, but I don't know where else I would have learned about it. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 5:13 PM Subject: [blml] Bidding Box > The ACBL Board passed a new bidding box regulation effective 1 January 2001, > which I missed completely. It was not well-publicized, and still does not > appear on the ACBL website (but will soon, the webmaster tells me). All ACBL > TDs were notified about it in their (very private) monthly newsletter, but > club TDs of my acquaintance are unaware of it. > > The regulation changed the description of when a call is made from "removed > from the bidding box with intent" to the following: > > "Players must choose a call before touching any card in the box. A call is > considered made when a bidding card is removed from the bidding box and held > touching or nearly touching the table or maintained in such a position to > indicate that the call has been made. " > > It seems to me that the second sentence contradicts the first. If I can remove > a bid card from the box, move it halfway toward me, and put it back with no > repercussion other than the UI, then I have not been compelled to "choose a > call before touching any card in the box." > > Just imagine the cheating one could get away with. > > I would like to know the opinion of others about this regulation, and please > compare it with whatever regulation governs in your area. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From adam@irvine.com Wed Dec 17 23:13:45 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:13:45 -0800 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia Casebook #28 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:40:22 CST." Message-ID: <200312172313.PAA14952@mailhub.irvine.com> Robert Harris wrote: > Actually, our card is so marked and alerted when it comes up. (It > almost never does, as I always have a set in hand when I double 1NT > with her, and she always takes it out. Just out of curiosity, are you married to this partner? :) :) :) -- Adam From HarrisR@missouri.edu Wed Dec 17 23:30:51 2003 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:30:51 -0600 Subject: [blml] Philadelphia Casebook #28 In-Reply-To: <200312172313.PAA14952@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200312172313.PAA14952@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Adam B. wrote: >Robert Harris wrote: > >> Actually, our card is so marked and alerted when it comes up. (It >> almost never does, as I always have a set in hand when I double 1NT >> with her, and she always takes it out. > >Just out of curiosity, are you married to this partner? > >:) :) :) No, but if I were single (through some bad turn of events) and ten years younger and she were available, I'd work on it. She's a really nice woman. And a good bridge player, too. (Just some persistent wrong notions, like most people. I of course never have any.) I'm married to the same non-bridge player I've been hooked up with for 48.5 years, and she's the best one in the whole world! (And, no she does not read my email, either.) REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Dec 18 00:23:01 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:23:01 +1000 Subject: [blml] Re: Season's Greetings Message-ID: Robert E. Harris wrote: >As we say nowadays, > >Happy Holidays. The late Isaac Asimov's seasonal greeting to the Pope: >>Happy Holidays, your Holiness. >>Gut Yontiff, Pontiff. The Aussie Christmas carol: Out on the plains the brolgas are dancing Lifting their feet like warhorses prancing Up to the sun the woodlarks go winging Faint in the dawn light echoes their singing Orana! Orana! Orana to Christmas Day. Down where the tree ferns grow by the river There where the waters sparkle and quiver Deep in the gullies bell-birds are chiming Softly and sweetly their lyric notes rhyming Orana! Orana! Orana to Christmas Day. Friar birds sip the nectar of flowers Currawongs chant in wattle tree bowers In the blue ranges lorikeets calling Carols of bush birds rising and falling Orana! Orana! Orana to Christmas Day. * * * I wish you a precious Christmas, Richard James Hills -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From blml@blakjak.com Thu Dec 18 00:46:54 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 00:46:54 +0000 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: <000001c3c4ef$9c82ee00$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <002801c3c4ea$f91685a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <000001c3c4ef$9c82ee00$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> Marvin French >> The ACBL Board passed a new bidding box regulation effective >> 1 January 2001, which I missed completely. It was not well- >> publicized, and still does not appear on the ACBL website >> (but will soon, the webmaster tells me). All ACBL TDs were >> notified about it in their (very private) monthly newsletter, >> but club TDs of my acquaintance are unaware of it. >> >> The regulation changed the description of when a call is made >> from "removed from the bidding box with intent" to the following: >> >> "Players must choose a call before touching any card in the box. >> A call is considered made when a bidding card is removed from >> the bidding box and held touching or nearly touching the table >> or maintained in such a position to indicate that the call has >> been made. " >> >> It seems to me that the second sentence contradicts the first. >> If I can remove a bid card from the box, move it halfway toward >> me, and put it back with no repercussion other than the UI, then >> I have not been compelled to "choose a call before touching any >> card in the box." Maybe so, but it does not matter. The important thing is that it is clear. >> Just imagine the cheating one could get away with. No, I can't. >> I would like to know the opinion of others about this regulation, >> and please compare it with whatever regulation governs in your area. The meaning seems clear enough. I am surprised you have not noticed it since I have quoted it several times over the last eighteen months. As I have said before, I prefer the ACBL reg to the RoW reg [but see below!] but I do not think it matters very much. The only effective difference is in calls out of turn, insufficient bids and suchlike: Law 25A cases are not affected. >Without bothering to look up the exact words in our regulation this seems >identical to the regulation we have had in force here in Norway for years. I *am* surprised!!! I thought all European BB regs followed the normal international style, whereby a call is made once it is taken out of the box. You mean that in Norway a call taken from the box may be replaced if it is out of turn? It cannot be in most of Europe. -- 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 Dec 18 00:50:34 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 00:50:34 +0000 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: <200312172248.OAA14017@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <002801c3c4ea$f91685a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <200312172248.OAA14017@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Adam Beneschan wrote >I'm not able to find the bidding box regulations on the ACBL website >(I think they just switched ISP's last weekend and are still having >problems). But if the previous regulation said "a call is considered >made when a bidding card is removed from the box with intent", it >couldn't be enforced either because there's no way to tell for sure >what a player's intent is. Under the old regulation, someone could >decide to bid 2C, pull the 2C out of the box, then change his/her mind >and bid 3C, then put the 2C back and pull the 3C out, and if >challenged claim that the 2C was a mispull. (And the regulations have >to be written to allow for the possibility of mispulls, especially >given how the bid box cards I'm used to have a tendency to stick >together.) That kind of cheating was, it seems to me, just as >possible under the older regulation as under the newer one. The newer >one might make it easier to cheat by pulling a card from one section >of the box and putting it back and pulling a card from the other >section. That is not how we understand the reg generally. 'With intent' is merely to stop BLs from claiming that a call is made when a box is knocked over. >The advantage of the newer regulation should be clear, though---it >sets an objective standard for when a call has been made, rather than >requiring directors to try to read minds. Both standards set objective standards in effect. Changing calls is usually a matter for L25A anyway, which has subjective standards. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Thu Dec 18 00:51:46 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 00:51:46 +0000 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: <005801c3c4f2$f924e3e0$6401a8c0@hare> References: <002801c3c4ea$f91685a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <005801c3c4f2$f924e3e0$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: Nancy T Dressing wrote >In my clubs, the bid is considered made if the card is lifted from the box. >The only change allowed is if the bidder notices that he has pulled the >wrong card. All players are cautioned not to touch a bid card unless they >have decided that this would be their bid. Beginners have problems with >this but they learn quickly when they are warned about it by either the >director or other players at the table. I am surprised that club directors >in your area are not aware of this regulation. I am not on the directors' >mailing list but I do believe that it was written about in the bulletin. >Could be wrong, but I don't know where else I would have learned about it. Clubs may make their own regs if they wish. But the point is that you are merely adopting the older ACBL reg rather than the newer one. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Dec 18 01:12:01 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 01:12:01 -0000 Subject: [blml] Once more into the breach Message-ID: <011301c3c503$f3e12c20$a79868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Richard Willey] 20 years on, at green P 1H (1N) P; ? I could generate a summary description of RHO's bidding history. For example, I could plot a frequency distribution of RHO's High Card Points. If the distribution were bimodal, this would indicate a certain proclivity to psyche [nnip] Should this type of analysis of bidding history become authorized information? On the one hand, we want to provide the opponents with full disclosure of methods. On the other we have bans against external aids to computation. [Nigel] There appeared to some strange characters in Richard's email so I had trouble reading it. I hope i've got the hand and bidding right Anyway I am sure that Richard is correct. Most new players will learn the game on-line and be familiar with the much better and simpler on-line rules. Partnerships will be encouraged to post comprehensive CCs and will be supplied with defaults if they don't. Hence automatic explanations will be the norm. I like Richard's psyche detection idea, although a deliberate cheat can get round it by using a fresh id, so as to "lose" his history. There may also be legal difficulties related to local "Data Protection Acts." BTW, when computers began to have several kilobytes of main memory and many megabytes of ancillary storage, I used to wonder what they could find to do with all the spare capacity. Software bloat was a predictable remedy. [admittedly deplored by assembly language programmers like Richard Pavlicek and those brought up on efficient high-level languages like Mercury Autocode] Richard Willey has earned INTEL's gratitude by proposing another way of eating memory and burning processor power -- but at least it produces useful information! --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 16/12/2003 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Dec 18 01:46:34 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:46:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] Bridge Proprieties Message-ID: http://blakjak.com/lwz_prop.htm The ACBL District 16 page (reproduced on David Stevenson's Lawspage - url above), contains many sound summaries exegising etiquette. However, in its final summary, the District 16 author felt compelled to add the word "But". This word "But" suggested that one etiquette Law had an inconsistent philosophy compared to other etiquette Laws: >But it is not your duty to call attention to >your own breach of law, such as a revoke made >by you or your partner. Yes, the Law in question is my hermeneutical hobby-horse, Law 72B3. Surely I am not the only one who feels guilty about benefiting from an inadvertent revoke, and then having Law 72B3 directing me to avoid informing the opponents about my irregular windfall? :-( Best wishes Richard James Hills -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Dec 18 01:38:11 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 01:38:11 -0000 Subject: [blml] Once more into the breach Message-ID: <018901c3c507$9f6d76e0$a79868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Sorry I think I misread Richard Willeys example Now I think it is... At green (P) 1H (1N) ? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 16/12/2003 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Dec 18 01:54:36 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 01:54:36 -0000 Subject: [blml] Bridge Proprieties References: Message-ID: <019701c3c509$e6b1dee0$a79868d5@tinyhrieuyik> http://blakjak.com/lwz_prop.htm {Ricahrd James Hills] The ACBL District 16 page (reproduced on David Stevenson's Lawspage - url above), contains many sound summaries exegising etiquette. >But it is not your duty to call attention to >your own breach of law, such as a revoke made >by you or your partner. Surely I am not the only one who feels guilty about benefiting from an inadvertent revoke, and then having Law 72B3 directing me to avoid informing the opponents about my irregular windfall? [nigel] Thank you Richard (and David (and ACBL 16))) for the useful info. We don't all adher to Richard's high standard of ethics but IMO the proprieties should encourage such standards, including the voluntary confession of partnership infractions. The problem stems from the ludicrous decision to trasform proprieties into laws (enforcement is clearly a futile effort), rather than keep them as a useful etiquette guide for the ladies and gentlemen who play bridge. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 16/12/2003 From blml@blakjak.com Thu Dec 18 02:24:16 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 02:24:16 +0000 Subject: [blml] Bridge Proprieties In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote >http://blakjak.com/lwz_prop.htm > >The ACBL District 16 page (reproduced on David >Stevenson's Lawspage - url above), contains >many sound summaries exegising etiquette. > >However, in its final summary, the District 16 >author felt compelled to add the word "But". Let us be clear: D16 merely copied it [with permission]: the author is Gil Pelletier from Canada. The D16 webmaster was proud of the fact that he added a single word - and I cannot remember which one it was! >This word "But" suggested that one etiquette >Law had an inconsistent philosophy compared to >other etiquette Laws: >>But it is not your duty to call attention to >>your own breach of law, such as a revoke made >>by you or your partner. >Yes, the Law in question is my hermeneutical >hobby-horse, Law 72B3. > >Surely I am not the only one who feels guilty >about benefiting from an inadvertent revoke, >and then having Law 72B3 directing me to avoid >informing the opponents about my irregular >windfall? A lot of people have personal ethics of various sorts, which are their own views of things to be done, above and beyond what is required by Law and Regulation, and this is a normal example. Many people always point out their own revokes. There is no need to feel guilty. If you do not feel guilty at having followed the Laws, fine: if you do feel guilty then point your revokes out anyway. WTP? The only problem I can see is the age-old one that people expect others to do what they do. That is up to the law-makers: if you think this is something to be changed, tell them, and they either will or will not. But there is no reason to be upset if people do not follow your ideas when the Law does not require it. There are various other items of personal ethics. You are required to be courteous to your opponents, but how much further need you go? For example, if your LHO knocks her bidding box off the table, and the cards are all over the floor, do you say "Don't worry, I'll pick them up for you"? If it was me, I would not point out my revokes - but I do offer to pick the bidding box up. What does this prove? Probably that my personal ethics are different from yours! -- 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 Dec 18 03:02:30 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:02:30 -0500 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <9E8DEFB2-3106-11D8-9ED5-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Dec 17, 2003, at 13:12 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > But your opponents have a right to the 'special' understanding > that he will always have two honours, and will never have a void. I don't entirely agree with Marv, as I have interpreted his statements as David does, that in Marv's the amount of partnership experience with a given call is of little, if any, relevance (forgive me, Marv, if I have misinterpreted you). However, this from David bothers me as well, as it seems to indicate that he and I have different understandings of what "general bridge knowledge" means. If Audrey Grant, whose methods are, I think, the mostly widely taught (to beginners anyway) in North America, teaches that a preempt with always have two honors, and never a void, and my partner and I agree to play it that way, is this "general bridge knowledge" or "special partnership agreement"? If it's the latter, then please give a clear, complete, and preferably concise definition of both terms. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Dec 18 03:03:46 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:03:46 -0500 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031217165003.00a827b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: On Wednesday, Dec 17, 2003, at 17:05 US/Eastern, Eric Landau wrote: > The point, of course, is that "general knowledge and experience" is > *not* the same thing as the way Marv, or I, or anyone else, was taught > as, or would now teach, a novice to play the game. Aha! Well, then, what the bloody blue blazes is it? From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Dec 18 04:09:00 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:09:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] Bridge Proprieties Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >We don't all adhere to Richard's >high standard of ethics but IMO the >proprieties should encourage such >standards, including the voluntary >confession of partnership infractions. > >The problem stems from the ludicrous >decision to transform proprieties into >laws (enforcement is clearly a futile >effort), rather than keep them as a >useful etiquette guide for the ladies >and gentlemen who play bridge. Richard James Hills: The Duke of Wellington is supposed to have said, upon reviewing his troops at the start of the Peninsular War, "I don't know if they frighten the enemy, but by God they frighten me!" Likewise, Nigel's over-enthusiastic support frightens me, since our positions on the Proprieties are not congruent. Distinction # 1 -> I do not "have a high standard of ethics", I merely obey the Laws as written. In my opinion, almost all the time the ethics of bridge are defined by the Laws of bridge. Indeed, the overall nature of bridge must be defined by its Laws, otherwise arbitrary chaos ensues. However, I am in total agreement with Nigel that what bridge ethics *should* be, have to be considered once in every decade, when the Laws themselves are revised/changed. Distinction # 2 -> I believe that reverting to pre-1987, and removing the Proprieties from the status of Laws, would have consequences exactly opposite to encouraging bridge players to be "ladies and gentlemen". What is rewarded is what gets done. If Lawful sanctions against caddish behaviour are removed, rewarding cads, there will be a proliferation of cads acting caddishly at local bridge clubs. Best wishes RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From walt1@verizon.net Thu Dec 18 03:24:56 2003 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:24:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: References: <002301c3c458$36c2ad40$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <000401c3c4c1$23872ee0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.0.20031217221932.050b2e10@incoming.verizon.net> At 01:12 PM 17/12/2003, David Stevenson wrote: > You have special agreements as to detail >and you do not have protection against telling opponents that detail. >When you say something is nothing special what do you mean? For >example: > > KQxxxx > xxx > xx > xx > > K9xxxx > xxx > xx > xx > > A9xxxx > Axx > xx > xx > > KQxxx > xxx > xxx > xx > > J8xxxx > xxx > KQ > Kx > > How many of those are weak 2S openings at white [nv v nv]? > > You know how many are in *your* partnership: I know how many are in my >partnership [two]: several people I know would say four. Your agreement >as to what constitutes a weak two opening is a 'special' agreement, and >it will not be on the card. >David Stevenson David That is a well made point. For me only one of those hands would be a weak two in my most frequent partnership, but four of the hands would be weak two's in my second most frequent partnership. Indeed, saying that partner making a weak two was "just bridge" and getting away with it would be a travesty of justice. Walt From blml@blakjak.com Thu Dec 18 03:32:45 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 03:32:45 +0000 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <9E8DEFB2-3106-11D8-9ED5-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <9E8DEFB2-3106-11D8-9ED5-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote >On Wednesday, Dec 17, 2003, at 13:12 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > >> But your opponents have a right to the 'special' understanding >> that he will always have two honours, and will never have a void. > >I don't entirely agree with Marv, as I have interpreted his statements >as David does, that in Marv's the amount of partnership experience with >a given call is of little, if any, relevance (forgive me, Marv, if I >have misinterpreted you). However, this from David bothers me as well, >as it seems to indicate that he and I have different understandings of >what "general bridge knowledge" means. > >If Audrey Grant, whose methods are, I think, the mostly widely taught >(to beginners anyway) in North America, teaches that a preempt with >always have two honors, and never a void, and my partner and I agree to >play it that way, is this "general bridge knowledge" or "special >partnership agreement"? > >If it's the latter, then please give a clear, complete, and preferably >concise definition of both terms. General bridge knowledge is general, not specific. If the bidding goes 1NT - 3NT it is general bridge knowledge that responder will have a hand that thinks bidding game is best. Often there will be no further specific understanding. But if you play according to Audrey Grant's methods that is a special agreement since unless you say so your opponents do not know you have agreed to play Audrey Grant and may also not know what Audrey Grant methods are - I certainly would have no idea. It does not matter that Audrey Grant's methods are the most popular: it is not general bridge knowledge that any particular pair is playing them, is it? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Dec 18 04:34:33 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:34:33 +1000 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) Message-ID: Ed Reppert asked: [snip] >>If Audrey Grant, whose methods are, I think, the >>mostly widely taught (to beginners anyway) in >>North America, teaches that a preempt with >>always have two honors, and never a void, and my >>partner and I agree to play it that way, is this >>"general bridge knowledge" or "special >>partnership agreement"? >> >>If it's the latter, then please give a clear, >>complete, and preferably concise definition of >>both terms. Oscar Wilde replied: >I can resist everything except temptation. Richard James Hills continued: I can resist everthing except a dare. I will stick my neck out with these definitions. -> * * * 1. Special partnership agreements (implicit or explicit) are defined as Specific partnership understandings (implicit or explicit) * * * 2. General bridge knowledge is defined (by indicative example) as "The safest time to sacrifice against an opposing game - at matchpoints - is when the opponents are vulnerable and your side is not vulnerable." * * * Best wishes RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From walt1@verizon.net Thu Dec 18 04:31:21 2003 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 23:31:21 -0500 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <9E8DEFB2-3106-11D8-9ED5-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <9E8DEFB2-3106-11D8-9ED5-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.0.20031217232555.034f52e0@incoming.verizon.net> At 10:02 PM 17/12/2003, Ed Reppert wrote: >On Wednesday, Dec 17, 2003, at 13:12 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > >>But your opponents have a right to the 'special' understanding >>that he will always have two honours, and will never have a void. > >I don't entirely agree with Marv, as I have interpreted his statements as >David does, that in Marv's the amount of partnership experience with a >given call is of little, if any, relevance (forgive me, Marv, if I have >misinterpreted you). However, this from David bothers me as well, as it >seems to indicate that he and I have different understandings of what >"general bridge knowledge" means. > >If Audrey Grant, whose methods are, I think, the mostly widely taught (to >beginners anyway) in North America, teaches that a preempt with always >have two honors, and never a void, and my partner and I agree to play it >that way, is this "general bridge knowledge" or "special partnership >agreement"? > >If it's the latter, then please give a clear, complete, and preferably >concise definition of both terms. Ed It is certainly a partnership agreement. I guess I haven't been following this thread closely enough, what is the difference between a partnership agreement and a special partnership agreement? There are many styles of preempting. Are you saying that you think you should answer questions with "it's just bridge" if this happens to be your style? Walt From nancy@dressing.org Thu Dec 18 05:17:46 2003 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 00:17:46 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box References: <200312172248.OAA14017@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <000501c3c526$464bd5b0$6401a8c0@hare> Here is the directive re the use of bidding boxes as copied from the ACBL web page. http://web2.acbl.org/misc/bidbox.htm#Use "Choosing a Call Using Bidding Boxes 1.. A player is obligated to choose a call before touching any card in the box. Deliberation while touching the bidding box cards, removing bidding cards prior to the call being considered "made," etc., may subject the offending side to the adjustment provisions of Law 16. A call is considered made when a bidding card is removed from the bidding box and held touching or nearly touching the table or maintained in such a position to indicate that the call has been made. Until a call is considered made, the director will treat the situation as unauthorized information and apply Law 16. After a call is considered made, the director will apply Law 25." The first sentence of this opens the door for all kinds of problems re UI. The second half places the same problems as when a card in considered played. "Near or touching the table......". Yuk! One aspect of the bidding sequence that is totally ignored in the discourse about bid boxes, and that has developed locally, is tapping the table to indicate a pass, or just picking up the bid cards after partner has made a game bid and RHO has passed, or also picked up the bid cards. ACBL requires three pass cards/verbal pass to end the auction. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Beneschan" To: Cc: Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 5:48 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Bidding Box > > Marv wrote: > > > The ACBL Board passed a new bidding box regulation effective 1 January 2001, > > which I missed completely. It was not well-publicized, and still does not > > appear on the ACBL website (but will soon, the webmaster tells me). All ACBL > > TDs were notified about it in their (very private) monthly newsletter, but > > club TDs of my acquaintance are unaware of it. > > > > The regulation changed the description of when a call is made from "removed > > from the bidding box with intent" to the following: > > > > "Players must choose a call before touching any card in the box. A call is > > considered made when a bidding card is removed from the bidding box and held > > touching or nearly touching the table or maintained in such a position to > > indicate that the call has been made. " > > > > It seems to me that the second sentence contradicts the first. If I > > can remove a bid card from the box, move it halfway toward me, and > > put it back with no repercussion other than the UI, then I have not > > been compelled to "choose a call before touching any card in the > > box." > > > > Just imagine the cheating one could get away with. > > If by "compelled" you are referring to the possibility of > enforcement, in that one is not really compelled to choose a call > because there's no penalty if one doesn't---I don't see how this makes > anything worse. OK, maybe a little. > > I'm not able to find the bidding box regulations on the ACBL website > (I think they just switched ISP's last weekend and are still having > problems). But if the previous regulation said "a call is considered > made when a bidding card is removed from the box with intent", it > couldn't be enforced either because there's no way to tell for sure > what a player's intent is. Under the old regulation, someone could > decide to bid 2C, pull the 2C out of the box, then change his/her mind > and bid 3C, then put the 2C back and pull the 3C out, and if > challenged claim that the 2C was a mispull. (And the regulations have > to be written to allow for the possibility of mispulls, especially > given how the bid box cards I'm used to have a tendency to stick > together.) That kind of cheating was, it seems to me, just as > possible under the older regulation as under the newer one. The newer > one might make it easier to cheat by pulling a card from one section > of the box and putting it back and pulling a card from the other > section. > > The advantage of the newer regulation should be clear, though---it > sets an objective standard for when a call has been made, rather than > requiring directors to try to read minds. > > -- Adam > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From walt1@verizon.net Thu Dec 18 05:44:06 2003 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 00:44:06 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: <000501c3c526$464bd5b0$6401a8c0@hare> References: <200312172248.OAA14017@mailhub.irvine.com> <000501c3c526$464bd5b0$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.0.20031218002538.03373d10@incoming.verizon.net> At 12:17 AM 18/12/2003, Nancy T Dressing wrote: >Here is the directive re the use of bidding boxes as copied from the ACBL >web page. >http://web2.acbl.org/misc/bidbox.htm#Use >"Choosing a Call Using Bidding Boxes > 1.. A player is obligated to choose a call before touching any card in the >box. Deliberation while touching the bidding box cards, removing bidding >cards prior to the call being considered "made," etc., may subject the >offending side to the adjustment provisions of Law 16. A call is considered >made when a bidding card is removed from the bidding box and held touching >or nearly touching the table or maintained in such a position to indicate >that the call has been made. Until a call is considered made, the director >will treat the situation as unauthorized information and apply Law 16. After >a call is considered made, the director will apply Law 25." Nancy I had a ruling on this very point at a recent Baltimore area sectional from Millard Nachtway (who as you know is the Director in Charge of all ACBL regionals in Districts 6 and 7 - basically Maryland, District of Columbia, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina Georgia and half of Tennessee) . I talked to Milliard afterward and he told me that, for I believe about two years now, ACBL tournament directors have been instructed to rule that the bid has been made only after the card has been placed on the table and released. He allowed the bid to be changed since the bid card was only parallel to and touching or almost touching the table. There were UI considerations, of course, but the auction went on. This is certainly different from what you quote from the ACBL web site which is the regulation as I had previously understood it. Walt From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Dec 18 07:46:59 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 07:46:59 -0000 Subject: Concentric circles - was Re: [blml] Be alert but ... References: Message-ID: <000b01c3c53b$3628ed20$1f3ee150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 4:34 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) Richard James Hills continued: I can resist everthing except a dare. I will stick my neck out with these definitions. -> * * * 1. Special partnership agreements (implicit or explicit) are defined as Specific partnership understandings (implicit or explicit) * * * 2. General bridge knowledge is defined (by indicative example) as "The safest time to sacrifice against an opposing game - at matchpoints - is when the opponents are vulnerable and your side is not vulnerable." * * * Best wishes RJH > +=+ I think the useful distinction is what it is fair to expect 'everybody' to know in the circle where you are playing. In the local bridge club that will be what 'everybody' plays there, in an event with players from all round the world it will be significantly less that you can take for granted. There are levels between. The need for care in ensuring opponents understand actually increases as the level of the game is raised. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Dec 18 08:15:49 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 03:15:49 -0500 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.0.20031217232555.034f52e0@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <6393B878-3132-11D8-A01A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Dec 17, 2003, at 23:31 US/Eastern, Walt wrote: > There are many styles of preempting. Are you saying that you think you > should answer questions with "it's just bridge" if this happens to be > your style? No. I'm trying to understand what amongst all the things I know about partner's bidding (and play for that matter) constitutes "general bridge knowledge" which I'm not required (or expected) to disclose. Richard Hills said, elsethread, that > 1. Special partnership agreements (implicit or explicit) > > are defined as > > Specific partnership understandings (implicit or explicit) If I understand this correctly, *any* understanding I have with my partner about the meaning of calls or plays is disclosable. And I gather that if we have ever discussed it, or it's ever come up at the table, we have an understanding. I'm not sure I buy that. I've had partners nod sagely and agree with what I say when we discuss some sequence or other - and then continue to merrily bid the way *they* think it should be bid. That ain't any kind of understanding in my book. Especially considering I rarely know whether any given sequence is one of these, or one which he really will bid the way we've agreed. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Dec 18 08:24:26 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 03:24:26 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: <000501c3c526$464bd5b0$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <9786B3E6-3133-11D8-A01A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Dec 18, 2003, at 00:17 US/Eastern, Nancy T Dressing wrote: > One aspect of the bidding sequence that is totally ignored in the > discourse about bid boxes, and that has developed locally, is tapping > the > table to indicate a pass, or just picking up the bid cards after > partner has > made a game bid and RHO has passed, or also picked up the bid cards. > ACBL > requires three pass cards/verbal pass to end the auction. Personally, I don't like it when people pick up their bid cards when they think the auction is over, or tap the table to indicate a pass. As you say, that ain't proper procedure. I suppose the tapping thing is in part because my reintroduction to duplicate thirteen years ago (damn, has it been that long? :-) took place in England, where tapping the table signifies an alert. For a while I took to waiting until the other players put their bid cards away, and then saying "I'm sorry, the auction isn't over yet, would you please put your bid cards back?" And then passing when they do. But that's rather too much, I think. People tend to get annoyed when you act that way. For that matter, they get annoyed if you call the TD about it (and so does the TD). So I don't know what the hell to do about it. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Dec 18 08:28:24 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 03:28:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.0.20031218002538.03373d10@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <256B3084-3134-11D8-A01A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Dec 18, 2003, at 00:44 US/Eastern, Walt wrote: > I talked to Milliard afterward and he told me that, for I believe > about two years now, ACBL tournament directors have been instructed to > rule that the bid has been made only after the card has been placed on > the table and released. This is one of the problems I have with the way the ACBL does things. Where does this instruction originate? As you say, it isn't based on the existing regulation, so either (a) whichever ACBL body is responsible for this regulation (LC? Other?) has changed it, and the word hasn't gotten out or (b) the regulation is as stated, and somebody in (probably) the TD hierarchy has decided to do it his way, and the hell with the regulation. Either situation is unacceptable, as far as I'm concerned. From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Dec 18 08:33:39 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:33:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] I broke L7B1. Message-ID: <3FE16663.3060007@hdw.be> Yesterday evening, first deal. My LHO opens 1Cl, after which my partner puts a bidding card on the table, says "ooops" and puts it back. "What happened?" I ask. "I didn't see the opening bid." "OK, but I did not see what you bid, so there should be no problem". "It was also 1Club!" she says. So I tell the table the laws, including that I must now pass throughout. The bidding becomes: 1Cl-3NT-pass-(pass)-Dble-pass-pass-(pass). Meanwhile, I still haven't seen my cards, and now I put down dummy one by one, sorting them as they go. They include six hearts to QJ so we score +650 as opposed to +450 (4H+1) round the room. Would you fine me for passing (twice) without having looked at my card, in direct contravention of L7B1? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From cibor@poczta.fm Tue Dec 16 11:12:46 2003 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 12:12:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Know bid References: Message-ID: <009001c3c3c5$bea71360$60d163d9@c5s5d3> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0057_01C3C3CD.EA8802C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 1C if 1NT is 12-14, 1NT otherwise. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ----- Original Message -----=20 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au=20 To: blml@rtflb.org=20 Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 10:54 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Know bid Imps; Dlr: West; Vul: NS NS system: Acol EW system: Precision The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass Pass Pass ? You, North, hold: Q96 QT7 JT8 AKQJ What call do you make? ------=_NextPart_000_0057_01C3C3CD.EA8802C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

1C if 1NT is 12-14, 1NT = otherwise.
 
 
          &nbs= p; Konrad=20 Ciborowski
          &nbs= p;=20 Krakow, Poland
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 richard.hills@immi.gov.au =
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 = 10:54=20 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] Know = bid





Imps; Dlr: West; Vul: NS

NS system: = Acol
EW=20 system: Precision

The bidding has=20 gone:

WEST      = NORTH    =20 EAST      = SOUTH
Pass     =20 Pass      Pass     =20 ?

You, North, = hold:

Q96
QT7
JT8
AKQJ

What call=20 do you make?
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_0057_01C3C3CD.EA8802C0-- From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Dec 17 14:49:15 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:49:15 +0000 Subject: Fw: [blml] Field of Dreams In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2F4FDDE6-30A0-11D8-AA57-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> --Apple-Mail-2-1023558588 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On Wednesday, December 17, 2003, at 02:22 PM, Tim West-Meads wrote: > In my book when the values shown round the table give the impression of > exceeding the total values available it "looks like" someone has > psyched. Initially, it just looks to me as though someone has overbid. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK --Apple-Mail-2-1023558588 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=US-ASCII On Wednesday, December 17, 2003, at 02:22 PM, Tim West-Meads wrote: In my book when the values shown round the table give the impression of exceeding the total values available it "looks like" someone has psyched. Initially, it just looks to me as though someone has overbid. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK --Apple-Mail-2-1023558588-- From confirm-invite-MYdNKC6==0wUL6nkSpWR4SRTG2E-blml=rtflb.org@yahoogroups.com Wed Dec 17 15:15:39 2003 From: confirm-invite-MYdNKC6==0wUL6nkSpWR4SRTG2E-blml=rtflb.org@yahoogroups.com (Bridge_Methods_Disclosure moderator) Date: 17 Dec 2003 15:15:39 -0000 Subject: [blml] Invitation to join the Bridge_Methods_Disclosure group Message-ID: <1071674139.59.10668.w80@yahoogroups.com> -------000027418100973364790005232844 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello blml@rtflb.org, sphboc@aol.com has invited to join the Bridge_Methods_Disclosure group hosted by Yahoo! Groups, a free, easy-to-use community service. By joining Bridge_Methods_Disclosure, you will be able to exchange messages with other group members, store photos and files, coordinate events and more. This invitation will expire in 7 days. Here's an introductory message from sphboc@aol.com: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I'm hoping to get some discussion started, concerning a "generic" database format for methods disclosure. Potential applications including "registration" of methods prior to major events, possible on-line alert delivery, etc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ JOIN NOW, IT'S EASY: 1) Go to the Yahoo! Groups site by clicking on this link: http://groups.yahoo.com/i?i=MYdNKC6--0wUL6nkSpWR4SRTG2E&e=blml%40rtflb%2Eorg (If clicking doesn't work, "Cut" and "Paste" the line above into your Web browser's address bar.) -OR- 2) REPLY to this email by clicking "Reply" and then "Send" in your email program If you do not wish to join the Bridge_Methods_Disclosure group, please ignore this invitation. Report abuse: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups is a free service that allows you to stay in touch with friends and family or meet new people who share your interests. Yahoo! Groups values your privacy. It is a violation of our service rules for Groups members to abuse this invitation feature. If you feel this has happened, please notify us: http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/abuse/index.html You may also change your email preferences to stop receiving group invitations in the future. To do so, please go here: http://groups.yahoo.com/s?tag=BcRbn2Y3iJSUrVjmBNzw17qprmLiW88LjtZGRjdjhT2-ND9oYS5JZjjxnsAS_oeuCi4ImMLuV-M Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------000027418100973364790005232844 Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Yahoo! Groups


sphboc@aol.com has invited you to join the Bridge_Methods_Disclosure group!
(This invitation will expire in 7 days.)

A message from sphboc@aol.com:
I'm hoping to get some discussion started, concerning a "generic" database format for methods disclosure. Potential applications including "registration" of methods prior to major events, possible on-line alert delivery, etc.



-OR-

REPLY to this email by clicking "Reply" and then "Send" in your email program.

Yahoo! Groups is a free service that allows you to stay in touch with friends and family or meet new people who share your interests. Yahoo! Groups values your privacy. It is a violation of our service rules for members to abuse this invitation feature. If you feel this has happened, please notify us. You may also change your email preferences to stop receiving group invitations in the future. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to our Terms of Service.
-------000027418100973364790005232844-- From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Dec 18 08:36:43 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 03:36:43 -0500 Subject: Concentric circles - was Re: [blml] Be alert but ... In-Reply-To: <000b01c3c53b$3628ed20$1f3ee150@endicott> Message-ID: <4EF3D727-3135-11D8-A01A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Dec 18, 2003, at 02:46 US/Eastern, Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ I think the useful distinction is what > it is fair to expect 'everybody' to know > in the circle where you are playing. > In the local bridge club that will be what > 'everybody' plays there, in an event > with players from all round the world it > will be significantly less that you can take > for granted. There are levels between. > The need for care in ensuring opponents > understand actually increases as the level > of the game is raised. This sounds right to me. But it still doesn't clearly define the terms. I had one of the top club players around here tell me a while back that putting "Standard American" at the top of our CC, right above the box we checked for "2/1 is game forcing" is misleading (she held back, with some difficulty I think, from "deliberately misleading"). I maintained, and still do, that the system called "2/1 game forcing" contains many implications about agreements that we did not have - in fact, we had been playing an acceptable "standard american" when we made the one change that a 2/1 bid would be game forcing - and so putting "2/1 game forcing" as the name of our system would not just be misleading, it would be a lie. She was adamant, however. So we changed it. I'm tempted to white it out though, and write "damfino" in its place. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Dec 18 08:47:23 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 03:47:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wednesday, Dec 17, 2003, at 22:32 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > It does not matter that Audrey Grant's methods are the most popular: > it is not general bridge knowledge that any particular pair is playing > them, is it? Depends on how wide the field of discussion is. Around here, we have a lot of beginners - who learned from Grant's books. I would have thought then, that amongst those people, what's in those books would be counted "general bridge knowledge". No, I wouldn't expect someone from another country to have ever heard of Grant, or her methods, but that's a wider field than I was looking at. It seems to me that if you discuss and apply the laws in the wide context of "your opponents could be from anywhere, and may or may not consider what you know of your methods to be general bridge knowledge", then there can't be any such thing as "general bridge knowledge" beyond "the game is played with a deck of 52 cards" and things of that nature. If that's the case, then please, get rid of the phrase and the concept, and let the law require "full disclosure", period. From svenpran@online.no Thu Dec 18 09:07:05 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:07:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3c546$4ead7900$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson > Sven Pran wrote .............. > >Without bothering to look up the exact words in our regulation this = seems > >identical to the regulation we have had in force here in Norway for > years. >=20 > I *am* surprised!!! I thought all European BB regs followed the > normal international style, whereby a call is made once it is taken = out > of the box. You mean that in Norway a call taken from the box may be > replaced if it is out of turn? It cannot be in most of Europe. I wasn't considering the situation with calls out of turn but rather the borderline between UI and call made. I don't think it matters for when a call is made whether it is out of turn or not? So I had to look it up after all, and found: Begin quote: Players should refrain from touching any bidding cards until they have determined their call. A call is considered to be made when the bidding card(s) is removed from = the bidding box with apparent intent (but Law 25 may apply). End quote. If this doesn't cover what I wrote I must either have misunderstood the = ACBL regulation to which I referred or unsuccessfully made myself clear on = how we rule in Norway. Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Thu Dec 18 09:36:48 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:36:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] I broke L7B1. In-Reply-To: <3FE16663.3060007@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c3c54a$75e3eff0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael > Yesterday evening, first deal. >=20 > My LHO opens 1Cl, after which my partner puts a bidding=20 > card on the table, says "ooops" and puts it back. >=20 > "What happened?" I ask. >=20 > "I didn't see the opening bid." >=20 > "OK, but I did not see what you bid, so there should be=20 > no problem". >=20 > "It was also 1Club!" she says. >=20 > So I tell the table the laws, including that I must now=20 > pass throughout. >=20 > The bidding becomes: 1Cl-3NT-pass-(pass)-Dble-pass-pass-(pass). >=20 > Meanwhile, I still haven't seen my cards, and now I put down=20 > dummy one by one, sorting them as they go. They include six=20 > hearts to QJ so we score +650 as opposed to +450 (4H+1) round=20 > the room. >=20 > Would you fine me for passing (twice) without having looked=20 > at my card, in direct contravention of L7B1? If it should turn out that your hand did not contain exactly thirteen = cards I would penalize you for not having counted your cards and discovered = this error in time. However, I assume that you did in fact count your cards.=20 But I would not penalize you for failing to inspect your cards before = making a call. I feel that we are dealing with technicalities here and if we = are to be technical we should be technical all the way. Law 28A essentially = leaves you entirely out of the auction; consequently you no longer "must = inspect your cards before making a call" because you do not have to make any = call. I will add that by not inspecting your cards you avoided the possibility = of creating UI from your manners when you learned your cards. Sven From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Thu Dec 18 09:58:47 2003 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:58:47 -0000 Subject: [blml] Once more into the breach Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB14B7@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> [Richard Willey] 20 years on, at green P 1H (1N) P; ? I could generate a summary description of RHO's bidding history. For example, I could plot a frequency distribution of RHO's High Card Points. If the distribution were bimodal, this would indicate a certain proclivity to psyche [nnip] Should this type of analysis of bidding history become authorized information? On the one hand, we want to provide the opponents with full disclosure of methods. On the other we have bans against external aids to computation. [Nigel] There appeared to some strange characters in Richard's email so I had trouble reading it. I hope i've got the hand and bidding right Anyway I am sure that Richard is correct. Most new players will learn the game on-line and be familiar with the much better and simpler on-line rules. Partnerships will be encouraged to post comprehensive CCs and will be supplied with defaults if they don't. Hence automatic explanations will be the norm. I like Richard's psyche detection idea, although a deliberate cheat can get round it by using a fresh id, so as to "lose" his history. There may also be legal difficulties related to local "Data Protection Acts." [Frances] As ever, Nigel, I admire your optimism. Players at the moment are obliged to have filled-in=20 convention cards but don't. Why should life be different online? You could not allow=20 people to play without a fully-posted convention card, but then in F2F bridge we could do the same though generally don't. From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Dec 18 10:34:49 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:34:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3FE182C9.7000801@hdw.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Wednesday, Dec 17, 2003, at 22:32 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > >> It does not matter that Audrey Grant's methods are the most popular: >> it is not general bridge knowledge that any particular pair is playing >> them, is it? > > > Depends on how wide the field of discussion is. Around here, we have a > lot of beginners - who learned from Grant's books. I would have thought > then, that amongst those people, what's in those books would be counted > "general bridge knowledge". No, I wouldn't expect someone from another > country to have ever heard of Grant, or her methods, but that's a wider > field than I was looking at. > > It seems to me that if you discuss and apply the laws in the wide > context of "your opponents could be from anywhere, and may or may not > consider what you know of your methods to be general bridge knowledge", > then there can't be any such thing as "general bridge knowledge" beyond > "the game is played with a deck of 52 cards" and things of that nature. > If that's the case, then please, get rid of the phrase and the concept, > and let the law require "full disclosure", period. > Which is why MY definition of "general bridge knowledge" includes words like "things of which you are fairly certain that your opponents know them". Not "are certain", not "can be certain". I don't rule against a beginner who has never heard of weak NT, and believes everybody plays 1NT as 15-17. I think the phrase is in the laws to stop bridge-lawyers from saying "he did not tell me that, I claim damage" by the TD being able to reply "did you think it was anything else - no? - then I rule it is general bridge knowledge and he was not wrong in not telling you that." Which is precisely why it is needed in the first place and ought to be kept. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Dec 18 10:50:43 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:50:43 -0000 Subject: [blml] Once more into the breach References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB14B7@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <00ca01c3c554$ca14ee80$6d9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Frances] As ever, Nigel, I admire your optimism. Players at the moment are obliged to have filled-in convention cards but don't. Why should life be different online? You could not allow people to play without a fully-posted convention card, but then in F2F bridge we could do the same though generally don't. [Nigel] Thank you Frances! You are right about the current position! At most on-line sites, you do not have to post a CC but all sites provide *default* cards for a variety of systems, simple and sophisticated. I'm advocating that, in future, on-line site managers may insist that you post a default card, if you don't want to post your own. Ay F2F bridge, a similar rule is occasionally enforced. It might even be appropriate, for example, at a rubber bridge club, so that a stranger need not suffer a relative disadvantage. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 15/12/2003 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Dec 18 12:20:17 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:20:17 -0000 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) References: <9E8DEFB2-3106-11D8-9ED5-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <012a01c3c561$636a0d20$6d9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [David Stevenson] General bridge knowledge is general, not specific. If the bidding goes 1NT - 3NT it is general bridge knowledge that responder will have a hand that thinks bidding game is best. {Nigel] There don't seem to be many other options unless partner is a sado-masochist :) It seems that David may be coming round to the sensible view that "general knowledge and experience" be expunged from the law book as a rationalisation for incomplete disclosure. A fun example illustrating that "no specific agreement -- just general Bridge knowledge and experience" is an inadequate explanation... Bermuda Bowl Quarter Final Board 8 LA/LHO. 50 imps up. You hold Q85 - AQ7532 AK32 LHO Partner RHO You P P 1NT+ 2C* X^ P 2H 3D 3H 4D P ? +15-17 *ASTRO(minors) ^Staymanic Partner is an expert and you're familiar with his style of bidding but previously, you've never met or discussed this 4D bid. Before his pass, RHO asked what 4D means. Your answer and what do you bid if partner is... (a) Robert Wolff? (b) Richard James Hills? Finally (new topic) do you think it's OK to call your 2C convention "Astro". --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 15/12/2003 From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Dec 18 13:16:31 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 08:16:31 -0500 Subject: [blml] Once more into the breach In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031217165003.00a827b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031218080830.00a06b50@pop.starpower.net> At 06:04 PM 12/17/03, you wrote: >It should come as no great surprise to anyone on this mailing that I have >a strong interest regarding how computerized playing environments impact >the Laws or Bridge and vice versa. Over the last month or so, I have >noticed a number of threads on this mailing list in which the=20 >computerized >playing environment might drastically impact the regulatory structure,=20 >and >vice versa. Case in point: Right now there is an on-going discussion >regard =E2=80=9Cgeneral bridge knowledge=E2=80=9D and the extent to which= partnership >understandings can and should be disclosed. I would like to pose the >following hypothetical: > >It is 20 years from now and the vast majority of major bridge tournaments >are held using a computerized playing environment. > >I am playing a 10 board Swiss teams match against Team XYZ. > >We are Red, They are White > >The auction has started > >(P) =AD 1H =AD (1N) - ??? > >The =E2=80=9CGr=9CGreat Bridge Server in the Sky=E2=80=9D has a record of= ever hand=20 >where RHO >overcall 1NT, white versus red opposite a passed hand partner. Given=20 >this >information, I could generate a summary description of RHO=E2=80=99s= bidding >history. For example, I could plot a frequency distribution of=20 >RHO=E2=80=99s High >Card Points. If the distribution were bimodal, this would indicate a >certain proclivity to psyche. > >I argue that this type of analysis can provide much more explicit >information regarding partnership understandings than is currently >available to most partnerships. My question then becomes: > >Should this type of analysis of bidding history become authorized >information? > >On the one hand, we want to provide the opponents with full disclosure of >methods. > >On the other we have bans against external aids to computation. [It=20 >seems >clear that summary statistics have value however, no-one can expect to >process a list of 200 hands] You're asking the wrong person -- I have no experience with on-line=20 bridge. That said... If and when the day comes that top-level events are played on line, I=20 would think that such information should be kept, possibly summarized,=20 and made generally available. It would be used, I would expect, by=20 teams who wish to study their prospective opponents' bidding prior to=20 playing a match against them, as well as by analysts and reporters. I=20 would not, however, expect (nor want, I think, although I haven't=20 really given it much thought) that kind of information to be available=20 at the table during the actual match. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618=20 From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Dec 18 13:44:46 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 08:44:46 -0500 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031217165003.00a827b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031218083722.00a05400@pop.starpower.net> At 10:03 PM 12/17/03, Ed wrote: >On Wednesday, Dec 17, 2003, at 17:05 US/Eastern, Eric Landau wrote: > >>The point, of course, is that "general knowledge and experience" is >>*not* the same thing as the way Marv, or I, or anyone else, was >>taught as, or would now teach, a novice to play the game. > >Aha! Well, then, what the bloody blue blazes is it? I don't claim to have a complete definition, but it is *not* your partnership agreements, no matter how widely understood or accepted you believe them to be. So, for example, I open 1S, P, 3S: Q: What's that? A: Forcing to game (disclosing our explicit agreement). Q: What does it show? A: Enough to think we will make game (disclosing our implicit agreement that we bid something other than 3S if we wish to reach 4S as a save, expecting to go down). Q: What does she need to think you will make game? A: Whatever she thinks is enough (refusing to disclose "general knowledge and experience"). Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From nancy@dressing.org Thu Dec 18 14:32:02 2003 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:32:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box References: <9786B3E6-3133-11D8-A01A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <004701c3c573$b44a8780$6401a8c0@hare> My solution to the table tapping and early putting away of bid cards was a strong announcement at the club that this was not allowed and insisting on the three pass cards or "two passes and a scoop" by the pass out player or a verbal pass. Nothing else is acceptable! It has slowly become the norm in my clubs and is now moving to other games. Mike Flader had a blurb about this in his column in the bulletin. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 3:24 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Bidding Box > > On Thursday, Dec 18, 2003, at 00:17 US/Eastern, Nancy T Dressing wrote: > > > One aspect of the bidding sequence that is totally ignored in the > > discourse about bid boxes, and that has developed locally, is tapping > > the > > table to indicate a pass, or just picking up the bid cards after > > partner has > > made a game bid and RHO has passed, or also picked up the bid cards. > > ACBL > > requires three pass cards/verbal pass to end the auction. > > Personally, I don't like it when people pick up their bid cards when > they think the auction is over, or tap the table to indicate a pass. As > you say, that ain't proper procedure. I suppose the tapping thing is in > part because my reintroduction to duplicate thirteen years ago (damn, > has it been that long? :-) took place in England, where tapping the > table signifies an alert. > > For a while I took to waiting until the other players put their bid > cards away, and then saying "I'm sorry, the auction isn't over yet, > would you please put your bid cards back?" And then passing when they > do. But that's rather too much, I think. People tend to get annoyed > when you act that way. For that matter, they get annoyed if you call > the TD about it (and so does the TD). So I don't know what the hell to > do about it. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From blml@blakjak.com Thu Dec 18 15:31:51 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:31:51 +0000 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote >On Wednesday, Dec 17, 2003, at 22:32 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > >> It does not matter that Audrey Grant's methods are the most popular: >>it is not general bridge knowledge that any particular pair is playing >>them, is it? > >Depends on how wide the field of discussion is. Around here, we have a >lot of beginners - who learned from Grant's books. I would have thought >then, that amongst those people, what's in those books would be counted >"general bridge knowledge". No, I wouldn't expect someone from another >country to have ever heard of Grant, or her methods, but that's a wider >field than I was looking at. > >It seems to me that if you discuss and apply the laws in the wide >context of "your opponents could be from anywhere, and may or may not >consider what you know of your methods to be general bridge knowledge", >then there can't be any such thing as "general bridge knowledge" beyond >"the game is played with a deck of 52 cards" and things of that nature. >If that's the case, then please, get rid of the phrase and the concept, >and let the law require "full disclosure", period. Why do not we play bridge? OK, forget all this totally theoretical stuff. You are playing in an A/X Swiss Teams in New York next summer. Your opponents who seem to be a married couple from Vancouver, respond 3S to 1C after your partner has overcalled 1H. When you finish up playing the hand you are trying to count it. You ask what the 3S bid shows. "We don't have to tell you," they snarl, "we have no special agreement." Do unknown married couples of fair standard play Audrey Grant in Vancouver? You miscount the hand because they only have six cards, go off in a makeable game, and your opponents smile at each other. "We do gain a lot by refusing to tell people our agreements," they chortle happily. Is this really the way you believe bridge should be played? -- 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 Dec 18 15:36:49 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:36:49 +0000 Subject: Concentric circles - was Re: [blml] Be alert but ... In-Reply-To: <000b01c3c53b$3628ed20$1f3ee150@endicott> References: <000b01c3c53b$3628ed20$1f3ee150@endicott> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott wrote >2. General bridge knowledge >+=+ I think the useful distinction is what >it is fair to expect 'everybody' to know >in the circle where you are playing. >In the local bridge club that will be what >'everybody' plays there, in an event >with players from all round the world it >will be significantly less that you can take >for granted. There are levels between. > The need for care in ensuring opponents >understand actually increases as the level >of the game is raised. Let us remember what generates this argument. It is that some people believe that players have a *right* to refuse to answer questions as to their agreements. In my view there does need to be a very high expectation that opponents know what you play before you refuse to answer - and even then, why should you? -- 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 Dec 18 15:38:47 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:38:47 +0000 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: <000001c3c546$4ead7900$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c3c546$4ead7900$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5fbR7NDHoc4$EwCK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >> Sven Pran wrote >.............. >> >Without bothering to look up the exact words in our regulation this seems >> >identical to the regulation we have had in force here in Norway for >> years. >> >> I *am* surprised!!! I thought all European BB regs followed the >> normal international style, whereby a call is made once it is taken out >> of the box. You mean that in Norway a call taken from the box may be >> replaced if it is out of turn? It cannot be in most of Europe. > >I wasn't considering the situation with calls out of turn but rather the >borderline between UI and call made. I don't think it matters for when a >call is made whether it is out of turn or not? > >So I had to look it up after all, and found: > >Begin quote: >Players should refrain from touching any bidding cards until they have >determined their call. >A call is considered to be made when the bidding card(s) is removed from the >bidding box with apparent intent (but Law 25 may apply). >End quote. > >If this doesn't cover what I wrote I must either have misunderstood the ACBL >regulation to which I referred or unsuccessfully made myself clear on how we >rule in Norway. That is the reg outside the ACBL but is no longer the ACBL reg. Now it has to be held on or near the table [similar to a declarer's played card] for the call to be made in the ACBL. -- 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 wrgptfan@fastmail.fm Thu Dec 18 15:45:29 2003 From: wrgptfan@fastmail.fm (David Kent) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:45:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20031218154529.9869842B6D@server1.messagingengine.com> On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:34:33 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au said: >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Ed Reppert asked: >=20 > [snip] >=20 > >>If Audrey Grant, whose methods are, I think, the > >>mostly widely taught (to beginners anyway) in > >>North America, teaches that a preempt with > >>always have two honors, and never a void, and my > >>partner and I agree to play it that way, is this > >>"general bridge knowledge" or "special > >>partnership agreement"? > >> > >>If it's the latter, then please give a clear, > >>complete, and preferably concise definition of > >>both terms. >=20 > Oscar Wilde replied: >=20 > >I can resist everything except temptation. >=20 > Richard James Hills continued: >=20 > I can resist everthing except a dare. I will > stick my neck out with these definitions. -> >=20 > * * * >=20 > 1. Special partnership agreements (implicit or > explicit) >=20 > are defined as >=20 > Specific partnership understandings (implicit or > explicit) >=20 > * * * >=20 > 2. General bridge knowledge >=20 > is defined (by indicative example) as >=20 > "The safest time to sacrifice against an opposing > game - at matchpoints - is when the opponents are > vulnerable and your side is not vulnerable." >=20 > * * * or "NV vs V in 3rd seat, down by 50 IMPs in the last quarter of a knockout match, partner is more likely to psyche than at other times." --=20 David Kent --=20 http://www.fastmail.fm - Same, same, but different=85 From blml@blakjak.com Thu Dec 18 15:46:28 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:46:28 +0000 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: <9786B3E6-3133-11D8-A01A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <000501c3c526$464bd5b0$6401a8c0@hare> <9786B3E6-3133-11D8-A01A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote >On Thursday, Dec 18, 2003, at 00:17 US/Eastern, Nancy T Dressing wrote: >> One aspect of the bidding sequence that is totally ignored in the >> discourse about bid boxes, and that has developed locally, is tapping >>the >> table to indicate a pass, or just picking up the bid cards after >>partner has >> made a game bid and RHO has passed, or also picked up the bid cards. >>ACBL >> requires three pass cards/verbal pass to end the auction. > >Personally, I don't like it when people pick up their bid cards when >they think the auction is over, or tap the table to indicate a pass. As >you say, that ain't proper procedure. I suppose the tapping thing is in >part because my reintroduction to duplicate thirteen years ago (damn, >has it been that long? :-) took place in England, where tapping the >table signifies an alert. I really do not mind that people are a little casual in their final pass so long as they do something positive. Touching an existing pass card seems commonest around here. It is unambiguous, so while not proper procedure it is tolerated, and seems similar to saying "spade" as declarer to ask for dummy's lowest spade. To be honest, that is what I do. But it should be positive: tapping, saying pass, giving a wave, or whatever: taking the bidding cards away has led to problems [discussed many many months ago on BLML]. Worst of all is sitting there like a lemon waiting for partner to lead - or just thinking about your own lead while everyone else is politely waiting for you to call. That is extremely rude as well as poor procedure. To be honest, when someone is clearly thinking - and then takes the cards away it does not cause problems. There is one authority [Denmark? the Netherlands? Belgium?] which has a reg to cover these abnormal final passes. Very sensible. -- 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 Dec 18 15:49:42 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:49:42 +0000 Subject: [blml] I broke L7B1. In-Reply-To: <3FE16663.3060007@hdw.be> References: <3FE16663.3060007@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >Yesterday evening, first deal. > >My LHO opens 1Cl, after which my partner puts a bidding card on the >table, says "ooops" and puts it back. > >"What happened?" I ask. > >"I didn't see the opening bid." > >"OK, but I did not see what you bid, so there should be no problem". > >"It was also 1Club!" she says. > >So I tell the table the laws, including that I must now pass throughout. > >The bidding becomes: 1Cl-3NT-pass-(pass)-Dble-pass-pass-(pass). > >Meanwhile, I still haven't seen my cards, and now I put down dummy one >by one, sorting them as they go. They include six hearts to QJ so we >score +650 as opposed to +450 (4H+1) round the room. > >Would you fine me for passing (twice) without having looked at my card, >in direct contravention of L7B1? No. Minor infractions only lead to PPs when they are repeated. I would say "Hermy: you know you should look at your cards: tut, tut!" -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Dec 18 16:19:54 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:19:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box References: <000001c3c546$4ead7900$6900a8c0@WINXP> <5fbR7NDHoc4$EwCK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <03b401c3c582$dafc6420$6d9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [David Stevenson] That is the reg outside the ACBL but is no longer the ACBL reg. [Nigel] Among the gaping holes in TFLB is the lack of comprehensive Bidding box rules. Many argue that you must allow zonal variation in such rules (: for example, down under, you may need Velcro on the bottom of the box to stop it flying off into space :) IMO, the defect in TFLB should be remedied. Even if some jurisdictions still insisted on clinging to their chauvinist idiosyncrasies, others could then put the welfare of players first, and abide by TFLB defaults. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 15/12/2003 From Bridge_Methods_Disclosure-owner@yahoogroups.com Thu Dec 18 18:07:22 2003 From: Bridge_Methods_Disclosure-owner@yahoogroups.com (Bridge_Methods_Disclosure Moderator) Date: 18 Dec 2003 18:07:22 -0000 Subject: [blml] Welcome to Bridge_Methods_Disclosure Message-ID: <1071770842.278.69800.m17@yahoogroups.com> Hello, Welcome to the Bridge_Methods_Disclosure group at Yahoo! Groups, a free, easy-to-use email group service. Please take a moment to review this message. To learn more about the Bridge_Methods_Disclosure group, please visit http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bridge_Methods_Disclosure To start sending messages to members of this group, simply send email to Bridge_Methods_Disclosure@yahoogroups.com If you do not wish to belong to Bridge_Methods_Disclosure, you may unsubscribe by sending an email to Bridge_Methods_Disclosure-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com To see and modify all of your groups, go to http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups Regards, Moderator, Bridge_Methods_Disclosure Complete your Yahoo! Groups account: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Your email address has been added to the email list of a Yahoo! Group. To gain access to all of your group's web features (previous messages, photos, files, calendar, etc.) and easier control of your message delivery options, we highly recommend that you complete your account by connecting your email address to Yahoo account. It is easy and free. Please visit: http://groups.yahoo.com/convacct?email=blml%40rtflb.org&list=Bridge_Methods_Disclosure Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Thu Dec 18 18:41:47 2003 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:41:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box References: <000501c3c526$464bd5b0$6401a8c0@hare> <9786B3E6-3133-11D8-A01A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <001e01c3c597$7f34b4c0$7d053dd4@c6l8v1> > > I really do not mind that people are a little casual in their final > pass so long as they do something positive. Touching an existing pass > card seems commonest around here. It is unambiguous, so while not > proper procedure it is tolerated, and seems similar to saying "spade" as > declarer to ask for dummy's lowest spade. To be honest, that is what I > do. > > But it should be positive: tapping, saying pass, giving a wave, or > whatever: taking the bidding cards away has led to problems [discussed > many many months ago on BLML]. > > Worst of all is sitting there like a lemon waiting for partner to lead > - or just thinking about your own lead while everyone else is politely > waiting for you to call. That is extremely rude as well as poor > procedure. > > To be honest, when someone is clearly thinking - and then takes the > cards away it does not cause problems. > > There is one authority [Denmark? the Netherlands? Belgium?] which > has a reg to cover these abnormal final passes. Very sensible. > > I do not remember the correct auction, but this casual BB behaviour happened: west north east south ?? pass ?? pass ?? pass pass double ?? pass pass tapping on the double card whereupon everybody removed the bidding cards. The contract was defeated and south claimed to have doubled. EW summoned the TD. Your ruling please. Ben From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Dec 18 18:50:41 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:50:41 -0800 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box References: <200312172248.OAA14017@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <005d01c3c597$d7f691a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Adam Beneschan" > > I'm not able to find the bidding box regulations on the ACBL website > (I think they just switched ISP's last weekend and are still having > problems). But the new regulation took effect 1 January 2001. That should have been time enough to get it on the website. I have often found a time lapse between the effectivity of a regulation and the publishing of it on the website. There should be someone coordinating this sort of thing. > But if the previous regulation said "a call is considered > made when a bidding card is removed from the box with intent", it > couldn't be enforced either because there's no way to tell for sure > what a player's intent is. Under the old regulation, someone could > decide to bid 2C, pull the 2C out of the box, then change his/her mind > and bid 3C, then put the 2C back and pull the 3C out, and if > challenged claim that the 2C was a mispull. (And the regulations have > to be written to allow for the possibility of mispulls, especially > given how the bid box cards I'm used to have a tendency to stick > together.) That kind of cheating was, it seems to me, just as > possible under the older regulation as under the newer one. The newer > one might make it easier to cheat by pulling a card from one section > of the box and putting it back and pulling a card from the other > section. The trouble with the new regulation is that a card can be pulled deliberately and then put back. There is no need to claim inadvertency, a change of mind is okay. With the old rule, the call had to be inadvertent in order to put it back. That is quite a difference. > > The advantage of the newer regulation should be clear, though---it > sets an objective standard for when a call has been made, rather than > requiring directors to try to read minds. Opponents can almost always tell whether a card was pulled inadvertently, but of course there are many who will not admit it. Directors must make all sorts of decisions based on the best available evidence, and often the decisions are difficult. E.g., was there a break in tempo? Here's an objective regulation: If you take a bid card out of the box, the call cannot be changed unless (1) the opponents let you change it (with the TD's permission), or (2) the TD judges that the call is so odd that the claim of inadvertency is likely to be valid. As with BITs, the director may have to make a difficult decision, but that's part of the job. But here is the real reason for the new regulation: Careless players were getting upset because they could not change a call after removing a bid card from the box with apparent intent. ACBL TDs do not like regulations that cause players to be angry with them, and the BoD apparently agrees. I recall now that a very experienced San Diego player last year took a 4S bid out of the box, after partner had made a 3S game try. Then, recalling that his partner was a passed hand, he called the TD and asked if he could put the 4S bid back and pass instead. She allowed it, and I thought this was TD error but didn't contest the matter. Now it seems she was correct, because the 4S bid had not been made according to the new regulation. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Dec 18 18:52:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:52 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <000401c3c4c1$23872ee0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marv wrote: > Why does everyone ignore L75C? L75A refers to SPECIAL partnership > agreements and SPECIAL information. That such things as an opening bid > of 3x, or a double jump response in a new suit, are preemptive, weak, These meanings are "special" to system agreed. There is no inherent reason why a 3H opener should not be a strong bid. The fact that it is weak is a function of the agreement to play Acol or SAYC or whatever. "Standard xxxx" is fine as a description (given you are in an area where people know xxxx). "No special agreement" is not. Tim From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Dec 18 19:08:48 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:08:48 -0800 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) References: <002301c3c458$36c2ad40$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <000401c3c4c1$23872ee0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <6.0.1.1.0.20031217221932.050b2e10@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <006701c3c59a$a5bf02a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Walt" > > For me only one of those hands would be a weak two in my most frequent > partnership, but four of the hands would be weak two's in my second most > frequent partnership. > > Indeed, saying that partner making a weak two was "just bridge" and getting > away with it would be a travesty of justice. > In ACBL-land the nature of weak two bids is supposed to be roughly described on the CC. If that nature is somewhat uncommon (e.g., extremely aggressive), either a Pre-Alert before the cards are removed from the board or an Alert of the weak two bid is in order. The Bailey Weak Two Bid, popular hereabouts, is Alertable because of its uncommon requirements: 5 or 6-card suit, any strength, 8-11 HCP, at least 2-3 cards in any unbid major, no void, and maybe more that I can't remember right now. Minor deviations from the CC based on style and/or judgment are both legal and expected of weak two bidders. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Dec 18 19:13:21 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:13:21 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: <004701c3c573$b44a8780$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <3E715C00-318E-11D8-8884-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Dec 18, 2003, at 09:32 US/Eastern, Nancy T Dressing wrote: > My solution to the table tapping and early putting away of bid cards > was a > strong announcement at the club that this was not allowed and > insisting on > the three pass cards or "two passes and a scoop" by the pass out > player or a > verbal pass. Nothing else is acceptable! It has slowly become the > norm in > my clubs and is now moving to other games. Mike Flader had a blurb > about > this in his column in the bulletin. Well done! Now, how do I convince the club TDs around here to do likewise? From svenpran@online.no Thu Dec 18 19:30:59 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:30:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: <001e01c3c597$7f34b4c0$7d053dd4@c6l8v1> Message-ID: <000001c3c59d$77a25310$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ben Schelen .......... > I do not remember the correct auction, but this casual BB behaviour > happened: > west north east south > ?? pass ?? pass > ?? pass pass double > ?? pass pass tapping on the double card >=20 > whereupon everybody removed the bidding cards. > The contract was defeated and south claimed to have doubled. > EW summoned the TD. >=20 > Your ruling please. Once disagreement arose I have no problem ruling that the contract was = not doubled. True, there can be doubt as to what South meant by "tapping" his bid = card, but when he accepted that the auction was ended with nobody making = another pass (explicitly or implicitly for instance by tapping their previous = pass card) he alone must bear the responsibility for his alleged double not = being recognized.=20 Any doubt must be resolved against the only player at the table who did = not adhere to protocol. Regards Sven =20 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Dec 18 19:41:43 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:41:43 -0500 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <353C733A-3192-11D8-8884-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Dec 18, 2003, at 10:31 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > Is this really the way you believe bridge should be played? Of course not. First, any player who snarls at another at the bridge table ought to be severely penalized (Zero Tolerance, you know :). Second, this is *deliberate* obfuscation. I'm no more advocating that than you are. What I'm trying to determine is how much needs to be disclosed. In your example case, for instance, I know, from my reading, that 3S is likely preemptive in this auction. I also know that traditionally, the hand should contain 7 spades. I also know that the modern tendency is more freewheeling, and that the hand might well contain 7 spades, but it might also contain 6. I also know that ideally the hand should have most of its points in spades - and that many people ignore that ideal as often as not. I think of those things (perhaps incorrectly) as "general bridge knowledge". Should I not expect people from Vancouver to do the same? Another thing - I cannot recall having made this bid, or having heard partner make it. Not in the last several years, at least. I have not discussed its meaning at all with any of my partners. Is "undiscussed" adequate disclosure here? "Undiscussed, presumed preemptive?" (My understanding is that one is not supposed to say what one is "guessing" the bid means - unless one subscribes to the deWael school). I'm perfectly happy to tell opponents "preemptive, could be as few as 6 spades or as many as 8 (rarely), insufficient values to suggest game, no support for my clubs, points concentrated in the spade suit" if that's our (explicit, because we've discussed it, or implicit, because it's come up before and that's what partner had) agreement, but as a non-expert playing with and against non-experts, I have to say that there are a *lot* of sequences that remain undiscussed until we get bit - and sometimes even after that - and the same is true, I'm certain, of most opposing pairs. And when that is the case, I do not know how much I'm (or they are) supposed to disclose. Also, someone (Marv, I think) gave an example in which part of what he knows about partner's bid comes from (in his opinion) "general knowledge and experience" and need not be disclosed. Others seem to think he should disclose it. *My* dilemma is that it appears to me that either the clause "need not disclose general bridge knowledge" is either meaningful (there are some things that need not be disclosed) or it is not. If it is not, it should be stricken from the law. If it is, then I need to know what the "some things" are - and I don't. At one club game I attend, which started out as a purely novice game, and only in the last year or so became open, the TD typically gives a 20 minute "mini-lesson" before the game. When I think of anyone trying to teach folks there (most of whom are still pretty close to novice) the requirements of full disclosure, well, the mind boggles. :-( From nancy@dressing.org Thu Dec 18 19:41:44 2003 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:41:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box References: <3E715C00-318E-11D8-8884-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <001301c3c59e$f82e62c0$6401a8c0@hare> Find the bulletin with Mike's discussion, ( I will look for it!) Read it to the players at your club. Tell the beginners about it and whenever you play at a game and when you direct insist on the three pass cards or a pass and politely explain why . It is interesting how few players know that the auction is still live until the opening lead is faced. I have found that most bridge players love to know the laws. Just be personally persistent and it will work!!! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 2:13 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Bidding Box > > On Thursday, Dec 18, 2003, at 09:32 US/Eastern, Nancy T Dressing wrote: > > > My solution to the table tapping and early putting away of bid cards > > was a > > strong announcement at the club that this was not allowed and > > insisting on > > the three pass cards or "two passes and a scoop" by the pass out > > player or a > > verbal pass. Nothing else is acceptable! It has slowly become the > > norm in > > my clubs and is now moving to other games. Mike Flader had a blurb > > about > > this in his column in the bulletin. > > Well done! > > Now, how do I convince the club TDs around here to do likewise? > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Dec 18 20:04:58 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:04:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: <03b401c3c582$dafc6420$6d9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <749237B2-3195-11D8-8884-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Dec 18, 2003, at 11:19 US/Eastern, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > IMO, the defect in TFLB should be remedied. Even > if some jurisdictions still insisted on clinging > to their chauvinist idiosyncrasies, others could > then put the welfare of players first, and abide > by TFLB defaults. There is no defect in TFLB. Law 18F: "Zonal Organizations may authorize different methods of making calls". It is thus incumbent on the ZO to specify bid box (or written bidding, or other) regulations, or to explicitly delegate authority to do so to their member NBOs. The ACBL, the ZO for Zone 2, has specified regulations for its zone. I cannot speak to what has been done in other zones, but if a ZO has not issued such regulation or delegation, then bidding boxes (or whatever) may not legally be used in those zones. Hm. Okay, maybe there *is* a defect in TFLB. Law 80: "A sponsoring organization conducting an event under these Laws has the following duties and powers:" E: "to establish special conditions for bidding and play (such as written bidding, bidding boxes, screens - penalty provisions for actions not transmitted across a screen may be suspended)." F. "to publish or announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws." It appears that the SO has authority under this law to issue bid box regulations, even if the ZO has not authorized it, or has issued its own regulations. That's no good. :-( Hm again. The WBF has, I believe, issued bid box regulations for its tournaments - that is, for tournaments for which it is the sponsor. Those tournaments fall outside the jurisdiction of any zone, so the WBF regulation cannot have been issued pursuant to Law 18F, it must have been issued pursuant to Law 80E/F. So, if Law 18F takes precedence, the questions are (1) why have the provision in Law 80E/F? and (2) what of the WBF, which isn't a ZO? If Law 80E/F takes precedence then why have law 18F at all? From blml@blakjak.com Thu Dec 18 20:15:26 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:15:26 +0000 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <353C733A-3192-11D8-8884-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <353C733A-3192-11D8-8884-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote >On Thursday, Dec 18, 2003, at 10:31 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > >> Is this really the way you believe bridge should be played? > >Of course not. First, any player who snarls at another at the bridge >table ought to be severely penalized (Zero Tolerance, you know :). >Second, this is *deliberate* obfuscation. I'm no more advocating that >than you are. What I'm trying to determine is how much needs to be >disclosed. In your example case, for instance, I know, from my reading, >that 3S is likely preemptive in this auction. I also know that >traditionally, the hand should contain 7 spades. I also know that the >modern tendency is more freewheeling, and that the hand might well >contain 7 spades, but it might also contain 6. I also know that ideally >the hand should have most of its points in spades - and that many >people ignore that ideal as often as not. I think of those things >(perhaps incorrectly) as "general bridge knowledge". Should I not >expect people from Vancouver to do the same? Another thing - I cannot >recall having made this bid, or having heard partner make it. Not in >the last several years, at least. I have not discussed its meaning at >all with any of my partners. Is "undiscussed" adequate disclosure here? >"Undiscussed, presumed preemptive?" (My understanding is that one is >not supposed to say what one is "guessing" the bid means - unless one >subscribes to the deWael school). I'm perfectly happy to tell opponents >"preemptive, could be as few as 6 spades or as many as 8 (rarely), >insufficient values to suggest game, no support for my clubs, points >concentrated in the spade suit" if that's our (explicit, because we've >discussed it, or implicit, because it's come up before and that's what >partner had) agreement, but as a non-expert playing with and against >non-experts, I have to say that there are a *lot* of sequences that >remain undiscussed until we get bit - and sometimes even after that - >and the same is true, I'm certain, of most opposing pairs. And when >that is the case, I do not know how much I'm (or they are) supposed to disclose. I do not suggest anyone should say anything they do not know from their partnership experience. If a sequence is undiscussed, or has never turned up, then the player says so. But hiding behind 'it is not a *special* agreement' is what I object to. In the example given if you do not know the details of what a 3S bid shows then you answer that. But if you do know either because you know what is played in your private circle or because you have both read the same book or because you have discussed it or because you have experience of the exact sequence or an equivalent one then you have partnership understanding that needs to be disclosed. >Also, someone (Marv, I think) gave an example in which part of what he >knows about partner's bid comes from (in his opinion) "general >knowledge and experience" and need not be disclosed. Others seem to >think he should disclose it. *My* dilemma is that it appears to me that >either the clause "need not disclose general bridge knowledge" is >either meaningful (there are some things that need not be disclosed) or >it is not. If it is not, it should be stricken from the law. If it is, >then I need to know what the "some things" are - and I don't. > >At one club game I attend, which started out as a purely novice game, >and only in the last year or so became open, the TD typically gives a >20 minute "mini-lesson" before the game. When I think of anyone trying >to teach folks there (most of whom are still pretty close to novice) >the requirements of full disclosure, well, the mind boggles. :-( I do not agree with you at all. The principle of Full Disclosure is simple, and novices can understand it *easily*. The principle of hiding some of your agreements by claiming they are not 'special' is very complex, and I do not think your novices would understand it. They would probably think it cheating once Full Disclosure has been explained to them. -- 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 Dec 18 20:17:23 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:17:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: <001e01c3c597$7f34b4c0$7d053dd4@c6l8v1> Message-ID: <30C87A53-3197-11D8-8884-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Dec 18, 2003, at 13:41 US/Eastern, Ben Schelen wrote: > I do not remember the correct auction, but this casual BB behaviour > happened: > west north east south > ?? pass ?? pass > ?? pass pass double > ?? pass pass tapping on the double card > > whereupon everybody removed the bidding cards. > The contract was defeated and south claimed to have doubled. > EW summoned the TD. > > Your ruling please. Wiser heads than I have said, in effect, that folks deviating from proper procedure in this way is no big deal and ought to be overlooked. I'm not so sure about that - and this is the reason. But it seems clear to me that, if such deviations cause problems, then they *cannot* be overlooked. I rule that tapping the double card does not constitute making a double, but that neither is picking up the bidding cards without putting out three consecutive pass cards. South should have called the TD when that happened. I inform the table of the proper procedure, and suggest they use it in future. I am tempted to issue PPs to both sides (if I issue one to EW, I can't very well *not* issue one to NS, in spite of the fact that NS will undoubtedly feel they've already been punished by my disallowing the double). From blml@blakjak.com Thu Dec 18 20:17:43 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:17:43 +0000 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: <001e01c3c597$7f34b4c0$7d053dd4@c6l8v1> References: <000501c3c526$464bd5b0$6401a8c0@hare> <9786B3E6-3133-11D8-A01A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <001e01c3c597$7f34b4c0$7d053dd4@c6l8v1> Message-ID: Ben Schelen wrote >> >> I really do not mind that people are a little casual in their final >> pass so long as they do something positive. Touching an existing pass >> card seems commonest around here. It is unambiguous, so while not >> proper procedure it is tolerated, and seems similar to saying "spade" as >> declarer to ask for dummy's lowest spade. To be honest, that is what I >> do. >> >> But it should be positive: tapping, saying pass, giving a wave, or >> whatever: taking the bidding cards away has led to problems [discussed >> many many months ago on BLML]. >> >> Worst of all is sitting there like a lemon waiting for partner to lead >> - or just thinking about your own lead while everyone else is politely >> waiting for you to call. That is extremely rude as well as poor >> procedure. >> >> To be honest, when someone is clearly thinking - and then takes the >> cards away it does not cause problems. >> >> There is one authority [Denmark? the Netherlands? Belgium?] which >> has a reg to cover these abnormal final passes. Very sensible. >> >> >I do not remember the correct auction, but this casual BB behaviour >happened: >west north east south >?? pass ?? pass >?? pass pass double >?? pass pass tapping on the double card > >whereupon everybody removed the bidding cards. >The contract was defeated and south claimed to have doubled. >EW summoned the TD. > >Your ruling please. The contract was undoubled. We know that as otherwise three passes have gone missing. -- 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 Dec 18 20:21:34 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:21:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: <000001c3c59d$77a25310$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Thursday, Dec 18, 2003, at 14:30 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > Any doubt must be resolved against the only player at the table who > did not > adhere to protocol. South is not the only player who did not adhere to protocol. Unless by protocol you mean "the regulations and common deviations therefrom". From adam@irvine.com Thu Dec 18 20:23:54 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:23:54 -0800 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:50:41 PST." <005d01c3c597$d7f691a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <200312182023.MAA28212@mailhub.irvine.com> Marv wrote: > Here's an objective regulation: If you take a bid card out of the box, the > call cannot be changed unless (1) the opponents let you change it (with the > TD's permission), or (2) the TD judges that the call is so odd that the claim > of inadvertency is likely to be valid. As with BITs, the director may have to > make a difficult decision, but that's part of the job. I would be very much opposed to a regulation worded like this. At the very least, the point at which a call cannot be changed must give a player who is paying attention enough opportunity to notice that the card pulled out of the bid box is not the card he intended to pull out. Otherwise, if a player makes a mechanical error and pulls the wrong card out, even a careful player likely wouldn't notice it until the card is all the way out of the box (since the large rank and denomination on the bidding cards is nearest the lower edge), and a legalistic opponent could use the regulation to insist that the mispulled card should stand. Furthermore, if a player grasps a bidding card and another one is stuck to it (a very common problem), you pretty much have to pull the card all the way out of the box to shake off the one that's stuck---and an opponent could argue that since the stuck card was taken "out of the box" it should stand as the call made. We want to encourage players to pay attention, and it's definitely important that players decide on a call before they try to pull the card. But at the same time we don't want to penalize mechanical errors (except perhaps when someone should have noticed he was making a mechanical error and wasn't paying adequate attention). Actually, the biggest problem with the "objective regulation" above is that it contradicts Law 25. Regulations may be able to define what constitutes a call, but they can't define when a call can be changed, since the Laws do that. -- Adam From henk@ripe.net Thu Dec 18 20:38:36 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:38:36 +0100 (CET) Subject: [blml] Welcome to Bridge_Methods_Disclosure In-Reply-To: <1071770842.278.69800.m17@yahoogroups.com> References: <1071770842.278.69800.m17@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: Hi all, > Welcome to the Bridge_Methods_Disclosure group at Yahoo! Groups, a free, > easy-to-use email group service. Please take a moment to review this > message. I've removed the blml@rtflb.org from this list again. I don't like lists being subscribed to other lists, as it makes it hard to administrate the lists. If you want to receive messages from the Bridge_Methods_Disclosure list, subscribe to it yourself. Whoever did this, please don't do it again. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Dec 18 14:19:56 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:19:56 +0000 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031218083722.00a05400@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <419D3669-3165-11D8-B69C-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> --Apple-Mail-18--1039283496 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On Thursday, December 18, 2003, at 01:44 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > Q: What does she need to think you will make game? > A: Whatever she thinks is enough (refusing to disclose "general > knowledge and experience"). It seems to me that what she thinks you will need to make game depends not only on general knowledge and experience, but also on her specific knowledge and experience of your partnership's opening bid style. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK --Apple-Mail-18--1039283496 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=US-ASCII On Thursday, December 18, 2003, at 01:44 PM, Eric Landau wrote: Q: What does she need to think you will make game? A: Whatever she thinks is enough (refusing to disclose "general knowledge and experience"). It seems to me that what she thinks you will need to make game depends not only on general knowledge and experience, but also on her specific knowledge and experience of your partnership's opening bid style. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK --Apple-Mail-18--1039283496-- From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Dec 18 15:08:36 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:08:36 +0000 Subject: [blml] Bridge Proprieties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <0DC2BE0C-316C-11D8-B69C-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> --Apple-Mail-20--1036364015 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On Thursday, December 18, 2003, at 01:46 AM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Surely I am not the only one who feels guilty > about benefiting from an inadvertent revoke, Do you also feel guilty about benefiting from other forms of inadvertent mis-card? If not, what is the distinction? > and then having Law 72B3 directing me to avoid > informing the opponents about my irregular > windfall? It doesn't direct you not to. It allows you not to. If you feel guilty, go ahead and inform them. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK --Apple-Mail-20--1036364015 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=US-ASCII On Thursday, December 18, 2003, at 01:46 AM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: Surely I am not the only one who feels guilty about benefiting from an inadvertent revoke, Do you also feel guilty about benefiting from other forms of inadvertent mis-card? If not, what is the distinction? and then having Law 72B3 directing me to avoid informing the opponents about my irregular windfall? It doesn't direct you not to. It allows you not to. If you feel guilty, go ahead and inform them. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK --Apple-Mail-20--1036364015-- From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Dec 18 21:27:20 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:27:20 -0000 Subject: Concentric circles - was Re: [blml] Be alert but ... References: <000b01c3c53b$3628ed20$1f3ee150@endicott> Message-ID: <001901c3c5ad$f8d923e0$8a5f87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 3:36 PM Subject: Re: Concentric circles - was Re: [blml] Be alert but ... > Grattan Endicott wrote >> > Let us remember what generates this argument. > It is that some people believe that players have a > *right* to refuse to answer questions as to their > agreements. > > In my view there does need to be a very high > expectation that opponents know what you play > before you refuse to answer - and even then, > why should you? > +=+ I think I would put it more strongly than that. If general bridge knowledge would allow that the understanding in question could be agreed one way rather than another, even though the two possibilities are only marginally different, then an answer must be given. If a player doggedly refuses to answer he must be indisputably justified in arguing that there is only one possible understanding as the world at large knows.. If the Director considers there is a doubt about that he must rule against him if there is the slightest possibility that the potential for agreeing an alternative expectation, however slight, could affect judgement by an opponent of his action.. And , of course, if the Director is called and in adjusting the dispute (Law 81C9) instructs the player that he must answer, should he not then comply promptly Law 90B8 applies and Law 12A1. The basic point: Law 75C makes the distinction between what he learns from playing with this partner ('partnership experience') and 'general experience' which - to be 'general' - is experience gained from the world at large around him. It is from this latter area of experience that he must be able to say 'everybody knows that' and 'only this one understanding of the call/play can be entertained'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Dec 18 21:35:11 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:35:11 -0000 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) References: <419D3669-3165-11D8-B69C-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <003501c3c5af$009f62a0$8a5f87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott Cc: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 2:19 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) > > It seems to me that what she thinks you will need to make > game depends not only on general knowledge and > experience, but also on her specific knowledge and > experience of your partnership's opening bid style. > +=+ And skill in playing the cards :-) +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Dec 18 21:36:32 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:36:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] I broke L7B1. References: <3FE16663.3060007@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001401c3c5af$80448a30$ed12e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 8:33 AM Subject: [blml] I broke L7B1. > Meanwhile, I still haven't seen my cards, and now I put > down dummy one by one, sorting them as they go. > They include six hearts to QJ so we score +650 as > opposed to +450 (4H+1) round the room. > > Would you fine me for passing (twice) without having > looked at my card, in direct contravention of L7B1? > +=+ We had no experience of Herman when we wrote that law. :-) But 10% of the top will do. ~ G ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Thu Dec 18 21:43:47 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:43:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Welcome to Bridge_Methods_Disclosure In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000601c3c5b0$04c37460$6900a8c0@WINXP> Thanks! I was on the point of suggesting that you should blacklist this = submitter so that those ads would not even make it to blml. Maybe you can filter on = the subject and moderate? Is this "Bridge_Methods_Disclosure group" genuine? = (I took it to be yet another SPAM) Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = Henk > Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) > Sent: 18. desember 2003 21:39 > To: Bridge_Methods_Disclosure Moderator > Cc: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Welcome to Bridge_Methods_Disclosure >=20 >=20 > Hi all, >=20 > > Welcome to the Bridge_Methods_Disclosure group at Yahoo! Groups, a = free, > > easy-to-use email group service. Please take a moment to review this > > message. >=20 > I've removed the blml@rtflb.org from this list again. I don't like = lists > being subscribed to other lists, as it makes it hard to administrate = the > lists. If you want to receive messages from the = Bridge_Methods_Disclosure > list, subscribe to it yourself. >=20 > Whoever did this, please don't do it again. >=20 > Henk >=20 >=20 > = -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - > ---- > 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 > = -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - > ---- >=20 > That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP = NOC) >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Thu Dec 18 21:47:03 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:47:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000701c3c5b0$7970d6e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > On Thursday, Dec 18, 2003, at 14:30 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: >=20 > > Any doubt must be resolved against the only player at the=20 > > table who did not adhere to protocol. >=20 > South is not the only player who did not adhere to protocol. Unless by > protocol you mean "the regulations and common deviations therefrom". Sorry, you lost me. In what way did the other three players violate = protocol here? Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Dec 18 22:56:46 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 08:56:46 +1000 Subject: Concentric circles - was Re: [blml] Be alert but ... Message-ID: >+=3D+ I think the useful distinction is what >it is fair to expect 'everybody' to know >in the circle where you are playing. >In the local bridge club that will be what >'everybody' plays there, in an event >with players from all round the world it >will be significantly less that you can take >for granted. There are levels between. > The need for care in ensuring opponents >understand actually increases as the level >of the game is raised. > ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ RJH: Now all that needs to be defined is what Grattan means by 'everybody'. Since Grattan deliberately put the word in quotes, then presumably the literal definition of everybody is not what Grattan intends. Suppose this hypothetical scenario occurs: Marv and Alice visit the South Canberra Bridge Club. Marv: "Please explain your auction." RJH: "Shan't. 'Everybody' here knows all about the Symmetric Relay system." Marv: "Director!" TD: "Marv, you are fined a top for asking a question infracting the 'general knowledge' restriction of Law 75C." :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Dec 18 22:01:28 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:01:28 -0500 Subject: [blml] Welcome to Bridge_Methods_Disclosure In-Reply-To: <1071770842.278.69800.m17@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031218165735.00a8e5e0@pop.starpower.net> At 01:07 PM 12/18/03, Bridge_Methods_Disclosure wrote: >Hello, > >Welcome to the Bridge_Methods_Disclosure group at Yahoo! Groups, a >free, easy-to-use email group service. Please >take a moment to review this message. > >To learn more about the Bridge_Methods_Disclosure group, please visit >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bridge_Methods_Disclosure > >To start sending messages to members of this group, simply >send email to >Bridge_Methods_Disclosure@yahoogroups.com > >If you do not wish to belong to Bridge_Methods_Disclosure, you may >unsubscribe by sending an email to >Bridge_Methods_Disclosure-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > >To see and modify all of your groups, go to >http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups > > >Regards, > >Moderator, Bridge_Methods_Disclosure I do not think we (BLML subscribers) necessarily want to receive e-mails posted to this group, which appears to have registered the BLML address as a "subscriber". Since anyone in this group can subscribe to that one separately, shouldn't the BLML address be "unsubscribed" from it? 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 Dec 18 22:05:42 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:05:42 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: <001e01c3c597$7f34b4c0$7d053dd4@c6l8v1> References: <000501c3c526$464bd5b0$6401a8c0@hare> <9786B3E6-3133-11D8-A01A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031218170222.00a25240@pop.starpower.net> At 01:41 PM 12/18/03, Ben wrote: >I do not remember the correct auction, but this casual BB behaviour >happened: >west north east south >?? pass ?? pass >?? pass pass double >?? pass pass tapping on the double card > >whereupon everybody removed the bidding cards. >The contract was defeated and south claimed to have doubled. >EW summoned the TD. > >Your ruling please. If South chooses not to follow correct procedure, it becomes his responsibility to insure that whatever he did was understood by the other players at the table. I take it, from the fact that the TD was called, that at least one of them took the table-tapping for a pass, which is entirely reasonable. I rule that the contract was not doubled. 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 Thu Dec 18 22:05:35 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:05:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4E653282-31A6-11D8-8884-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Dec 18, 2003, at 15:15 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > I do not suggest anyone should say anything they do not know from > their partnership experience. If a sequence is undiscussed, or has > never turned up, then the player says so. But hiding behind 'it is > not a *special* agreement' is what I object to. Okay. What makes an agreement "special"? Are *all* agreements special? Only some? What's the difference? > I do not agree with you at all. The principle of Full Disclosure is > simple, and novices can understand it *easily*. The principle of > hiding some of your agreements by claiming they are not 'special' is > very complex, and I do not think your novices would understand it. > They would probably think it cheating once Full Disclosure has been > explained to them. Maybe I'm a lousy teacher. Or maybe, as you seem to be saying, the principle of full disclosure is that you disclose everything you know (or suspect) and there is no such thing as "general bridge knowledge" which need not be disclosed. Folks say the latter is not the case, but nobody has been able to tell me where the line is drawn. And if *I* can't figure it out, I know damn well there's a lot of people at that club who can't. For the record, I am not attempting to hide anything from anyone, and I shall become irate if anyone suggests I am. I am trying to understand the disclosure rules, which don't seem to be as simple as you say they are. From walt1@verizon.net Thu Dec 18 22:10:34 2003 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:10:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: <256B3084-3134-11D8-A01A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <6.0.1.1.0.20031218002538.03373d10@incoming.verizon.net> <256B3084-3134-11D8-A01A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.0.20031218170324.03e62630@incoming.verizon.net> >On Thursday, Dec 18, 2003, at 00:44 US/Eastern, Walt wrote: >>I talked to Milliard afterward and he told me that, for I believe about >>two years now, ACBL tournament directors have been instructed to rule >>that the bid has been made only after the card has been placed on the >>table and released. At 03:28 AM 18/12/2003, Ed Reppert wrote: >This is one of the problems I have with the way the ACBL does things. >Where does this instruction originate? As you say, it isn't based on the >existing regulation, so either (a) whichever ACBL body is responsible for >this regulation (LC? Other?) has changed it, and the word hasn't gotten >out or (b) the regulation is as stated, and somebody in (probably) the TD >hierarchy has decided to do it his way, and the hell with the regulation. >Either situation is unacceptable, as far as I'm concerned. Ed To pick a nit, I didn't say whether or not it was based on the existing regulation. I thought the ruling probably was based on the existing regulation only they had neither told us about it nor updated the posting on their web site where we supposedly can find out what their regulations are. In either case, of course, there is a problem with the way the ACBL does things. As I am writing this I am struck by the thought that this, to my mind, very closely parallels the criticisms that have been voiced here about the WBF not publicizing changes in the laws. Walt From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Dec 18 22:25:16 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:25:16 -0500 Subject: Concentric circles - was Re: [blml] Be alert but ... In-Reply-To: <001901c3c5ad$f8d923e0$8a5f87d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <0E4650AF-31A9-11D8-8884-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Dec 18, 2003, at 16:27 US/Eastern, grandeval wrote: > It is from this latter area of experience that he must > be able to say 'everybody knows that' "If 'everybody knows' such-and-such, then it ain't so." Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love > and 'only this one understanding of the call/play can be > entertained'. "Forgive him Theodotus, for he is a barbarian, and believes that the customs of his tribe are the laws of nature." G.B. Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra To Hell with it. I will disclose what I *know* from partnership agreement. I will not disclose what I *assume*, unless based on previous partnership experience. Rule against me as you will. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Dec 18 22:27:39 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:27:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: <000701c3c5b0$7970d6e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6379B600-31A9-11D8-8884-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Dec 18, 2003, at 16:47 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > Sorry, you lost me. In what way did the other three players violate > protocol > here? Well, maybe they didn't. But if South doubled, surely there should then follow three passes? And if South thought he doubled, and there did not follow three passes, surely he should call the director and suggest that the other three players at the table have violated protocol? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Dec 18 22:33:07 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:33:07 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.0.20031218170324.03e62630@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <26ADC95B-31AA-11D8-8884-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Dec 18, 2003, at 17:10 US/Eastern, Walt wrote: > To pick a nit, I didn't say whether or not it was based on the > existing regulation. You said "This is certainly different from what you quote from the ACBL web site which is the regulation as I had previously understood it." > As I am writing this I am struck by the thought that this, to my mind, > very closely parallels the criticisms that have been voiced here about > the WBF not publicizing changes in the laws. Heh. No kidding. :-) From walt1@verizon.net Thu Dec 18 23:00:39 2003 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:00:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <006701c3c59a$a5bf02a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <002301c3c458$36c2ad40$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <000401c3c4c1$23872ee0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <6.0.1.1.0.20031217221932.050b2e10@incoming.verizon.net> <006701c3c59a$a5bf02a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.0.20031218175752.032323b0@incoming.verizon.net> At 02:08 PM 18/12/2003, Marvin French wrote: >From: "Walt" > > > > For me only one of those hands would be a weak two in my most frequent > > partnership, but four of the hands would be weak two's in my second most > > frequent partnership. > > > > Indeed, saying that partner making a weak two was "just bridge" and getting > > away with it would be a travesty of justice. > >In ACBL-land the nature of weak two bids is supposed to be roughly described >on the CC. If that nature is somewhat uncommon (e.g., extremely aggressive), >either a Pre-Alert before the cards are removed from the board or an Alert of >the weak two bid is in order. > >The Bailey Weak Two Bid, popular hereabouts, is Alertable because of its >uncommon requirements: 5 or 6-card suit, any strength, 8-11 HCP, at least 2-3 >cards in any unbid major, no void, and maybe more that I can't remember right >now. > >Minor deviations from the CC based on style and/or judgment are both legal >and expected of weak two bidders. Marv I agree with all that you say. But aren't you required to answer questions as to what type of hand partnership experience leads you to expect partner to have for the bid made? Walt From blml@blakjak.com Thu Dec 18 23:48:00 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 23:48:00 +0000 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <4E653282-31A6-11D8-8884-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <4E653282-31A6-11D8-8884-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote >On Thursday, Dec 18, 2003, at 15:15 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > >> I do not suggest anyone should say anything they do not know from >>their partnership experience. If a sequence is undiscussed, or has >>never turned up, then the player says so. But hiding behind 'it is >>not a *special* agreement' is what I object to. > >Okay. What makes an agreement "special"? Are *all* agreements special? >Only some? What's the difference? All agreements between you and your partner are special to your partnership unless they are general agreements that everyone has. So, to quote someone else, I am more likely to psyche when 50 imps down is a general agreement: it is nothing to do with your partnership: when I open a weak two I tend to have a weaker hand than you do is a special agreement between me and my partner. >> I do not agree with you at all. The principle of Full Disclosure >>is simple, and novices can understand it *easily*. The principle of >>hiding some of your agreements by claiming they are not 'special' is >>very complex, and I do not think your novices would understand it. >>They would probably think it cheating once Full Disclosure has been >>explained to them. > >Maybe I'm a lousy teacher. Or maybe, as you seem to be saying, the >principle of full disclosure is that you disclose everything you know >(or suspect) and there is no such thing as "general bridge knowledge" >which need not be disclosed. Folks say the latter is not the case, but >nobody has been able to tell me where the line is drawn. And if *I* >can't figure it out, I know damn well there's a lot of people at that >club who can't. Several people have already given examples in this thread. For example, a 3NT bid on the third round of bidding usually does not show anything specific, and it is general bridge knowledge that it is an attempt to play in 3NT and the player thinks it may be the best spot. >For the record, I am not attempting to hide anything from anyone, and I >shall become irate if anyone suggests I am. I am trying to understand >the disclosure rules, which don't seem to be as simple as you say they >are. I do not suggest any one person is doing so: I am worried that some people *are* hiding things unfairly, but not necessarily realising they should not. -- 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 Dec 18 23:51:13 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 23:51:13 +0000 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: <6379B600-31A9-11D8-8884-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <000701c3c5b0$7970d6e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <6379B600-31A9-11D8-8884-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote >On Thursday, Dec 18, 2003, at 16:47 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > >> Sorry, you lost me. In what way did the other three players violate >>protocol >> here? > >Well, maybe they didn't. But if South doubled, surely there should then >follow three passes? And if South thought he doubled, and there did not >follow three passes, surely he should call the director and suggest >that the other three players at the table have violated protocol? ... which is how we 'know' he did not double and rule that the contract was not doubled. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From svenpran@online.no Fri Dec 19 00:20:55 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 01:20:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: <6379B600-31A9-11D8-8884-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c3c5c5$f8821650$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > > Sorry, you lost me. In what way did the other three players violate > > protocol > > here? > > Well, maybe they didn't. But if South doubled, surely there should then > follow three passes? And if South thought he doubled, and there did not > follow three passes, surely he should call the director and suggest > that the other three players at the table have violated protocol? The given evidence led me to believe that three players understood South tapping his last bid card to simply indicate that he ended the auction. So they all assumed that South in fact did pass and consequently they restored their own bid cards to the boxes. I see nothing wrong in that on behalf of those three players, they had no reason to make another call after South indicated his closing pass. Exactly as you stated: If South really intended to double he should have reacted when all the other players simply restored their bid cards instead of passing out the double. Sven From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Dec 19 00:35:50 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:35:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4B8BC6AD-31BB-11D8-8884-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Dec 18, 2003, at 18:51 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > ... which is how we 'know' he did not double and rule that the > contract was not doubled. OTOH, if someone had said something at the time, the TD would have been called, and since he made no legal call at all, he should still have the opportunity to double, no? This is why I feel the bidding cards should be left on the table until the final contract is explicitly agreed and the opening lead is faced. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Dec 19 00:39:06 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:39:06 -0500 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thursday, Dec 18, 2003, at 18:48 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > Several people have already given examples in this thread. For > example, a 3NT bid on the third round of bidding usually does not show > anything specific, and it is general bridge knowledge that it is an > attempt to play in 3NT and the player thinks it may be the best spot. Some examples are more helpful than others. IAC, examples aren't definitive. Never mind, I've made my bed (in another message). From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Dec 19 02:02:35 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:02:35 +1000 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) Message-ID: Richard Hills said, elsethread, that: >>1. Special partnership agreements (implicit or explicit) >> >>are defined as >> >>Specific partnership understandings (implicit or explicit) Ed Reppert responded: >If I understand this correctly, *any* understanding I have >with my partner about the meaning of calls or plays is >disclosable. Richard Hills rebid: Correct. That is my "three bags full" disclosure style. Ed Reppert raised: >And I gather that if we have ever discussed it, or it's ever >come up at the table, we have an understanding. I'm not sure >I buy that. I've had partners nod sagely and agree with what >I say when we discuss some sequence or other - and then >continue to merrily bid the way *they* think it should be >bid. That ain't any kind of understanding in my book. >Especially considering I rarely know whether any given >sequence is one of these, or one which he really will bid >the way we've agreed. Richard Hills signed off: Now we come to what is meant by a *mutual* partnership understanding. I agree with Ed (and disagree with the De Wael School) that a call *one* partner thinks has a particular intended meaning, does not necessarily demonstrate that *both* members of the partnership have an agreement about the meaning of the call. Example: My partner issues the ukase that a particular call's meaning is as defined on page 87 of Goren's Bridge Complete. I say, "Yes, pard." But neither before nor after this discussion do I bother reading page 87. In that case, we do *not* have that partnership agreement, despite pard believing that we do. And if pard informs the opponents of our page 87 "agreement", pard has given MI. Best wishes RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From walt1@verizon.net Fri Dec 19 01:33:39 2003 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:33:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: <4B8BC6AD-31BB-11D8-8884-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <4B8BC6AD-31BB-11D8-8884-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.0.20031218202831.03207680@incoming.verizon.net> At 07:35 PM 18/12/2003, Ed Reppert wrote: >On Thursday, Dec 18, 2003, at 18:51 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > >> ... which is how we 'know' he did not double and rule that the contract >> was not doubled. > >OTOH, if someone had said something at the time, the TD would have been >called, and since he made no legal call at all, he should still have the >opportunity to double, no? > >This is why I feel the bidding cards should be left on the table until the >final contract is explicitly agreed and the opening lead is faced. And, of course, for the bidding cards to "be left on the table" they must first have been placed there, which the perhaps doubler did not do in this case. Also, I really get tired of people picking up their bidding cards because a game has been bid and before I have made my call. Walt From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Dec 19 02:28:26 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:28:26 +1000 Subject: [blml] I broke L7B1. Message-ID: Sven Pran: [snip] >However, I assume that you did in fact count your cards. > >But I would not penalize you for failing to inspect your >cards before making a call. I feel that we are dealing >with technicalities here and if we are to be technical we >should be technical all the way. Richard James Hills: Technically, the experienced Herman De Wael is setting a bad example to bunny players by failing to follow proper procedure. Therefore, I join DWS in giving Herman the verbal PP of a "Tut, tut." Sven Pran: >Law 28A essentially leaves you entirely out of the >auction; consequently you no longer "must inspect your >cards before making a call" because you do not have to >make any call. [snip] Richard James Hills: Tut, tut, Sven. Merely because the raison d'etre of Law 7B1 is absent in this particular situation does *not* mean the Law is not the Law. Next you will be arguing that once 7NT is redoubled, the opening lead can be made instantly, rather than waiting for the automatic three passes first. I would still argue that such a premature opening lead remains a Law 24B irregularity, and can therefore attract a Law 90A PP. :-) Best wishes RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From John Mac Gregor" Message-ID: <009d01c3c5d4$5641d740$11070f0a@amnet.co.cr> Richard said: Surely I am not the only one who feels guilty about benefiting from an inadvertent revoke, and then having Law 72B3 directing me to avoid informing the opponents about my irregular windfall? John replies: And I heartily agree with Richard's point here. We must be careful when dealing with the ethics of this game. I was brought up under the impression that it is one of ladies and gentlemen (o damas y caballeros). John A. MacGregor, Chief Tournament Director Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation San Jose, Costa Rica johnmacg@racsa.co.cr www.cacbf.com ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 7:46 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Bridge Proprieties http://blakjak.com/lwz_prop.htm The ACBL District 16 page (reproduced on David Stevenson's Lawspage - url above), contains many sound summaries exegising etiquette. However, in its final summary, the District 16 author felt compelled to add the word "But". This word "But" suggested that one etiquette Law had an inconsistent philosophy compared to other etiquette Laws: >But it is not your duty to call attention to >your own breach of law, such as a revoke made >by you or your partner. Yes, the Law in question is my hermeneutical hobby-horse, Law 72B3. Surely I am not the only one who feels guilty about benefiting from an inadvertent revoke, and then having Law 72B3 directing me to avoid informing the opponents about my irregular windfall? :-( Best wishes Richard James Hills ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA). DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From adam@irvine.com Fri Dec 19 02:30:35 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:30:35 -0800 Subject: [blml] I broke L7B1. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:28:26 +1000." Message-ID: <200312190230.SAA09526@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard Hills wrote: > Tut, tut, Sven. Merely because the raison d'etre of Law > 7B1 is absent in this particular situation does *not* > mean the Law is not the Law. Next you will be arguing > that once 7NT is redoubled, the opening lead can be made > instantly, rather than waiting for the automatic three > passes first. I would still argue that such a premature > opening lead remains a Law 24B irregularity, and can > therefore attract a Law 90A PP. > > :-) > > Best wishes > > RJH I think there may be some holes in the Laws related to Law 28A. This Law basically gives you the right to make a call when it's your RHO's turn to call but your RHO is required by Law to pass. So say West deals but East opens 1NT out of turn. The TD is called and rules that West is barred from the auction. So West passes, North passes, East opens 3NT (may as well hope for the best), South passes, North now passes instead of waiting for West. Now does South get to lead? No, according to Law 41A, since there has not been a call followed by three passes in rotation. So South has to wait until East, who has bought the contract, makes an irrelevant pass. To me, this violates the "no silly results" principle I mentioned once on r.g.b: "If an interpretation of a rule leads to silly consequences, the interpretation is necessarily wrong". I'd apply the principle in the same way after 7NT is redoubled and someone leads without waiting for everyone to pass. -- Adam From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Dec 19 03:24:11 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:24:11 -0500 Subject: [blml] I broke L7B1. In-Reply-To: <200312190230.SAA09526@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: On Thursday, Dec 18, 2003, at 21:30 US/Eastern, Adam Beneschan wrote: > I think there may be some holes in the Laws related to Law 28A. This > Law basically gives you the right to make a call when it's your RHO's > turn to call but your RHO is required by Law to pass. I read this law as saying that when it is your RHO's turn to call, and he is required to pass, he either passes, or if he says (does) nothing, is deemed to have passed. At which point you are certainly permitted to call - it's your turn. This interpretation neatly avoids the "their weren't three passes" problem you suggested. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Dec 19 04:30:28 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:30:28 +1000 Subject: [blml] 7NT redoubled (was I broke L7B1) Message-ID: Adam Beneschan: [snip] >To me, this violates the "no silly results" principle >I mentioned once on r.g.b: "If an interpretation of a >rule leads to silly consequences, the interpretation >is necessarily wrong". > >I'd apply the principle in the same way after 7NT is >redoubled and someone leads without waiting for >everyone to pass. Richard James Hills: Merely because a contract is temporarily resting at 7NT redoubled does *not* necessarily mean that the final contract will be 7NT redoubled. One of the three players who is supposed to call an "automatic" Pass may inadvertently call an insufficient bid instead. And their LHO may accept their insufficient bid. :-) Best wishes RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Dec 19 04:56:49 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:56:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box Message-ID: Ed Reppert asked: >So, if Law 18F takes precedence, the questions are > >(1) why have the provision in Law 80E/F? and > >(2) what of the WBF, which isn't a ZO? If Law 80E/F >takes precedence then why have Law 18F at all? Richard James Hills replies: Law 18 (and Laws 19A2, 19B2, 20A) assumes that the default for auctions is spoken bidding. Therefore, presumably Law 18F was included to given ZOs the power to vary a spoken "Pass" to their cultural alternative of a spoken "No Bid". Law 80E allows an SO to change the default to written bidding (the South Pacific option) or to change the default to bidding boxes, etc. Of course, in recent decades bridge culture has changed. Instead of spoken bidding being the most popular tournament option, bidding boxes are the most popular tournament option. Therefore, it would make sense to rewrite the Laws in 2005 to make bidding boxes the default assumption, and include spoken bidding as one of the Law 80E options. The 2005 Laws could then include basic parameters for bidding box use, including some definition of when a call is made. Best wishes RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Dec 19 05:33:15 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 00:33:15 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thursday, Dec 18, 2003, at 23:56 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Therefore, > presumably Law 18F was included to given ZOs the > power to vary a spoken "Pass" to their cultural > alternative of a spoken "No Bid". If that was the intended limit of the law's delegation of power, presumably the law would have said so. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Dec 19 05:38:14 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 00:38:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8A2C6E32-31E5-11D8-8884-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Thanks, Roger, I needed that. :-) Anyway, I've decided what I will do. If it gets me in trouble, so be it. From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Fri Dec 19 02:15:58 2003 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 02:15:58 -0000 Subject: Concentric circles - was Re: [blml] Be alert but ... References: <0E4650AF-31A9-11D8-8884-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000401c3c603$e98cdbb0$28182850@multivisionoem> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 10:25 PM Subject: Re: Concentric circles - was Re: [blml] Be alert but ... > To Hell with it. I will disclose what I *know* > from partnership agreement. I will not disclose > what I *assume*, unless based on previous > partnership experience. Rule against me as > you will. > +=+ Yes - and if you know it you must speak to it unless it is something that your opponent, like you, will know because it is a matter of *general* experience in the bridge world at large and not something that your partnership has chosen, explicitly or implicitly, from alternative possible meanings or expectations of the same action, be it call or play. ~ G ~ +=+ From roger-eymard@wanadoo.fr Fri Dec 19 07:49:37 2003 From: roger-eymard@wanadoo.fr (Roger Eymard) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 08:49:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) References: Message-ID: <003001c3c604$a6b31970$6400a8c0@supersuperbe> Richard Hills signed off: Now we come to what is meant by a *mutual* partnership understanding. I agree with Ed (and disagree with the De Wael School) that a call *one* partner thinks has a particular intended meaning, does not necessarily demonstrate that *both* members of the partnership have an agreement about the meaning of the call. Example: My partner issues the ukase that a particular call's meaning is as defined on page 87 of Goren's Bridge Complete. I say, "Yes, pard." But neither before nor after this discussion do I bother reading page 87. In that case, we do *not* have that partnership agreement, despite pard believing that we do. And if pard informs the opponents of our page 87 "agreement", pard has given MI. Roger Eymard observes : In France, and probably in many other countries, the NBO rules that the two members of a partnership must use the same system and the same conventions. So, there is in that case not only MI, but a PP as well, whatever the issue of the MI. I seems that Goren's Bridge Complete would be an appropriate Xmas gift-:) Roger From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Dec 19 08:48:22 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:48:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3FE2BB56.8050702@hdw.be> Please Richard, don't attribute things to a DeWael school (which does not even exist), certainly not when you're talking of something entirely different. richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > Richard Hills said, elsethread, that: > > > > Now we come to what is meant by a *mutual* partnership > understanding. I agree with Ed (and disagree with the De Wael > School) that a call *one* partner thinks has a particular > intended meaning, does not necessarily demonstrate that *both* > members of the partnership have an agreement about the meaning > of the call. > The De Wael school says no such thing. The DeWael school says that if this happens, the director may well rule that the agreement exists. Therefore, it is better (for the player) to not answer "I think it's this", but rather "It's this". The DeWael school gives this advice to players - you do with it what you want. > Example: My partner issues the ukase that a particular call's > meaning is as defined on page 87 of Goren's Bridge Complete. I > say, "Yes, pard." But neither before nor after this discussion > do I bother reading page 87. In that case, we do *not* have > that partnership agreement, despite pard believing that we do. > And if pard informs the opponents of our page 87 "agreement", > pard has given MI. > Maybe that's true, but it's hardly relevant. Of course if partner misexplains your intention, the TD is supposed to rule against him. you can claim misbid however, and the evidence from page 87 will be used in deciding this. But you won't say "we don't have this agreement" and be ruled against. You will say "indeed we have this agreement, but I forgot" and try for a ruling based on misbid. So the question above does not come up in real life. > Best wishes > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From blml@blakjak.com Fri Dec 19 12:58:33 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:58:33 +0000 Subject: Concentric circles - was Re: [blml] Be alert but ... In-Reply-To: <0E4650AF-31A9-11D8-8884-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <001901c3c5ad$f8d923e0$8a5f87d9@4nrw70j> <0E4650AF-31A9-11D8-8884-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote >To Hell with it. I will disclose what I *know* from partnership >agreement. I will not disclose what I *assume*, unless based on >previous partnership experience. Rule against me as you will. Let us actually go into what you are going to do, since the whole thing sounds utterly crazy, if not downright rude. If I am in England, where no-one has refused to answer a question of mine in twenty years, I might say: "What does 3S show?" I might get any sort of answer from "It shows six spades and a weak hand" to "I don't know: it has never come up before". Assuming you decide not to answer because you deem it general bridge knowledge - which I still find an incredible concept - what are you actually going to say? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Fri Dec 19 13:04:24 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 13:04:24 +0000 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1dcyLoEYdv4$EwTJ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Ed Reppert wrote >On Thursday, Dec 18, 2003, at 23:56 US/Eastern, >richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >> Therefore, >> presumably Law 18F was included to given ZOs the >> power to vary a spoken "Pass" to their cultural >> alternative of a spoken "No Bid". > >If that was the intended limit of the law's delegation of power, >presumably the law would have said so. In other comparable positions we have complained that the law-makers have failed to encompass enough of the possibilities, often because no-one had thought of them at the time. It seems a reasonable possibility that a Law was put in primarily for one purpose but written in a general way to cover other cases. -- 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 aplsi@starpower.net Fri Dec 19 13:13:50 2003 From: aplsi@starpower.net (APL Solutions Inc. (Eric Landau)) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 08:13:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <419D3669-3165-11D8-B69C-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk > References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031218083722.00a05400@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031219080427.00a0fec0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:19 AM 12/18/03, Gordon wrote: >On Thursday, December 18, 2003, at 01:44 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > >>Q: What does she need to think you will make game? >>A: Whatever she thinks is enough (refusing to disclose "general >>knowledge and experience"). > >It seems to me that what she thinks you will need to make game depends >not only on general knowledge and experience, but also on her specific >knowledge and experience of your partnership's opening bid style. Exactly right. Since "her specific knowledge and experience of [my] partnership's opening bid style" is readily available to the opponents by asking her about our agreements pertaining to my opening bid (it's up to her, not me, to disclose what *my* bids mean), what's left is my "general knowledge and experience". Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. aplsi@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Dec 19 13:24:56 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 08:24:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: References: <4E653282-31A6-11D8-8884-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <4E653282-31A6-11D8-8884-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031219081837.00a0ea20@pop.starpower.net> At 06:48 PM 12/18/03, David wrote: > Several people have already given examples in this thread. For > example, a 3NT bid on the third round of bidding usually does not > show anything specific, and it is general bridge knowledge that it is > an attempt to play in 3NT and the player thinks it may be the best spot. It may be, but if asked in that situation what 3NT means, I still have a choice between, "It is an attempt to play in 3NT; she thinks it is probably be the best spot," and, "That is a question about general knowledge and experience; I do not have to answer it," and will not only choose the former as a player, but as a TD deliver a strong lecture (or a penalty to a habitual offender) to anyone in my club who chooses the latter. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From nancy@dressing.org Fri Dec 19 14:15:52 2003 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:15:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box References: <6379B600-31A9-11D8-8884-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <00a501c3c63a$9c9e2ac0$6401a8c0@hare> Sounds to me like 4 players violated protocol by accepting a tap of the table as a call. Perhaps the tapper was "killing an insect", "removing a spot from the table', "suggesting annoyance at slow play", etc. Surely, he cannot be making a call as no card was placed on the table or no call was made verbally. This auction was still live until the opening lead was faced! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 5:27 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Bidding Box > > On Thursday, Dec 18, 2003, at 16:47 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > > > Sorry, you lost me. In what way did the other three players violate > > protocol > > here? > > Well, maybe they didn't. But if South doubled, surely there should then > follow three passes? And if South thought he doubled, and there did not > follow three passes, surely he should call the director and suggest > that the other three players at the table have violated protocol? > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From blml@blakjak.com Fri Dec 19 15:11:34 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:11:34 +0000 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: <00a501c3c63a$9c9e2ac0$6401a8c0@hare> References: <6379B600-31A9-11D8-8884-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <00a501c3c63a$9c9e2ac0$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: Nancy T Dressing wrote >Sounds to me like 4 players violated protocol by accepting a tap of the >table as a call. Perhaps the tapper was "killing an insect", "removing a >spot from the table', "suggesting annoyance at slow play", etc. Surely, he >cannot be making a call as no card was placed on the table or no call was >made verbally. This auction was still live until the opening lead was >faced! Yes, but this is *bridge*, not a semantic exercise at the University of Upper Volga. These hands are not held in isolation, but are part of a series, often known as a duplicate club night. If you want to do something generally about such methods, fine, but in the specific case, what are you going to do? If the players pass a contract out by [say] tapping the final pass card on about ten hands a night you either must do something about it generally, or more likely accept it as being a minor and reasonable failure to follow correct procedure. Now, if the wrong procedure leads to a problem, ok, then you tell them not to do it again. But when someone taps the table as has probably happened counting all the tables a dozen times already that night, and everyone takes it as a pass, then it is a pass, and there is little point doing much more about it. >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Ed Reppert" >To: "blml" >Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 5:27 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] Bidding Box >> On Thursday, Dec 18, 2003, at 16:47 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: >> >> > Sorry, you lost me. In what way did the other three players violate >> > protocol >> > here? >> >> Well, maybe they didn't. But if South doubled, surely there should then >> follow three passes? And if South thought he doubled, and there did not >> follow three passes, surely he should call the director and suggest >> that the other three players at the table have violated protocol? -- 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 Dec 19 15:12:00 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:12:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: <00a501c3c63a$9c9e2ac0$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <000001c3c642$74060a80$6900a8c0@WINXP> None of us can tell exactly and in detail what really happened.=20 >From the description I still assume that South "tapped" his last bid = card and then started to put all his bid cards back into the bid box. The = other three players cannot be criticized in any way for their follow-up to = South's action in putting their own bid cards back into their respective bid = boxes. But regardless of how things happened South is the only player to be = blamed (for not ascertaining that his alleged double was recognized by the = other players around the table).=20 His action (or lack of action) makes me pretty certain that only after = the play of the board was finished did he really intend to have doubled. Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Nancy T Dressing > Sent: 19. desember 2003 15:16 > To: Ed Reppert; blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Bidding Box >=20 > Sounds to me like 4 players violated protocol by accepting a tap of = the > table as a call. Perhaps the tapper was "killing an insect", = "removing a > spot from the table', "suggesting annoyance at slow play", etc. = Surely, > he > cannot be making a call as no card was placed on the table or no call = was > made verbally. This auction was still live until the opening lead was > faced! >=20 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ed Reppert" > To: "blml" > Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 5:27 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Bidding Box >=20 >=20 > > > > On Thursday, Dec 18, 2003, at 16:47 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > Sorry, you lost me. In what way did the other three players = violate > > > protocol > > > here? > > > > Well, maybe they didn't. But if South doubled, surely there should = then > > follow three passes? And if South thought he doubled, and there did = not > > follow three passes, surely he should call the director and suggest > > that the other three players at the table have violated protocol? > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Dec 19 15:41:38 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 10:41:38 -0500 Subject: Concentric circles - was Re: [blml] Be alert but ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Friday, Dec 19, 2003, at 07:58 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > Assuming you decide not to answer because you deem it general bridge > knowledge - which I still find an incredible concept - what are you > actually going to say? Disregarding your assumption, if my partner and I have discussed the meaning, I will state the agreement resulting from that discussion. If we've agreed to play basic Acol, and not discussed the specific call, I might say "we haven't discussed this call but we're playing basic Acol. If I remember correctly, 3S is preemptive here." Given your assumption, I'd simply say "we have no agreement". Or perhaps, if I'm feeling pedantic "we have no special partnership understanding or agreement". How is this rude? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Dec 19 15:44:17 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 10:44:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: <1dcyLoEYdv4$EwTJ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <345DF900-323A-11D8-93EC-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Dec 19, 2003, at 08:04 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > It seems a reasonable possibility that a Law was put in primarily for > one purpose but written in a general way to cover other cases. Possibility, yes. I was simply showing that Richard's chain of logic doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion he reached. :-) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Dec 19 15:51:22 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 10:51:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031219081837.00a0ea20@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <31EA1E77-323B-11D8-93EC-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Dec 19, 2003, at 08:24 US/Eastern, Eric Landau wrote: > It may be, but if asked in that situation what 3NT means, I still have > a choice between, "It is an attempt to play in 3NT; she thinks it is > probably be the best spot," and, "That is a question about general > knowledge and experience; I do not have to answer it," and will not > only choose the former as a player, but as a TD deliver a strong > lecture (or a penalty to a habitual offender) to anyone in my club who > chooses the latter. The law says you aren't required to give answers that are based on general knowledge. It doesn't say you can't. In option one, you've chosen to do so. If you choose *not* to do so, you should choose a different form than the one above. Your objective is to convey the information that you have no disclosable information about the call, not to provoke opponents. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Dec 19 16:00:56 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:00:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: <00a501c3c63a$9c9e2ac0$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <878A686E-323C-11D8-93EC-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Dec 19, 2003, at 09:15 US/Eastern, Nancy T Dressing wrote: > Sounds to me like 4 players violated protocol by accepting a tap of the > table as a call. Perhaps the tapper was "killing an insect", > "removing a > spot from the table', "suggesting annoyance at slow play", etc. > Surely, he > cannot be making a call as no card was placed on the table or no call > was > made verbally. This auction was still live until the opening lead was > faced! Either (a) South (I think it was South) doubled, or (b) he did not. If he did, there did not follow three consecutive passes. If he did not, then West has passed out of turn. In either case, the facing of an "opening lead" does not end the auction. It would make life easier perhaps if the TD could rule that South passed when he thought he'd doubled, but I don't think that's a legal ruling. From svenpran@online.no Fri Dec 19 16:20:45 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:20:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: <878A686E-323C-11D8-93EC-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c3c64c$0ecb3b40$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert ........... > Either (a) South (I think it was South) doubled,=20 > or (b) he did not. > If he did, there did not follow three consecutive=20 > passes. > If he did not, then West has passed out of turn. >=20 > In either case, the facing of an "opening lead"=20 > does not end the auction. .......... What and why are you arguing? May I remind you of the example that we are still discussing: quote (Ben Schelen) I do not remember the correct auction, but this casual BB behavior happened: west north east south ?? pass ?? pass ?? pass pass double ?? pass pass tapping on the double card whereupon everybody removed the bidding cards. The contract was defeated and south claimed to have doubled. EW summoned the TD. Your ruling please. End quote. Will you please clarify how West passed out of turn if we assume that = South did not double? And will you please give us your reasons for holding anybody but South responsible for the situation if South really intended his "tapping" to = mean another double when he did nothing to ascertain that the other players = had recognized this as a fact? And finally will you please clarify why the facing of the opening lead = did not end the auction? Are you arguing for the sake of the discussion or with an attempt to = reach a sensible conclusion? Sven From adam@irvine.com Fri Dec 19 16:31:27 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 08:31:27 -0800 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 19 Dec 2003 08:24:56 EST." <5.2.0.9.0.20031219081837.00a0ea20@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <200312191631.IAA05852@mailhub.irvine.com> Eric wrote: > At 06:48 PM 12/18/03, David wrote: > > > Several people have already given examples in this thread. For > > example, a 3NT bid on the third round of bidding usually does not > > show anything specific, and it is general bridge knowledge that it is > > an attempt to play in 3NT and the player thinks it may be the best spot. > > It may be, but if asked in that situation what 3NT means, I still have > a choice between, "It is an attempt to play in 3NT; she thinks it is > probably be the best spot," and, "That is a question about general > knowledge and experience; I do not have to answer it," and will not > only choose the former as a player, but as a TD deliver a strong > lecture (or a penalty to a habitual offender) to anyone in my club who > chooses the latter. A bit off-topic maybe, but this reminds me of a story that appeared in the ACBL Bulletin many years ago. The auction went 1NT-pass-3NT. Fourth hand then grabbed the opponents' convention card, pored over it intently for a while, then asked opener in a somewhat rude tone, "What's that?" The reply: "Gee, don't you know? That's GAME!!" -- Adam From blml@blakjak.com Fri Dec 19 16:33:00 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:33:00 +0000 Subject: Concentric circles - was Re: [blml] Be alert but ... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8DFQc6L8gy4$Ewja@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Ed Reppert wrote >On Friday, Dec 19, 2003, at 07:58 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > >> Assuming you decide not to answer because you deem it general >>bridge knowledge - which I still find an incredible concept - what >>are you actually going to say? > >Disregarding your assumption, if my partner and I have discussed the >meaning, I will state the agreement resulting from that discussion. If >we've agreed to play basic Acol, and not discussed the specific call, I >might say "we haven't discussed this call but we're playing basic Acol. >If I remember correctly, 3S is preemptive here." > >Given your assumption, I'd simply say "we have no agreement". Or >perhaps, if I'm feeling pedantic "we have no special partnership >understanding or agreement". > >How is this rude? I do not know - no-one has ever tried this 'special' approach on me. Here we answer questions fully and cheerfully so I have no experience of people being rude to evade answering. So, just to be sure, if you have made the bid a couple of times before, so you have experience of the bid, but have not discussed it, you might say "We have no special partnership understanding"? You would not say, as I would, "We haven't discussed it, but when partner bid it before he had seven spades to an honour or two and a weak hand"? -- 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 Fri Dec 19 17:15:54 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:15:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <00F33ACC-3247-11D8-93EC-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Dec 19, 2003, at 11:42 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > This thread was not based on a happening at Nancy's club if I > remember right. No, but I think Nancy's answer was based on what would happen at her club. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Dec 19 17:21:29 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:21:29 -0500 Subject: Concentric circles - was Re: [blml] Be alert but ... In-Reply-To: <8DFQc6L8gy4$Ewja@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: On Friday, Dec 19, 2003, at 11:33 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > I do not know - no-one has ever tried this 'special' approach on me. > Here we answer questions fully and cheerfully so I have no experience > of people being rude to evade answering. You suggest that some hypothetical action would be rude. When I gave you a specific action based on the hypothesis, you can't explain how it would be rude. That's, well, rude. :-) > So, just to be sure, if you have made the bid a couple of times > before, so you have experience of the bid, but have not discussed it, > you might say "We have no special partnership understanding"? You > would not say, as I would, "We haven't discussed it, but when partner > bid it before he had seven spades to an honour or two and a weak > hand"? Grrrr. Partnership experience, we both know, is just as disclosable as explicit agreements. I would say the latter, not the former. From blml@blakjak.com Fri Dec 19 17:51:13 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:51:13 +0000 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: <00F33ACC-3247-11D8-93EC-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <00F33ACC-3247-11D8-93EC-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote >On Friday, Dec 19, 2003, at 11:42 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > >> This thread was not based on a happening at Nancy's club if I >>remember right. > >No, but I think Nancy's answer was based on what would happen at her >club. I think, Ed, you are getting a bit confused. I think you will find the quote of mine above was in a private reply to you - because I was answering a private email from you. But if you look back at Nancy's replies she has made a general comment about her club, and has also answered the substantive query that the thread is based on. My answers to her were based on that in both cases. When she referred to whether there had been three passes she was answering the original query. Of course, none of this really matters if you want to make a particular point, but I do not know what it is. The majority here believe that anyone who passes by touching a double card then puts his cards away with no other passes [tapped, spoken, put out or indicated in any way] must expect to be ruled against whatever the norm is in that particular way. If what you are trying to say is that it is different in a club that regularly does not tap the table or whatever, no it is not. It just makes a player who taps a double and sees no pass cards stupider, and more deserving still of getting everyone to assume he has passed. -- 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 Fri Dec 19 18:19:02 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 13:19:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Friday, Dec 19, 2003, at 12:51 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > I think, Ed, you are getting a bit confused. I think you will find > the quote of mine above was in a private reply to you - because I was > answering a private email from you. "Don't worry about senility. When it happens, you won't notice." - Bill Cosby It seems Mr. Cosby was right. Perhaps I should change my filters. Currently, messages with [blml] in the subject get transferred to the list folder, whether list-intended or private. I'll have to think about that. From herbalmartohfsztkvu@yahoo.com Fri Dec 19 21:26:31 2003 From: herbalmartohfsztkvu@yahoo.com (Owner-ba-rides) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 21:26:31 -0000 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) Your dic_k is small? This is for you! Message-ID:
The only solution to Penis Enlargement
ONLY THIS WEEK: Add at least 3 INCHES or get your money back!

We are so sure our product works we are willing to offer a 100% money back guarantee upon purchase if you are not satisfied with the results.


---> Click Here To Learn More <---

frmdxegivmajwrdqebodd
* Doctor approved penis enhancement formula!
* 100% natural ingredients
* Discreet shipping for your privacy
* Gain 3+ inches!
* Stop premature ejaculation!
* 100% Safe! NO side effects!


---> Learn More About This Amazing New Product! <---
zidhqdnkgnkftope


No more offers
From mustikka@charter.net Fri Dec 19 22:31:09 2003 From: mustikka@charter.net (Raija Davis) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:31:09 -0800 Subject: Fw: [blml] C-players (was Philadelphia Casebook #28) Message-ID: <000d01c3c67f$cd916530$9865fea9@hewlettnvdluy3> OOPS, I meant to reply to group, not privately to Marvin French. Sorry. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Raija Davis" To: "Marvin French" Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 2:29 PM Subject: Re: [blml] C-players (was Philadelphia Casebook #28) > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Marvin French" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 6:01 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Philadelphia Casebook #28 > > > > > > From: "Adam Beneschan" > > > > > > > > Marv wrote: > > > > > > > > >[Adam wrote:] > > > > > >(2) There are an even greater number of players who are confused > > > > > >about what's supposed to be alerted in the ACBL, since the rules > > > > > >are not straightforward and are far from clear at times. Based > > > > > >on that, I don't think a question about the meaning of the double > > > > > >is "unnecessary"---opener may well take a look at whom he's > > > > > >playing against and decide that he shouldn't assume it means what > > > > > >he thinks it should mean, or what the regulations say it's > > > > > >supposed to mean in the absence of an Alert. > > > > > > > > Double of Stayman 2C (and artificial bid) shows clubs unless the > > > > double is Alerted. > > > > > > You and I and probably everyone else on this mailing list knows that, > > > but that's missing the point. There are a number of players who don't > > > know that, and the question is how to deal with them. (1) One way is > > > to presume they're following the rules and that thus the double shows > > > clubs, and then call the director afterwards if it turned out they > > > didn't know the rules and you got damaged. The Laws certainly give us > > > the right to use this approach. (2) Another is to ask what the double > > > means; the Laws give us that right also. > > > > > > Against certain less-experienced players in some events (such as a > > > Stratified), relying on approach #1 seems over-lawyerly. It smacks of > > > trying to win by waiting until the opponents violate some rule and > > > then pouncing. Not everyone will feel that way, and will use approach > > > #1 with everyone; up to a point, that's fine with me if that's how > > > they want to play. > > > > In general whatever I write applies to ACBL Life Masters and > higher-ranking > > players, okay?. I personally am very understanding with the inexperienced, > > following Kaplan's suggestion to me that I not invoke L75C when opponents > are > > either inexperienced or from another country (where "general knowledge" > over > > here may not apply). > > > > If Stratified events were done away with, letting C players compete on an > > equal basis (in every respect) with others in a good game of bridge or in > a > > game of their own, these problems would go away. > > > Well, not exactly go away. Maybe temporarily constrained, but C-players will > soon enough have amassed enough masterpoints and will arrive to blend in to > the upper flights (or play up with a more advanced partner) yet uneducated > about laws/rules/proprieties/disclosure whatever when they get used to a > "permission" to never mind the laws or other regs. Let rules/regs/laws be > consistently applied and make few, if any, exceptions. I would like to see > adverse table rulings against less experienced players as a valuable step in > learning an important part of the game, the regulations/rules/laws governing > the game. Just because a player is Flight C in his bridge playing ability > certainly does not make him *too dumb* to understand, appreciate, or learn > about the laws and adhere to regulations. I think it is bad for the game to > continue fostering the atmosphere (like the common ACBL club atmosphere > seems to be and what I think Marvin is advocating along same lines) that > the Laws are "for lawyers and lawyering" and for "higher levels only". > Ignoring the laws/regulations or accepting actions in violation of them as > the norm cannot IMO be serving any purpose - whatever the level. Well, > kitchen table excluded. > > Raija Davis > > [remainder snipped] > > From mfrench1@san.rr.com Fri Dec 19 23:02:18 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:02:18 -0800 Subject: [blml] C-players (was Philadelphia Casebook #28) References: <000d01c3c67f$cd916530$9865fea9@hewlettnvdluy3> Message-ID: <001201c3c684$2b661940$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Raija Davis" > Marv wrote: > > > If Stratified events were done away with, letting C players compete on > an equal basis (in every respect) with others in a good game of bridge or > in a game of their own, these problems would go away. > > > > > > Well, not exactly go away. Maybe temporarily constrained, but C-players > will soon enough have amassed enough masterpoints and will arrive to blend in > to the upper flights (or play up with a more advanced partner) yet uneducated > > about laws/rules/proprieties/disclosure whatever when they get used to a > > "permission" to never mind the laws or other regs. Let rules/regs/laws be > > consistently applied and make few, if any, exceptions. I would like to see > > adverse table rulings against less experienced players as a valuable step >> in learning an important part of the game, the regulations/rules/laws > governing > > the game. Just because a player is Flight C in his bridge playing ability > > certainly does not make him *too dumb* to understand, appreciate, or > learn about the laws and adhere to regulations. I think it is bad for the game > to continue fostering the atmosphere (like the common ACBL club atmosphere > > seems to be and what I think Marvin is advocating along same lines) No, I would enforce the Laws/Regs in Flight C games just as rigorously as in Flight A. I just want that group separated until they learn both the elements of the game and the rules of the game. > > the Laws are "for lawyers and lawyering" and for "higher levels only". > > Ignoring the laws/regulations or accepting actions in violation of them as > > the norm cannot IMO be serving any purpose - whatever the level. Well, > > kitchen table excluded. Fully agreed. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Dec 19 23:39:50 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:39:50 -0000 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) References: <353C733A-3192-11D8-8884-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <023301c3c689$783d2c40$739868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Ed Reppert] > for instance, I know, from my reading, that 3S > is likely preemptive in this auction. I also > know that traditionally, the hand should contain > 7 spades. I also know that the modern tendency > is more freewheeling, and that the hand might > well contain 7 spades, but it might also contain > 6. I also know that ideally the hand should have > most of its points in spades - and that many > people ignore that ideal as often as not. I think > of those things (perhaps incorrectly) as "general > bridge knowledge". I have not discussed its > meaning at all with any of my partners. > Is "undiscussed" adequate disclosure here? [Nigel] Ed has proposed a good example of an agreement that is just "general Bridge knowledge and experience." Ed and Marv would truthfully explain 3S as "undiscussed and we have no special partnership understanding or agreement." I am sure that they are right, according to the current law but IMO the law should be changed because the assumption implicit in the law is wrong: among a group of players there is little assured common knowledge and experience of Bridge systems and conventions, except at the most basic level. Even the most hardened player would make some concession to a beginner; but the point is that in a different specific aspect of bridge lore, each of us is likely to be a beginner. Your general knowledge and experience differs from mine. For example, when I pointed out that an opponent's CC was uninformative, my partner surprised me with the admonishment "Surely you know that most people at the club religiously signal distribution." Another gem from partner, even more relevant to the current discussion: "At the club, most open weak twos. Some do so regularly on a poor seven card suit. Such partnerships may be unaware of the fact, but this beefs up their corresponding three level pre-empts". If you try to explain a call to opponents you may reveal such implicit agreements of which even you were previously unaware! To sum up: unless your opponent has been stalking you for years it is most unlikely that he shares your "general Bridge knowledge and experience" It does not take long to explain what partner's call should mean. To do so may even save time. The law should be changed. It's a prevaricators' paradise. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 15/12/2003 From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Dec 19 23:19:00 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:19:00 -0000 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box References: Message-ID: <000b01c3c689$7864ff90$b23ee150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 4:56 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Bidding Box ------------------ \x/ ---------------- Law 80E allows an SO to change the default to written bidding (the South Pacific option) or to change the default to bidding boxes, etc. Of course, in recent decades bridge culture has changed. Instead of spoken bidding being the most popular tournament option, bidding boxes are the most popular tournament option. Therefore, it would make sense to rewrite the Laws in 2005 to make bidding boxes the default assumption, and include spoken bidding as one of the Law 80E options. The 2005 Laws could then include basic parameters for bidding box use, including some definition of when a call is made. +=+ I'll think about it. +=+ From blml@blakjak.com Sat Dec 20 01:01:12 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 01:01:12 +0000 Subject: Concentric circles - was Re: [blml] Be alert but ... In-Reply-To: References: <8DFQc6L8gy4$Ewja@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <$K8AOACY954$Ewy4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Hi Ed Reppert > >On Friday, Dec 19, 2003, at 11:33 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > >> I do not know - no-one has ever tried this 'special' approach on >>me. Here we answer questions fully and cheerfully so I have no >>experience of people being rude to evade answering. > >You suggest that some hypothetical action would be rude. When I gave >you a specific action based on the hypothesis, you can't explain how it >would be rude. That's, well, rude. :-) Alright, let's deal with the rudeness only. So, forget the hand, or the sequence. It is what it is. I say: "What does that call show, please?" Someone replies: "We have no special agreements so I do not need to tell you." That's rude. >> So, just to be sure, if you have made the bid a couple of times >>before, so you have experience of the bid, but have not discussed it, >>you might say "We have no special partnership understanding"? You >>would not say, as I would, "We haven't discussed it, but when partner >>bid it before he had seven spades to an honour or two and a weak > >>hand"? >Grrrr. Partnership experience, we both know, is just as disclosable as >explicit agreements. I would say the latter, not the former. Well, when are you going to refuse to answer under this heading of not being a special partnership agreement? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Sat Dec 20 01:56:45 2003 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:56:45 -0600 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) Message-ID: Gordon Rainsford: > It seems to me that what she thinks you will need to make > game depends not only on general knowledge and > experience, but also on her specific knowledge and > experience of your partnership's opening bid style. > Grattan Endicott: +=+ And skill in playing the cards :-) +=+ I am reminded of an anecdote from Zia Mahmood's Bridge My Way. which went something like this. He was declaring a hand in a pairs event at an international tournament against a pair he did not at all recognize; all he knew was that they were Swedish. His RHO played a card that might have been a routine expert falsecard, but that could be taken at face value if the player was less than an expert. Zia tried a conversational stratagem to get RHO to betray his level, but it failed--either they lacked a common language, or RHO simply declined to converse. So Zia guessed to take the play at face value, and that turned out to be wrong. Zia missed a bet. He should have asked his LHO (with the help of a translator, if necessary): "Is your partner an expert?" or "What is your partner's level of competence?" This is a legitimate inquiry, since it is, in effect, part of an implicit partnership understanding, affecting the interpretation of bids and plays. A more specific inquiry would be: "How good is your partner at playing the cards on defense?" Although, oddly enough, I have never heard of such an inquiry in practice, my eyes are now opened to the possibility. I shall try it myself at the next relevant occasion. James Hudson From blml@blakjak.com Sat Dec 20 02:17:10 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 02:17:10 +0000 Subject: [blml] Time for a Xmas story! [Bidding boxes] Message-ID: <$pzw2nFmE74$Ewwo@blakjak.demon.co.uk> It is Xmas party night at Blundellsands BC. We have failed dismally at the quiz, played some bridge, eaten lots, and are playing more bridge. It is an individual, one hand per partner. I am not playing weak twos so when I pick up a weak hand with five cards I have to open at the three level vulnerable. But I get a good hand! Kx AKx J9x AK8xx I open 1D, one of the suits I do not want led against 3NT, as the Hideous Hog put it so aptly. Partner bids 2C so I rebid 3NT. Partner thinks deeply and eventually emerges with 6D. Now what? I am tempted to bid 6NT, but partner sounds unbalanced to me, so I pass, and partner and RHO write 6D down on their score-cards and take their bidding cards away. LHO is thinking, however. Eventually he doubles. Partner and LHO look dumbfounded, and write a small x on their score-cards to indicate the contract is doubled, and wait for the opening lead. "Perhaps we could finish the auction," I suggest. "Don't be silly," says partner. "It *is* party night," says RHO. I just smile at them pleasantly, and wait. Eventually they both say "Well, I'm passing, of course" but no cards appear. I reckon the double is a trump trick so I bid 6NT. LHO is polite enough to pass, but partner and RHO merely glare at me and change their score-cards. The complete auction as per the bidding cards: 1D No 2C No 3NT No 6D No No Dbl 6NT No Dummy was revealed xxx J8x AKQT QJT Kx AKx J9x AK8xx "You don't trust your partner then?" said dummy as he put his cards down. I made the obvious twelve tricks - LHO having five small diamonds - and partner apologised for his comment, to be fair to him. --------- The evening finished well: I was third in the individual, and was given a bottle of cheap wine - three prizes, three bottles. When they announced second place she had not waited so they gave the prize to fourth place instead. Then the winner was announced: he had not stayed for the scoring either! They had a short conflab, came and took my third prize away from me and gave it to fifth place, announced me as the winner, and gave me a bottle of champagne. No doubt the strangest [and least-merited] win of my whole career. I wonder where that appeared in the CoC? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From adam@irvine.com Sat Dec 20 02:24:46 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:24:46 -0800 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:56:45 CST." Message-ID: <200312200224.SAA28548@mailhub.irvine.com> James Hudson wrote: > Zia missed a bet. He should have asked his LHO (with the help of a > translator, if necessary): "Is your partner an expert?" or "What is > your partner's level of competence?" This is a legitimate inquiry, > since it is, in effect, part of an implicit partnership understanding, > affecting the interpretation of bids and plays. A more specific inquiry > would be: "How good is your partner at playing the cards on defense?" > Although, oddly enough, I have never heard of such an inquiry in > practice, my eyes are now opened to the possibility. I shall try it > myself at the next relevant occasion. Be sure you do it early in the session. Toward the end of a session, the response to a question about partner's competence is probably going to be based more on the pair's performance thus far rather than on an honest appraisal of partner's expertise, especially if they're having a 45% game or so. ;) -- Adam From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Dec 20 05:10:51 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 00:10:51 -0500 Subject: Concentric circles - was Re: [blml] Be alert but ... In-Reply-To: <$K8AOACY954$Ewy4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: On Friday, Dec 19, 2003, at 20:01 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > I say: "What does that call show, please?" > > Someone replies: "We have no special agreements so I do not need to > tell you." > > That's rude. Okay. The closest I've ever seen to this at the bridge table was when an opponent was badgering my novice partner for an explanation she could not give. I suggested the opponent look at our CC, where the answer to her question was clearly marked. She replied superciliously "I don't look at convention cards. I ask questions." Had I been a little wiser about the laws, I'd have called the TD. If it ever happens again, I surely will. And so should you. There is no excuse for rudeness at the bridge table. > Well, when are you going to refuse to answer under this heading of > not being a special partnership agreement? When we truly have no special partnership agreement I will say that to an opponent who asks. If that opponent insists on more, I will call the TD and let him deal with it. If the TD insists I say more, I'll do my best to comply. What more do you want of me? From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sat Dec 20 06:43:36 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 22:43:36 -0800 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box References: <000b01c3c689$7864ff90$b23ee150@endicott> Message-ID: <000e01c3c6c4$99f58540$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Grattan Endicott" > > Therefore, it would make sense to rewrite the Laws > in 2005 to make bidding boxes the default assumption, > and include spoken bidding as one of the Law 80E > options. > > The 2005 Laws could then include basic parameters > for bidding box use, including some definition of > when a call is made. Please make the ACBL regulation the default. I am planning so much fun with it. Just think, I can pull out the 1S bid in third position, holding five little spades and zero HCP, then put it back and pass. When the opponents complain later, I can claim I was thinking of psyching a 1S opening. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sat Dec 20 06:56:50 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 22:56:50 -0800 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) References: <353C733A-3192-11D8-8884-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <023301c3c689$783d2c40$739868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <001501c3c6c6$72c2d020$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Nigel Guthrie" > It does not take long to explain what partner's > call should mean. To do so may even save time. > The law should be changed. It's a prevaricators' > paradise. > I would agree with this if the answers were AI to partner. Most of my partners would get entirely too much UI if I were to explain everything I expect to find in their hands. We are talking of face to face bridge, of course. Behind a screen I would write four pages of explanation if that is what an opponent wants. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From cibor@poczta.fm Sat Dec 20 11:49:57 2003 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:49:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Asking about opponents' skill level (was: Be alert but not alarmed) References: Message-ID: <012701c3c6ef$671f6520$08d163d9@c5s5d3> ----- Original Message ----- > Zia missed a bet. He should have asked his LHO (with the help of a > translator, if necessary): "Is your partner an expert?" or "What is > your partner's level of competence?" This is a legitimate inquiry, If asking about someone's level of competence is a legitimate inquiry then it is also legimate to ask "What would your partner lead from Axxx Qxxx x KJxx after 1NT - 3NT?" That sounds crazy. So then the next time I'll be playing against, say, Balicki - Zmudzinski and will have a difficult opening lead problem I will show dummy my hand and ask "What would your partner lead from this hand?" - chances are that B-Z's choice will work better than mine. And the dummy will be obliged to answer my question. Sorry - that is the consequence of making a question about your opponents' skill level a legitimate inquiry. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland From rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt Sat Dec 20 12:06:17 2003 From: rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt (rumaloma@pop.netvisao.pt) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 07:06:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box Message-ID: <191690-220031262012617698@M2W036.mail2web.com> From: "Grattan Endicott" > > Therefore, it would make sense to rewrite the Laws > in 2005 to make bidding boxes the default assumption, > and include spoken bidding as one of the Law 80E > options=2E > > The 2005 Laws could then include basic parameters > for bidding box use, including some definition of > when a call is made=2E That would be one of major improvement=2E For a number of years, one of my= difficulties while teaching junior directors was to make them make an easy= transition from the written code to the "code + bidding box regulations"=2E= =20 -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web=2Ecom/ =2E From blml@wellsborocomputing.com Sat Dec 20 12:39:51 2003 From: blml@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 07:39:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] Asking about opponents' skill level (was: Be alert but not alarmed) In-Reply-To: <012701c3c6ef$671f6520$08d163d9@c5s5d3> References: <012701c3c6ef$671f6520$08d163d9@c5s5d3> Message-ID: On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:49:57 +0100, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >That sounds crazy. So then the next time I'll be playing >against, say, Balicki - Zmudzinski and will have a difficult >opening lead problem I will show dummy my hand and ask >"What would your partner lead from this hand?" - chances are that >B-Z's choice will work better than mine. And the dummy >will be obliged to answer my question. How about "I don't know. Partner has never held that hand". And I'm willing to give good odds on that being the truth. ;-) Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Sat Dec 20 19:15:59 2003 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 14:15:59 -0500 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031219081837.00a0ea20@pop.starpower.net> References: <4E653282-31A6-11D8-8884-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <4E653282-31A6-11D8-8884-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20031220141003.01f8e838@mail.vzavenue.net> At 08:24 AM 12/19/2003, Eric Landau wrote: >At 06:48 PM 12/18/03, David wrote: > >> Several people have already given examples in this thread. For >> example, a 3NT bid on the third round of bidding usually does not show >> anything specific, and it is general bridge knowledge that it is an >> attempt to play in 3NT and the player thinks it may be the best spot. > >It may be, but if asked in that situation what 3NT means, I still have a >choice between, "It is an attempt to play in 3NT; she thinks it is >probably be the best spot," and, "That is a question about general >knowledge and experience; I do not have to answer it," and will not only >choose the former as a player, but as a TD deliver a strong lecture (or a >penalty to a habitual offender) to anyone in my club who chooses the latter. However, your first sentence is full disclosure. If the auction is something like 1C-1S-2C-2H-3NT, you are not expected to add, "She should have a diamond stopper, no fit for my major suits, and either extra high-card strength or a club suit she expects will run." It is general bridge knowledge that she would not want to play in 3NT with no diamond stopper, or with a heart fit, or with a minimum opening opposite a hand that has not forced to game. From cyaxares@lineone.net Sat Dec 20 19:23:34 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 19:23:34 -0000 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box References: <200312182023.MAA28212@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <003101c3c72f$14bda8b0$1712e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 8:23 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Bidding Box > > Marv wrote: > > > Here's an objective regulation: If you take > > a bid card out of the box, the call cannot be > > changed unless (1) the opponents let you > > change it (with the TD's permission), or > > (2) the TD judges that the call is so odd > > that the claim of inadvertency is likely to > > be valid. As with BITs, the director may > > have to make a difficult decision, but > > that's part of the job. > > I would be very much opposed to a > regulation worded like this. At the very > least, the point at which a call cannot be > changed must give a player who is paying > attention enough opportunity to notice that > the card pulled out of the bid box is not the > card he intended to pull out. >> +=+ WBFLC minute of 30th August 2000: <> ~ G ~ +=+ From blml@blakjak.com Sat Dec 20 19:46:51 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 19:46:51 +0000 Subject: Concentric circles - was Re: [blml] Be alert but ... In-Reply-To: References: <$K8AOACY954$Ewy4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <5JRxefArcK5$Ewrf@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Ed Reppert wrote > >On Friday, Dec 19, 2003, at 20:01 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > >> I say: "What does that call show, please?" >> >> Someone replies: "We have no special agreements so I do not need to >> tell you." >> >> That's rude. > >Okay. > >The closest I've ever seen to this at the bridge table was when an >opponent was badgering my novice partner for an explanation she could >not give. I suggested the opponent look at our CC, where the answer to >her question was clearly marked. She replied superciliously "I don't >look at convention cards. I ask questions." Had I been a little wiser >about the laws, I'd have called the TD. If it ever happens again, I >surely will. And so should you. There is no excuse for rudeness at the >bridge table. > >> Well, when are you going to refuse to answer under this heading of >> not being a special partnership agreement? > >When we truly have no special partnership agreement I will say that to >an opponent who asks. If that opponent insists on more, I will call the >TD and let him deal with it. If the TD insists I say more, I'll do my >best to comply. What more do you want of me? Well, I think and hope that you will answer all reasonable questions. The problem is that there are surely a lot of people who will not, and I am worried that they hide behind this word special. Badgering and harassment are not to be tolerated, of course, but after an experience in New Orleans where I asked one question about a 3D bid, got no answer - I mean silence - and asked another question because I presumed the first question was misunderstood, my RHO accused me of harassment. The Director, without listening to my side of the story, gave me a lecture on harassment. I am ashamed to say that I gave him a lecture on full disclosure, and good Director practice, which reduced my partner to helpless laughter. But the worry is that RHO clearly did not expect that his partner should answer the question, and there does seem a whole idea of not answering questions, which seems a more prevalent idea in North America. It worries me considerably. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Dec 20 20:16:48 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 20:16:48 -0000 Subject: [blml] Asking about opponents' skill level (was: Be alert but not alarmed) References: <012701c3c6ef$671f6520$08d163d9@c5s5d3> Message-ID: <004801c3c736$370769e0$6d9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Konrad Ciborowski] So then the next time I'll be playing against, say, Balicki - Zmudzinski and will have a difficult opening lead problem I will show dummy my hand and ask "What would your partner lead from this hand?" - chances are that B-Z's choice will work better than mine. And the dummy will be obliged to answer my question. Sorry - that is the consequence of making a question about your opponents' skill level a legitimate inquiry. [Nigel] Brilliant! How will legislators outlaw Cibor's *Judo Question*. Perhaps this is the only case where it really is legitimate to answer "General Bridge Knowledge and Experience". --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.553 / Virus Database: 345 - Release Date: 18/12/2003 From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sat Dec 20 20:18:15 2003 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 20:18:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box References: <000b01c3c689$7864ff90$b23ee150@endicott> Message-ID: <002101c3c736$a30856e0$0d3287d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 4:56 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Bidding Box > > > ------------------ \x/ ---------------- > Law 80E allows an SO to change the default to > written bidding (the South Pacific option) or to > change the default to bidding boxes, etc. > > Of course, in recent decades bridge culture has > changed. Instead of spoken bidding being the > most popular tournament option, bidding boxes are > the most popular tournament option. > > Therefore, it would make sense to rewrite the Laws > in 2005 to make bidding boxes the default assumption, > and include spoken bidding as one of the Law 80E > options. > > The 2005 Laws could then include basic parameters > for bidding box use, including some definition of > when a call is made. > [To which Grattan responded] > +=+ I'll think about it. +=+ > [Now this} +=+ Mulling it over today I concluded that we are not yet ready to discard the voice as the standard method of communication of the calls in the auction. I have pencilled the following note , however, in my subcommittee papers: " "1. The Law KKY authority may be used to allow or require players to make their calls not vocally but in a specified manner. 2. When bidding boxes are in use, unless the regulating authority specifies otherwise a call is considered to be made when the player removes the bidding card from the bidding box with intent (but see Law YYK)." " I have adopted in 2 the current regulation in the WBF General Conditions of Contest. ~ G ~ +=+ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Dec 20 20:38:26 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 15:38:26 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: <003101c3c72f$14bda8b0$1712e150@endicott> Message-ID: <7618E347-332C-11D8-B716-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Saturday, Dec 20, 2003, at 14:23 US/Eastern, Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ WBFLC minute of 30th August 2000: < Committee examined a statement that "When > bidding boxes are in use the attempt to correct > an inadvertent call (Law 25A)must follow > instantaneously upon the player's discovery of > his mistake. (Should LHO have meanwhile made > a call over the player's first call Laws 25A, 21B, > and 16C apply.)" The Committee finds this > principle acceptable and urges regulating > authorities to incorporate it (or an alternative > statement) in their tournament regulations. > Directors are recommended, where there is > no regulation to cover the point, to follow the > above guidelines.>> > ~ G ~ +=+ If I understand this correctly, it says that if a player makes an inadvertent call, that call is misinformation to opponents. Is that right? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Dec 20 20:48:28 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 15:48:28 -0500 Subject: Concentric circles - was Re: [blml] Be alert but ... In-Reply-To: <5JRxefArcK5$Ewrf@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: On Saturday, Dec 20, 2003, at 14:46 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > I gave him a lecture on full disclosure, and good Director practice Sounds like he needed it. :-) > But the worry is that RHO clearly did not expect that his partner > should answer the question, and there does seem a whole idea of not > answering questions, which seems a more prevalent idea in North > America. It worries me considerably. I think most people *try* to practice full disclosure. Problem is they don't understand what that is. Maybe I'm too optimistic. :-) From Steve Willner" > Excerpt from GCC: > 1. ONE CLUB OR ONE DIAMOND may be used as an > all-purpose opening bid (artificial or natural) promising a > minimum of 10 high-card points. SW>While we would need more details to be sure, I find it amusing that this SW>opening would probably be allowed under the ACBL's GCC (provided it SW>promises 10 HCP). I meant my comment to be casual, but since people have taken it seriously.... > From: "Grattan Endicott" +=+ And the corollary would be that the other minor opening > shows hands that could include 4-4-5 shapes with maybe a > void in the suit named and 10+ HCP. I don't see why this is important. The actual system is apparently: From: Yvan Calame > The system is called "Le Canapé Majeure d'abord" (Major first, canapé) > see: http://www.hegerm.ch/textes/cmd.html (in french) > This system is essentially a red system: > - 1C means any hand with exactly 4 Spades > - 1D means any 12-22 hand with NO 4 card major > (can be a club or diamond single-suiter, a minor 2-suiter, or > some balanced hands with no 4 cards major) > - other openings are nat or forcing (1H=4, 1S=5) Apparently1C can include 4450 as well as other shapes with four spades. I don't see why this makes the system HUM in the WBF. No long suit other than spades is promised; all shapes from 4333 to 4900 are possible. That is certainly wide-ranging, but I don't see that it qualifies as HUM under the rules. The 1C bid would not be legal under the ACBL GCC, but it would be legal under the Mid-chart provided a defense is approved. As mentioned, the 1D bid is GCC-legal. Grattan added later: > A diligent English correspondent points to 12.2.3(e) > in the Orange Book. I think the relevant item may be (f), but the upshot is that the 1D bid is legal at Level 2(!) in the EBU. Yvan: > The only problem is the 1D opening, WBF system policy reads: >2.2 HUM Systems >[...] >d) By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length in one >specified suit or length in another. >EXCEPTION: one of a minor in a strong club or strong diamond system Ah, I get it -- finally! Because the majors are at most 3-3, 1D promises at least four cards in at least one minor but doesn't specify which one. "Length" is being interpreted as "four cards or more," although that isn't the only possible meaning of "length in [a] suit." That said, I was bothered by the committee's answer, although at last I think I understand it. The written decision might have been clearer if it had said that the HUM classification was based on the ambiguity of the 1D bid and stated the "four card" interpretation. On careful reading, the 1C bid had nothing to do with the decision that the proposed system is HUM. The meaning of 1C was only considered as part of the case for revising the system policy to accomodate the method. Do I have that right? Doesn't this "length" rule also make Polish club HUM? Polish certainly isn't a strong club system so does not fall under the exception. Or does1D show length in Polish? By coincidence, I'm working on my own system where 1D will show any unbalanced hand with no five-card major. (Thus long clubs, long diamonds, both minors, or any 4441. Actually much like the 1D bid in question here except the balanced hands come out, and 4441's go in.) Looks like that will be HUM in the WBF even though it will probably be GCC-legal in the ACBL. How strong do I have to make the 1D bid to qualify as a "strong diamond" system instead of HUM? From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > The quoted ACBL General Conditions of Contest regulation is ambiguous. > Grattan is interpreting the meaning of the word "or" as the logical operator > Exclusive Or - with an implicit "not both" in the GCC. > Others have been interpreting the meaning of the word "or" as the logical operator > Inclusive Or - with an implicit "and/or" in the GCC. I noticed the same thing and asked 'rulings@acbl.org' about it. Notice the effect, though, if you think the rule means "but not both." If that were so, whether a particular 1C agreement is legal would depend not only on which hands are shown by the 1C bid but also on which hands might bid 1D on an entirely different deal. Such a rule would be hard to enforce, to say the least. In fact, Richard Beye, the ACBL's Chief Tournament Director, confirms that the rule means "either or both." However, this confirmation came only after a different TD had given me the opposite answer! So Richard Hill's basic point, that the rule needs to be written unambiguously, is confirmed. From svenpran@online.no Sat Dec 20 22:00:15 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 23:00:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: <7618E347-332C-11D8-B716-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c3c744$a73ea530$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > On Saturday, Dec 20, 2003, at 14:23 US/Eastern, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > +=+ WBFLC minute of 30th August 2000: < > Committee examined a statement that "When > > bidding boxes are in use the attempt to correct > > an inadvertent call (Law 25A)must follow > > instantaneously upon the player's discovery of > > his mistake. (Should LHO have meanwhile made > > a call over the player's first call Laws 25A, 21B, > > and 16C apply.)" The Committee finds this > > principle acceptable and urges regulating > > authorities to incorporate it (or an alternative > > statement) in their tournament regulations. > > Directors are recommended, where there is > > no regulation to cover the point, to follow the > > above guidelines.>> > > ~ G ~ +=+ > > > If I understand this correctly, it says that if a player makes an > inadvertent call, that call is misinformation to opponents. Is that > right? Law 25A states that an inadvertent call may on certain conditions be replaced without penalty. The conditions are such that a call qualifying as an inadvertent call is not considered to carry any information at all. Consequently such calls are neither misinformation nor authorized or unauthorized information to anybody. However while the reference to Law 21B is required as an authorization for LHO to replace his possible call subsequent to the retraction of the inadvertent call; part of the text in L21B is misleading in that it assumes the reason for l21B to be applicable will always be misinformation from somebody. The fact is that after a player has corrected his inadvertent call his LHO is free to change whatever call he may have made after the inadvertent call was made but before it was corrected. Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sat Dec 20 23:59:05 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 09:59:05 +1000 Subject: [blml] Bridge Proprieties Message-ID: Yet another of my hermeneutical hobby-horses is Law 73A2: >Calls and plays should be made without special >emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without >undue hesitation or haste (however, sponsoring >organisations may require mandatory pauses, as >on the first round of auction, or after a >skip-bid warning, or on the first trick). Some blmlers have argued that - even without an SO's first trick mandatory pause reg - it is legal to hesitate at trick one with a trick one non-problem. Their reasoning is that, in their opinion, such a hesitation is "just bridge" and so is therefore not an "undue" hesitation. In "Ethics for Experts", Michael Rosenberg wrote: >>Then, of course, there are the pairs who >>"always think before playing to the first >>trick," except when they don't. Strangely >>enough, they usually forget to think when they >>want partner to continue with the "obvious" >>defense. Therefore, blmlers arguing that a trick one hesitation is not "undue" cannot logically have it both ways. If that is their premise, those blmlers must also accept that any play at trick one without a hesitation has to be defined by them as the infraction of "undue haste". Best wishes Richard James Hills -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From svenpran@online.no Sat Dec 20 23:29:06 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 00:29:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bridge Proprieties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3c751$0fac62e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au .............. > Therefore, blmlers arguing that a trick one > hesitation is not "undue" cannot logically have > it both ways. If that is their premise, those > blmlers must also accept that any play at trick > one without a hesitation has to be defined by > them as the infraction of "undue haste". Why, of course! Has anybody indicated any different opinion? (But even when regulations stipulate situations where ten seconds pause is justified nobody (I hope) argues that there should be ten seconds pause for every call or play as the case may be to avoid variations. What is said is that a systematic information-giving variation in tempo is a violation of Law 73B. Sven From blml@blakjak.com Sat Dec 20 22:58:12 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 22:58:12 +0000 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: <000e01c3c6c4$99f58540$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <000b01c3c689$7864ff90$b23ee150@endicott> <000e01c3c6c4$99f58540$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marvin French wrote >From: "Grattan Endicott" >> Therefore, it would make sense to rewrite the Laws >> in 2005 to make bidding boxes the default assumption, >> and include spoken bidding as one of the Law 80E >> options. >> >> The 2005 Laws could then include basic parameters >> for bidding box use, including some definition of >> when a call is made. >Please make the ACBL regulation the default. I am planning so much fun with >it. Just think, I can pull out the 1S bid in third position, holding five >little spades and zero HCP, then put it back and pass. When the opponents >complain later, I can claim I was thinking of psyching a 1S opening. How many times do you expect to try this before you are expelled form the tournament? Sure, there are many ways to cheat at bridge, but pure easily visible cheating does not last long. -- 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 Sat Dec 20 23:00:11 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 23:00:11 +0000 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: <191690-220031262012617698@M2W036.mail2web.com> References: <191690-220031262012617698@M2W036.mail2web.com> Message-ID: rumaloma@pop.netvisao.pt wrote >From: "Grattan Endicott" >> Therefore, it would make sense to rewrite the Laws >> in 2005 to make bidding boxes the default assumption, >> and include spoken bidding as one of the Law 80E >> options. >> >> The 2005 Laws could then include basic parameters >> for bidding box use, including some definition of >> when a call is made. >That would be one of major improvement. For a number of years, one of my >difficulties while teaching junior directors was to make them make an easy >transition from the written code to the "code + bidding box regulations". There are a lot of regulations, not just bidding box ones. TDs have ot learn that it is not just the laws, and putting BB regs in the laws would not help with this. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Sun Dec 21 00:36:44 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 00:36:44 +0000 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: <7618E347-332C-11D8-B716-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <003101c3c72f$14bda8b0$1712e150@endicott> <7618E347-332C-11D8-B716-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote >On Saturday, Dec 20, 2003, at 14:23 US/Eastern, Grattan Endicott wrote: > >> +=+ WBFLC minute of 30th August 2000: <> Committee examined a statement that "When >> bidding boxes are in use the attempt to correct >> an inadvertent call (Law 25A)must follow >> instantaneously upon the player's discovery of >> his mistake. (Should LHO have meanwhile made >> a call over the player's first call Laws 25A, 21B, >> and 16C apply.)" The Committee finds this >> principle acceptable and urges regulating >> authorities to incorporate it (or an alternative >> statement) in their tournament regulations. >> Directors are recommended, where there is >> no regulation to cover the point, to follow the >> above guidelines.>> >> ~ G ~ +=+ > > >If I understand this correctly, it says that if a player makes an >inadvertent call, that call is misinformation to opponents. Is that >right? That's right - it informs the opponents wrongly as to what call oyu are making. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Sun Dec 21 00:39:07 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 00:39:07 +0000 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: <000001c3c744$a73ea530$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <7618E347-332C-11D8-B716-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <000001c3c744$a73ea530$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >Ed Reppert >> On Saturday, Dec 20, 2003, at 14:23 US/Eastern, Grattan Endicott wrote: >> >> > +=+ WBFLC minute of 30th August 2000: <> > Committee examined a statement that "When >> > bidding boxes are in use the attempt to correct >> > an inadvertent call (Law 25A)must follow >> > instantaneously upon the player's discovery of >> > his mistake. (Should LHO have meanwhile made >> > a call over the player's first call Laws 25A, 21B, >> > and 16C apply.)" The Committee finds this >> > principle acceptable and urges regulating >> > authorities to incorporate it (or an alternative >> > statement) in their tournament regulations. >> > Directors are recommended, where there is >> > no regulation to cover the point, to follow the >> > above guidelines.>> >> > ~ G ~ +=+ >> >> >> If I understand this correctly, it says that if a player makes an >> inadvertent call, that call is misinformation to opponents. Is that >> right? > >Law 25A states that an inadvertent call may on certain conditions be >replaced without penalty. The conditions are such that a call qualifying as >an inadvertent call is not considered to carry any information at all. >Consequently such calls are neither misinformation nor authorized or >unauthorized information to anybody. > >However while the reference to Law 21B is required as an authorization for >LHO to replace his possible call subsequent to the retraction of the >inadvertent call; part of the text in L21B is misleading in that it assumes >the reason for l21B to be applicable will always be misinformation from >somebody. Well, I do not find it misleading: there always is misinformation, and a incorrect call corrected under L25A provides misinformation as to what call is being made. >The fact is that after a player has corrected his inadvertent call his LHO >is free to change whatever call he may have made after the inadvertent call >was made but before it was corrected. True - but it helps to have a Law, and the EBU advised its TDs that the Law was 21B some years ago. -- 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 Sun Dec 21 00:40:54 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 00:40:54 +0000 Subject: [blml] Bridge Proprieties In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >Yet another of my hermeneutical hobby-horses is >Law 73A2: > >>Calls and plays should be made without special >>emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without >>undue hesitation or haste (however, sponsoring >>organisations may require mandatory pauses, as >>on the first round of auction, or after a >>skip-bid warning, or on the first trick). > >Some blmlers have argued that - even without an >SO's first trick mandatory pause reg - it is >legal to hesitate at trick one with a trick one >non-problem. Their reasoning is that, in their >opinion, such a hesitation is "just bridge" and >so is therefore not an "undue" hesitation. True. In fact we have such a recommendation form the regulating authority. >In "Ethics for Experts", Michael Rosenberg wrote: > >>>Then, of course, there are the pairs who >>>"always think before playing to the first >>>trick," except when they don't. Strangely >>>enough, they usually forget to think when they >>>want partner to continue with the "obvious" >>>defense. > >Therefore, blmlers arguing that a trick one >hesitation is not "undue" cannot logically have >it both ways. If that is their premise, those >blmlers must also accept that any play at trick >one without a hesitation has to be defined by >them as the infraction of "undue haste". Certainly true. -- 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 Sun Dec 21 02:28:48 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 21:28:48 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <68A49387-335D-11D8-A0B0-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Saturday, Dec 20, 2003, at 19:39 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > True - but it helps to have a Law, and the EBU advised its TDs that > the Law was 21B some years ago. Even though neither 21B nor 25A actually says so? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Dec 21 02:33:04 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 21:33:04 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <012687F6-335E-11D8-A0B0-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Saturday, Dec 20, 2003, at 19:36 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > That's right - it informs the opponents wrongly as to what call oyu > are making. Okay. If it is, it is. I like that better than "it's not, but were gonna use 21B anyway". From svenpran@online.no Sun Dec 21 10:07:09 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:07:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3c7aa$329a0bf0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ............ (I had written) > >Law 25A states that an inadvertent call may on certain=20 > >conditions be replaced without penalty. The conditions=20 > >are such that a call qualifying as an inadvertent call > >is not considered to carry any information at all. > >Consequently such calls are neither misinformation nor=20 > > authorized or unauthorized information to anybody. > > > >However while the reference to Law 21B is required as=20 > >an authorization for LHO to replace his possible call=20 > >subsequent to the retraction of the inadvertent call; > >part of the text in L21B is misleading in that it assumes > >the reason for l21B to be applicable will always be=20 > >misinformation from somebody. >=20 > Well, I do not find it misleading: there always is=20 > misinformation, and a incorrect call corrected under=20 > L25A provides misinformation as to what call is being=20 > made. The withdrawn call certainly gives misinformation but that is not the = reason for its withdrawal. Law 25A permits a call to be changed when it is = ruled to having been inadvertent. > >The fact is that after a player has corrected his=20 > >inadvertent call his LHO is free to change whatever=20 > >call he may have made after the inadvertent call > >was made but before it was corrected. >=20 > True - but it helps to have a Law, and the EBU=20 > advised its TDs that the Law was 21B some years ago. Exactly what I said earlier and the only applicable law for this purpose = is indeed L21B2; but it ought to be slightly rephrased to something like: When a player is allowed and elects to change a call after his LHO has already mad a subsequent call then his LHO may then in turn change this subsequent call without penalty (unless this withdrawn subsequent call conveyed such information as to damage a non-offending side, in which = case .....) Regards Sven From cibor@poczta.fm Sun Dec 21 17:06:59 2003 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 18:06:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? Message-ID: <000d01c3c7e4$e60ba6a0$b02a4cd5@c5s5d3> For quite a while the Polish "Brydz" magazine has been publishing Norberto Bocchi's articles. They are normally lighthearted short stories but the piece in the December issue left me in a state of little shock. I must say I am astonished by a lot of aspects (the tone, among other things) but I would like to hear some comments first especially on the "universally accepted" principle mentioned in the text. How would you have ruled? Below is my translation: SUCCESSFUL... STRATAGEM??? Vanderbilt Cup 2002. Jacobs - Polowan Dealer South, Love All A AJ864 AQ432 32 QJ943 10875 1072 KQ5 1085 KJ9 104 QJ9 K62 93 76 AK8765 In one of the rounds of the Vanderbilt Cup during which I exceptionally played with Lauria we arrived at 5C with my partner at the helm. I won't bother you with the auction as it is irrelevant for the story. To understand the chain of events that lead to one down you have to put yourself in my partner's shoes. Lorenzo wins the opening lead of the SQ and, without much of an idea how to continue, calls for a low heart from dummy. After a tank longer than eternity Smith, sitting East, rises with the king. A fulfilled duty or merely an introduction? It is universally agreed that after a longer hesitation one is obliged to play the lowest card from a sequence. If it is not a question of rules and regulations then at least it is a question of fair play. Smith now continues with a trump. Lorenzo wins the ace in hand, cashes the king and with confidence finesses the HJ. What an nasty surprise! To the amazement of everyone at the table (including the TD which happened to be watching the play) it is East who has the queen! We summon the TD who rules in our favor: 5C=, 400 for North-South. Now, for a change, the opponents appeal and an American Appeals Committee, as usually in their country, restores the score to one off... Yet another scandal with the USA behind it. Going back to bridge I would like to see if there was a winning line in this contract. Without the East's hesitation Lorenzo would no doubt have played a heart to the ace ruffing the third heart in hand keeping the diamond finesse in reserve. Peace of cake. After the unfavorable ruling we asked three best players in the world (Rodwell, Helgemo and Balicki) how they would have played if they had been in Lauria's position. None of them would have played differently. From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Sun Dec 21 20:02:37 2003 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 15:02:37 -0500 Subject: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? In-Reply-To: <000d01c3c7e4$e60ba6a0$b02a4cd5@c5s5d3> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20031221143446.0205a660@mail.vzavenue.net> At 12:06 PM 12/21/2003, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >For quite a while the Polish "Brydz" magazine has been >publishing Norberto Bocchi's articles. >They are normally lighthearted short stories >but the piece in the December issue >left me in a state of little shock. >I must say I am astonished by a lot of aspects >(the tone, among other things) >but I would like to hear some comments first >especially on the "universally accepted" principle >mentioned in the text. How would you have ruled? >Below is my translation: > > > SUCCESSFUL... STRATAGEM??? > >Vanderbilt Cup 2002. Jacobs - Polowan I couldn't find this hand in the casebooks, so I don't know the basis for the actual ruling. >Dealer South, Love All > > > A > AJ864 > AQ432 > 32 >QJ943 10875 >1072 KQ5 >1085 KJ9 >104 QJ9 > K62 > 93 > 76 > AK8765 > > In one of the rounds of the Vanderbilt Cup during which >I exceptionally played with Lauria we arrived at 5C with my partner >at the helm. I won't bother you with the auction as it is irrelevant >for the story. To understand the chain of events that lead to one >down you have to put yourself in my partner's shoes. > Lorenzo wins the opening lead of the SQ and, without much of an >idea how to continue, calls for a low heart from dummy. After >a tank longer than eternity Smith, sitting East, rises with the king. >A fulfilled duty or merely an introduction? > It is universally agreed that after a longer hesitation >one is obliged to play the lowest card from a sequence. If it is not >a question of rules and regulations then at least it is a question >of fair play. I believe it is accepted that you may not hesitate if your only decision is whether or not to falsecard. If you do hesitate, an opposing player who draws an inference from your hesitation may be entitled to an adjustment. However, I don't think there is any further constraint on what you actually play after a hesitation. The opposing player is entitled to assume that you had a legitimate problem, and any adjustment should be on that basis; if you play a card that avoids misleading the opposition about your hesitation, there is probably no damage. In the actual case, an adjustment is in order. I can't think of a holding with the KQ in which East would have a problem, while with the king and no queen, he would have a problem (does South have Qx or Txx)? If East had played the queen, he would probably have implied the king whether he played quickly or slowly, and there would have been no damage. > Smith now continues with a trump. Lorenzo wins the ace in hand, cashes >the king and with confidence finesses the HJ. What an nasty >surprise! To the amazement of everyone at the table (including the TD >which happened to be watching the play) it is East who has the queen! >We summon the TD who rules in our favor: 5C=, 400 for North-South. >Now, for a change, the opponents appeal and an American Appeals >Committee, as usually in their country, restores the score to one off... Lacking a write-up of the ruling, and the full facts, I am inclined to agree with the TD. But the AC could reasonably have ruled that the hesitation was not undue given the unexpected play at trick two, or that East had a legitimate problem (say, trying to avoid being endplayed later, although that looks unlikely here). >Yet another scandal with the USA behind it. > Going back to bridge I would like to see if there was a winning >line in this contract. Without the East's hesitation Lorenzo would >no doubt have played a heart to the ace ruffing the third heart in hand >keeping the diamond finesse in reserve. Peace of cake. > After the unfavorable ruling we asked three best players in the >world (Rodwell, Helgemo and Balicki) how they would have played if they >had been in Lauria's position. None of them would have played differently. > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mustikka@charter.net Sun Dec 21 20:16:57 2003 From: mustikka@charter.net (Raija Davis) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 12:16:57 -0800 Subject: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? References: <5.1.1.6.0.20031221143446.0205a660@mail.vzavenue.net> Message-ID: <000a01c3c7ff$64084f80$9865fea9@hewlettnvdluy3> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David J. Grabiner" To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 12:02 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? SNIP > Lacking a write-up of the ruling, and the full facts, SNIP http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/Houston_Spr02.pdf This is the link to the casebook from Houston Spring NABC. It was Case 6. My opinion about the original article posted/translated here by Konrad: Cannot believe a world class player would say such things. Shame. Raija Davis From rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt Sun Dec 21 21:56:18 2003 From: rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt (Rui Marques) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 21:56:18 -0000 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <006901c3c80d$43b0dbe0$0301a8c0@whips> Grattan: >> Therefore, it would make sense to rewrite the Laws >> in 2005 to make bidding boxes the default assumption, >> and include spoken bidding as one of the Law 80E >> options. >> >> The 2005 Laws could then include basic parameters >> for bidding box use, including some definition of >> when a call is made. Me: >That would be one of major improvement. For a number of years, one of >my difficulties while teaching junior directors was to make them make >an easy transition from the written code to the "code + bidding box >regulations". ----------- David: There are a lot of regulations, not just bidding box ones. TDs have ot learn that it is not just the laws, and putting BB regs in the laws would not help with this. Me: I think it would. It makes learning to direct with bidding boxes quicker and makes the laws more in synch with the predominant way of bidding. Then, there should be regulations for when there are no bidding boxes. It was something that always struck me, why did we have the laws for spoken bidding and regulations for the "almost omnipresent" bidding boxes. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Dec 21 22:32:23 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 22:32:23 -0000 Subject: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? References: <000d01c3c7e4$e60ba6a0$b02a4cd5@c5s5d3> Message-ID: <007b01c3c812$4ed11e40$519468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Konrad Ciborowski] Vanderbilt Cup 2002. Jacobs - Polowan Dealer South, Love All A AJ864 AQ432 32 QJ943 10875 1072 KQ5 1085 KJ9 104 QJ9 K62 93 76 AK8765 In 5C, wins the opening lead of the SQ and calls for a low heart from dummy. After a tank longer than eternity Smith, sitting East, rises with the king. Smith now continues with a trump. Lorenzo wins the ace in hand, cashes the king and with confidence finesses the HJ. What an nasty surprise! [Nigel] I don't like Norberto's imputations but the TD/AC must rule in declarer's favour because IMO an expert East had nothing to think about. I remember a similar case in Scotland, years ago, where declarer in 3NT held D:QJx in hand opposite a small singleton in dummy. LHO led D:x to RHO's D:A. RHO led back a small diamond and declarer tanked before playing the knave. LHO won D:K and switched, allowing the contract to make. Declarer explained that he was trying to decide which of D:QJ was the better false-card but the TD correctly ruled against him. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.553 / Virus Database: 345 - Release Date: 18/12/2003 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Dec 21 22:41:46 2003 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 22:41:46 -0000 Subject: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? Message-ID: <009d01c3c813$9e6a3440$519468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Konrad Ciborowski] Vanderbilt Cup 2002. Jacobs - Polowan Dealer South, Love All A AJ864 AQ432 32 QJ943 10875 1072 KQ5 1085 KJ9 104 QJ9 K62 93 76 AK8765 In 5C, wins the opening lead of the SQ and calls for a low heart from dummy. After a tank longer than eternity Smith, sitting East, rises with the king. Smith now continues with a trump. Lorenzo wins the ace in hand, cashes the king and with confidence finesses the HJ. What an nasty surprise! [Nigel] Maybe its not quite so clear-cut as I made out a minute ago because the only winning defence is to play low on dummy's heart lead. I suppose declarer blew it when he failed to exit with H:J!. I would still rule in declarer's favour but now with much less certainty. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.553 / Virus Database: 345 - Release Date: 18/12/2003 From jjl-bridge@libertysurf.fr Sun Dec 21 22:50:58 2003 From: jjl-bridge@libertysurf.fr (Jean-Jacques Lafay) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 23:50:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? In-Reply-To: <000d01c3c7e4$e60ba6a0$b02a4cd5@c5s5d3> Message-ID: <002401c3c814$e69e21d0$0000fea9@lanfeust> Interestingly, this "principle" that one should play the smallest from equivalent cards if doing so after a marked break of tempo, was the subject of a thread on the french bridge mailing list a few months ago (you should have stay tuned Konrad, don't tell me you cannot handle hardly 300 messages a week :-). I must admit that I had never heard of this before, so I was quite surprised that a number of very good players actually considered it the normal "fair-play" behaviour. Jean-Pierre Rocafort confirmed then that this "rule" had no basis in the laws whatsoever, so I am still more surprised to see it spread outside of France, because I thought that not knowing the rules of the game was very typical of french champions, but seldom the case elsewhere. As for the specific case reported by Bocchi, I can barely understand the TD decision, but then if he'd rather have W explain to the AC instead of him why he had to take time before playing de HK, so be it. Jean-Jacques. -- From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Sun Dec 21 22:56:12 2003 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 17:56:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20031221143446.0205a660@mail.vzavenue.net> References: <000d01c3c7e4$e60ba6a0$b02a4cd5@c5s5d3> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20031221173315.02937dc0@mail.vzavenue.net> Thanks to Rajia Davis for finding the link to the actual case; it was in the Swiss Teams, not in the Vanderbilt. I find the article much more disturbing if the AC facts are correct. At 03:02 PM 12/21/2003, David J. Grabiner wrote: >At 12:06 PM 12/21/2003, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > >>For quite a while the Polish "Brydz" magazine has been >>publishing Norberto Bocchi's articles. >>They are normally lighthearted short stories >>but the piece in the December issue >>left me in a state of little shock. >>I must say I am astonished by a lot of aspects >>(the tone, among other things) >>but I would like to hear some comments first >>especially on the "universally accepted" principle >>mentioned in the text. How would you have ruled? >>Below is my translation: >> >> >> SUCCESSFUL... STRATAGEM??? >> >>Vanderbilt Cup 2002. Jacobs - Polowan >>Dealer South, Love All >> >> >> A >> AJ864 >> AQ432 >> 32 >>QJ943 10875 >>1072 KQ5 >>1085 KJ9 >>104 QJ9 >> K62 >> 93 >> 76 >> AK8765 The spots are different in the official report >> In one of the rounds of the Vanderbilt Cup during which >>I exceptionally played with Lauria we arrived at 5C with my partner >>at the helm. I won't bother you with the auction as it is irrelevant >>for the story. To understand the chain of events that lead to one >>down you have to put yourself in my partner's shoes. >> Lorenzo wins the opening lead of the SQ and, without much of an >>idea how to continue, calls for a low heart from dummy. After >>a tank longer than eternity Smith, sitting East, rises with the king. According to the official report, declarer hesitated for five minutes on the first trick, and East took five seconds to play. I would not accept a five-second delay as a hesitation under these circumstances; players do not pay full attention to the play for five minutes when nothing is happening. >>A fulfilled duty or merely an introduction? >> It is universally agreed that after a longer hesitation >>one is obliged to play the lowest card from a sequence. If it is not >>a question of rules and regulations then at least it is a question >>of fair play. This is not "universally agreed"; Ton Kooijman suggested it in the AC booklet (and had suggested it before), while Rich Colker disagreed. >I believe it is accepted that you may not hesitate if your only decision >is whether or not to falsecard. If you do hesitate, an opposing player >who draws an inference from your hesitation may be entitled to an adjustment. > >However, I don't think there is any further constraint on what you >actually play after a hesitation. The opposing player is entitled to >assume that you had a legitimate problem, and any adjustment should be on >that basis; if you play a card that avoids misleading the opposition about >your hesitation, there is probably no damage. > >In the actual case, an adjustment is in order. I can't think of a holding >with the KQ in which East would have a problem, while with the king and no >queen, he would have a problem (does South have Qx or Txx)? And I was wrong, as the AC discovered. Although East claimed not to have thought of this, he would have been better off to have ducked as the cards lie; West would have won the HT and returned a diamond to set the contract. >If East had played the queen, he would probably have implied the king >whether he played quickly or slowly, and there would have been no damage. > >> Smith now continues with a trump. Lorenzo wins the ace in hand, cashes >>the king and with confidence finesses the HJ. What an nasty >>surprise! To the amazement of everyone at the table (including the TD >>which happened to be watching the play) it is East who has the queen! >>We summon the TD who rules in our favor: 5C=, 400 for North-South. >>Now, for a change, the opponents appeal and an American Appeals >>Committee, as usually in their country, restores the score to one off... > >Lacking a write-up of the ruling, and the full facts, I am inclined to >agree with the TD. But the AC could reasonably have ruled that the >hesitation was not undue given the unexpected play at trick two, or that >East had a legitimate problem (say, trying to avoid being endplayed later, >although that looks unlikely here). The AC ruling was based on the first issue, and was clearly justified; it could have also been based on the second reason. >> After the unfavorable ruling we asked three best players in the >>world (Rodwell, Helgemo and Balicki) how they would have played if they >>had been in Lauria's position. None of them would have played differently. This may actually hurt the writer's case. If the experts questioned were not told of the slow play and took the same line, then there was no damage. If they were told of the slow play, there might have been damage, but drawing attention to the slow play in this type of argument creates a leading question. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 22 02:56:02 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 21:56:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bridge Proprieties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <60CE7685-342A-11D8-AF29-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Saturday, Dec 20, 2003, at 18:59 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Therefore, blmlers arguing that a trick one > hesitation is not "undue" cannot logically have > it both ways. If that is their premise, those > blmlers must also accept that any play at trick > one without a hesitation has to be defined by > them as the infraction of "undue haste". There are three windows here: from time 0 to some time a, one's play is made with undue haste, from time a to time b any haste or hesitation must be "due" (the play is in tempo). From time b onward, the play is made with undue hesitation. The interval a to b cannot be zero. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 22 03:12:45 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 22:12:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: <000001c3c68b$dcccd0f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Friday, Dec 19, 2003, at 18:57 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > When an action by a player is interpreted the same by all players at > the > table then it does not really matter whether that action is technically > correct. Oh? Then why doesn't Law 90 say that? > South's action was interpreted as a synonym for pass by the other > players, and from the context I should suspect that being a habitual > manner > it would be interpreted the same by every other player in that club. > Again, on the assumption that this is "normal" behavior in the club > they are > entitled to assume that the tapping means "pass". Your assumption is based on supposition, not fact. > And when South "passed" in an incorrect manner, all four players acted > as if > South had indeed passed nobody has any reason to (suddenly) rule that > the > opening lead is a card exposed during the auction rather than an > opening > lead. "Suddenly"? Who said anything about "suddenly"? > Not sensible at all! Gee, thanks a lot. :-( > If you were called to the table as a director your first duty is to > establish exactly why you have been called. Duh. In this case the director was called because there was a disagreement as to whether the contract had been doubled. Do you think I had some other reason in mind? Do *you* have some other reason in mind? > You will then be told the story as we know it. If the complaint is that > South did not make any call, he just tapped his last bid card (and the > bid > cards are still lying on the table) you may ask if anybody is in doubt > of > South's intention. You will probably be told that everybody assumed > South > intended his tap as a pass and then you simply tell them that's what > you > would assume as well and ask them to play bridge rather than delaying > the > game with such interrupts. (You may also tell South that he had better > fight > his tendency to make his own ways of bidding). > > And if the opening lead has been made (face up or face down) you just > rule > what every player apparently believes is the case: South intended his > tap as > a pass. > > The only exception is if South is the player summoning you with a > complaint > that he intended his tapping as another double and that the other > players > apparently have mistaken his call for a pass. Then, if no opening lead > has > yet been faced you order the auction to continue from the double by > South. > > But if the opening lead has already been faced you tell South that the > contract is not doubled because his action was understood by all > players as > a pass (proven by them all returning their bid cards to their boxes), > and > tell him to be more compliant with the laws in the future. Proven?! Ha! Please, God, let this be the last time I'm so foolish as to ask for lessons on directing from blml. :-( From blml@blakjak.com Mon Dec 22 03:18:41 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 03:18:41 +0000 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: <68A49387-335D-11D8-A0B0-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <68A49387-335D-11D8-A0B0-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote >On Saturday, Dec 20, 2003, at 19:39 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > >> True - but it helps to have a Law, and the EBU advised its TDs that >>the Law was 21B some years ago. > >Even though neither 21B nor 25A actually says so? In my view L21B does say so, as explained in other 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 Dec 22 03:21:38 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 03:21:38 +0000 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: <000001c3c7aa$329a0bf0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c3c7aa$329a0bf0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >............ >(I had written) >> >Law 25A states that an inadvertent call may on certain >> >conditions be replaced without penalty. The conditions >> >are such that a call qualifying as an inadvertent call >> >is not considered to carry any information at all. >> >Consequently such calls are neither misinformation nor >> > authorized or unauthorized information to anybody. >> > >> >However while the reference to Law 21B is required as >> >an authorization for LHO to replace his possible call >> >subsequent to the retraction of the inadvertent call; >> >part of the text in L21B is misleading in that it assumes >> >the reason for l21B to be applicable will always be >> >misinformation from somebody. >> >> Well, I do not find it misleading: there always is >> misinformation, and a incorrect call corrected under >> L25A provides misinformation as to what call is being >> made. > >The withdrawn call certainly gives misinformation but that is not the reason >for its withdrawal. Of course the reason for the withdrawal is the misinformation otherwise why would he want to withdraw it? Let us say he passed because he thought RHO was bidding 2S: when he discovers it was actually [say] 2H he may wish to change it: his change is because he was misinformed that RHO was bidding 2S. -- 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 Dec 22 03:23:29 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 03:23:29 +0000 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: <006901c3c80d$43b0dbe0$0301a8c0@whips> References: <006901c3c80d$43b0dbe0$0301a8c0@whips> Message-ID: Rui Marques wrote >Grattan: >> Therefore, it would make sense to rewrite the Laws >>> in 2005 to make bidding boxes the default assumption, >>> and include spoken bidding as one of the Law 80E >>> options. >>> >>> The 2005 Laws could then include basic parameters >>> for bidding box use, including some definition of >>> when a call is made. > >Me: >That would be one of major improvement. For a number of years, one >of >>my difficulties while teaching junior directors was to make them make >>an easy transition from the written code to the "code + bidding box >>regulations". >----------- >David: There are a lot of regulations, not just bidding box ones. TDs >have >ot learn that it is not just the laws, and putting BB regs in the laws >would not help with this. > >Me: I think it would. It makes learning to direct with bidding boxes >quicker and makes the laws more in synch with the predominant way of >bidding. Then, there should be regulations for when there are no bidding >boxes. It was something that always struck me, why did we have the laws >for spoken bidding and regulations for the "almost omnipresent" bidding >boxes. It might help to teach TDs quicker insofar as there would be fewer regs that are commonly applied but it would teach them worse because they would not realise how important the regs are. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Mon Dec 22 03:31:31 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 03:31:31 +0000 Subject: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? In-Reply-To: <000d01c3c7e4$e60ba6a0$b02a4cd5@c5s5d3> References: <000d01c3c7e4$e60ba6a0$b02a4cd5@c5s5d3> Message-ID: Konrad Ciborowski wrote > It is universally agreed that after a longer hesitation >one is obliged to play the lowest card from a sequence. If it is not >a question of rules and regulations then at least it is a question >of fair play. It is not universally agreed, and really that is all that one can say. >Now, for a change, the opponents appeal and an American Appeals >Committee, as usually in their country, restores the score to one off... >Yet another scandal with the USA behind it. Anyone who writes this sort of rubbish in my view does not really believe in his case. I rarely see an article descend into invective when the case is strong: it is always used to bolster weak arguments. I really enjoyed commenting on the case-books. Unfortunately the only people in the ACBL should comment people have won their battle: no more foreigners I have been told. [Originally they said no non-members of the ACBL but as a long-standing member I managed to hurdle that one!] One thing that stood out clearly was the total absence of bias by ACs and Panels. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 22 00:33:24 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 10:33:24 +1000 Subject: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? Message-ID: For the ACBL casebook, Ton Kooijman was a panellist. In the casebook, Ton wrote: >I have some procedural questions here. It should be the >Director who establishes the fact that there was a >hesitation by North, don't you think? And so he did. What >reason (authority) does the Committee have to doubt such >an observation, using the almost meaningless expression >that the BIT must have been minimal, especially in >relation with the long pause for thought taken by East? >True, compared with 5 minutes 20 seconds is fast. I >consider it more than likely that North took some extra >time to consider the play, since playing low from dummy >at trick two was for sure not the expected continuation >for North. The question to be answered is whether North >had a reason to take some time to consider his play. My >answer is yes, so Law 73F2 does not apply. > >What remains are two other law-related issues. Players of >good standard do have a good feeling for sensitive >situations and they should be allowed to take a short >pause before playing in such situations. When a defender >is presented with the lead of a jack by RHO, holding the >queen he should be allowed to wait for some seconds before >playing. When declarer plays a small slam, wins the first >trick in hand, and then plays small to the Kxx in a side >suit in dummy, LHO should be allowed to wait for a couple >of seconds before playing, whatever his holding. Otherwise, >the position of the ace is given away at once. > >I would also like to repeat a suggestion made at a European >Championship a couple of years ago. If a player really >needs a long time to decide what card to play on a lead by >an opponent, he should not make a deceptive-like play. In >this case it means that if North had used considerable time >he should have played the queen, despite the fact that this >indicates the king. When discussing false-cards, Edgar Kaplan wrote: >>It should be the card, not the tempo, which deceives. On the length of the tempo-break, Norberto Bocchi wrote: >>>After a tank longer than eternity Smith, sitting East, >>>rises with the king. [snip] >>>To the amazement of everyone at the table (including the >>>TD which happened to be watching the play) Richard James Hills writes: Yet the AC did not interrogate the TD, the only unbiased witness to fact at the table. Instead, the AC unilaterally accepted the word of a member of the putative OS, to decide that a significant tempo-break had *not* occurred. Jeff Rubens has previously criticised the ACBL appeals procedures, where the table TD does *not* attend AC hearings. This is why Norberto Bocchi has a legitimate reason for a grievance, and some excuse for the infelicities in the tone of his article. If the table TD had attended the AC hearing, the break in tempo had been confirmed, but the ruling had gone against Bocchi on the grounds of Law 73D1 "at his own risk", then justice would not only have been done, but justice would also have been seen to be done. Best wishes RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 22 00:57:14 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 10:57:14 +1000 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) Message-ID: Richard James Hills pogonophiliated: >>Example: My partner issues the ukase that a particular call's >>meaning is as defined on page 87 of Goren's Bridge Complete. I >>say, "Yes, pard." But neither before nor after this discussion >>do I bother reading page 87. In that case, we do *not* have >>that partnership agreement, despite pard believing that we do. >>And if pard informs the opponents of our page 87 "agreement", >>pard has given MI. Roger Eymard observes : >In France, and probably in many other countries, the NBO rules >that the two members of a partnership must use the same system >and the same conventions. > >So, there is in that case not only MI, but a PP as well, whatever >the issue of the MI. > >I seems that Goren's Bridge Complete would be an appropriate Xmas >gift-:) Richard James Hills flonkers: Failing to have an agreement about a call (when pard falsely believes an agreement exists) is not playing two different systems, but rather playing one incomplete system. A better example of a partnership playing two different systems would be the mixed Aussie partnership which won bronze medals in two Bermuda Bowls. In the sexist agreed methods (devised by the husband, of course), Norma Borin had to give count signals, while her husband gave He-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed attitude signals. * * * Pogonophilia =3D love of beards Flonker =3D anything very large or outrageous Applicable either to Kris Kringle, or to Richard James Hills. Season's greetings, RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 22 01:22:22 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 11:22:22 +1000 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote: [big snip] >But you won't say "we don't have this >agreement" and be ruled against. You will >say "indeed we have this agreement, but I >forgot" and try for a ruling based on >misbid. > >So the question above does not come up in >real life. Richard James Hills replied: I remember one of David Bird's excellent "Monks of St Titus" stories where the Abbot was faced with just such a dilemma. The Abbot could tell the truth about his partner explaining as an agreement what was actually undiscussed, and then have the TD adjust the score for MI. Or the Abbot could lie, say that he had forgotten the system, and there would be no adjustment as his call would be ruled a misbid. Being the win-at-all-costs Abbot, he had no hesitation in lying. But I disagree with Herman's assertion that we are all Abbots, and that none of us "in real life" will tell the truth against our own interests. Therefore, the fundamental basis of the De Wael School is flawed. Fundamentally, the De Wael School advises that it is better to lie, and say "we have agreement x", when the truth is actually "we have no agreement", because the TD will rule "we have agreement x" is the Law anyway, so lying saves time. But if it is factual that a player might tell the truth against their own interests, then it might also be factual that a self- serving assertion by the same player of "undiscussed" is true. Herman tries to wriggle by asserting that "truth" or "facts" are not congruent with the Law, so Herman automatically rules against any explanation of "undiscussed". Season's greetings RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 22 01:40:45 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 11:40:45 +1000 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) Message-ID: Marv wrote: >Most of my partners would get entirely too much >UI if I were to explain everything I expect to >find in their hands. RJH asks: How much is too much? Any non-screen explanation gives UI to pard - it is up to pard to avoid selecting from amongst LAs any demonstrably suggested action. If an inexperienced pard is having difficulty in remembering partnership agreements, the solution is *not* to be niggardly in explanations to the opponents, but rather to use mnemonically simpler agreements with that partner. Season's greetings, Richard James Hills -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 22 05:40:08 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 00:40:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4D7E1246-3441-11D8-AF29-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Sunday, Dec 21, 2003, at 22:18 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > In my view L21B does say so, as explained in other posts. After re-reading 21B1, I agree. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 22 04:20:18 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 14:20:18 +1000 Subject: [blml] The one-eyed TD is king Message-ID: North American Open Pairs, Flight B, second final session Bd: 18, Dlr: East, Vul: N/S The bidding has gone: West North East South --- --- Pass 2C(1) 2H(2) 2NT 3H 3NT Pass Pass 4H Dbl ? (1) Alerted and explained as strong and artificial (2) Alerted and explained as a transfer to spades You, West, hold: QJ9832 --- 952 T975 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? Season's greetings, Richard James Hills -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 22 07:09:46 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:09:46 +1000 Subject: Concentric circles - was Re: [blml] Be alert but ... Message-ID: David Stevenson: >>I gave him a lecture on full disclosure, and good Director practice Ed Reppert: >Sounds like he needed it. :-) David Stevenson: >>But the worry is that RHO clearly did not expect that his partner >>should answer the question, and there does seem a whole idea of not >>answering questions, which seems a more prevalent idea in North >>America. It worries me considerably. Ed Reppert: >I think most people *try* to practice full disclosure. Problem is >they don't understand what that is. Maybe I'm too optimistic. :-) Richard James Hills: What worries me is that some prominent blmlers, who *ought* to understand full disclosure, argue against Law 75A. One prominent blmler argues that Law 75A is a meaningless motherhood statement, with only Law 40 being relevant. Another prominent blmler advises players to lie about any lack of agreement. Yet another prominent blmler argues that Law 75A is limited by Law 75C, with avoiding UI more important than full disclosure. While one normally sensible blmler argues that disclosure remains full despite all negative inferences being hidden from the opponents. "There's glory for you!" "I don't know what you mean by glory," Alice said "I meant, 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'" "But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument," Alice objected. If prominent blmlers can argue that "full disclosure" does not mean "full disclosure", it is not surprising that this is also a very significant grassroots problem in North America (and other continents). :-( Season's greetings, Humpty Dumpty -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 22 07:25:10 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:25:10 +1000 Subject: [blml] Bridge Proprieties Message-ID: Sven: [snip] >>(But even when regulations stipulate situations where >>ten seconds pause is justified nobody (I hope) argues >>that there should be ten seconds pause for every call >>or play as the case may be to avoid variations. [snip] Law 73D1: >It is desirable, though not always required, for >players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. >However, players should be particularly careful in >positions in which variations may work to the >benefit of their side. [snip] RJH: If sometimes you hesitate at trick one with a trick one non-problem, and if sometimes you do *not* hesitate at trick one with a trick one non-problem, in my opinion that is a variation which may work to the benefit of your side. Law 73D1 (continued): >Otherwise, inadvertently to vary the tempo or manner in >which a call or play is made does not in itself >constitute a violation of propriety, [snip] RJH: The clause above protects simple hesitators, who hesitate when they have a current problem. But complex hesitators, who perform "just bridge" hesitations without a current problem, are *deliberately* breaking tempo, not *inadvertently* breaking tempo. Therefore, they cannot Lawfully vary their tempo by only *sometimes* hesitating with a non-problem. Season's greetings, Richard James Hills -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From toddz@att.net Mon Dec 22 07:56:08 2003 From: toddz@att.net (toddz@att.net) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 07:56:08 +0000 Subject: [blml] The one-eyed TD is king Message-ID: <122220030756.5958.1a9c@att.net> > What call do you make? Pass > What other calls do you consider making? None. Partner knows I have spades and can try that if he'd like. Of course we're going to find out 2H was not alerted at the table? -Todd From mamos@blueyonder.co.uk Mon Dec 22 08:23:32 2003 From: mamos@blueyonder.co.uk (mamos) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 08:23:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] The one-eyed TD is king References: Message-ID: <008201c3c864$e2fd9420$3c6a2452@mikeamos> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 4:20 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The one-eyed TD is king North American Open Pairs, Flight B, second final session Bd: 18, Dlr: East, Vul: N/S The bidding has gone: West North East South --- --- Pass 2C(1) 2H(2) 2NT 3H 3NT Pass Pass 4H Dbl ? (1) Alerted and explained as strong and artificial (2) Alerted and explained as a transfer to spades You, West, hold: QJ9832 --- 952 T975 What call do you make? Pass What other calls do you consider making? Pass Pass Pass Who is captain of this auction? Heaven knows what partner has I've (over?)stated my hand Season's greetings, Richard James Hills ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA). DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Dec 22 08:28:17 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 09:28:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3FE6AB21.1050009@hdw.be> Hello Richard, You make a few valid points and a few invalid ones: richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > [big snip] > > >>But you won't say "we don't have this >>agreement" and be ruled against. You will >>say "indeed we have this agreement, but I >>forgot" and try for a ruling based on >>misbid. >> >>So the question above does not come up in >>real life. > recap: Richard was trying to prove that he did NOT have an agreement when in fact his partner told the TD that the agreement was on page 87. That is - admit it - a very rare occurence. And when it does happen, the TD's job is all the more easier. So even if it is untrue that it _never_ happens, it is true that it is not an interesting case (speaking from the point of view of a director). > > Richard James Hills replied: > > I remember one of David Bird's excellent > "Monks of St Titus" stories where the Abbot > was faced with just such a dilemma. > > The Abbot could tell the truth about his > partner explaining as an agreement what was > actually undiscussed, and then have the TD > adjust the score for MI. > > Or the Abbot could lie, say that he had > forgotten the system, and there would be no > adjustment as his call would be ruled a > misbid. > > Being the win-at-all-costs Abbot, he had no > hesitation in lying. > I'm surprised that the Abbot would admit to forgetting an agreement, and not just blame his partner while accepting the score adjustment. > But I disagree with Herman's assertion that > we are all Abbots, and that none of us "in > real life" will tell the truth against our > own interests. > If you think that my message above indicated that I believe we are all liars, then I have misexpressed myself. Sorry. > Therefore, the fundamental basis of the De > Wael School is flawed. Fundamentally, the > De Wael School advises that it is better to > lie, and say "we have agreement x", when the > truth is actually "we have no agreement", > because the TD will rule "we have agreement > x" is the Law anyway, so lying saves time. > Indeed. But is it lying? If partner makes a call, with a particular intent, and you understand the intent, from the context of your whole system, and you interpret it correctly, is that not prima facie evidence that your whole system included this intent in the first place, even if you never actually agreed upon this? If you can tell the opponents: "XX means X, and YY means Y, so ZZ should mean Z", then is that not your system? So is it MI or not if you say "We have not agreed what ZZ means"? I am certain, Richard, that in such cases you, as player, will say something like "if partner has any sense of logic, ZZ should be Z". And I am equally certain, Richard, that in such cases you, as director, would rule MI against a player who simply says "no agreement". Now the only thing that differs between a player like Richard and a player who follows the dWs is that Richard will express doubt, and my player won't. That doubt is UI to partner, and NEI to opponents (information they are not entitled to). > But if it is factual that a player might > tell the truth against their own interests, > then it might also be factual that a self- > serving assertion by the same player of > "undiscussed" is true. > > Herman tries to wriggle by asserting that > "truth" or "facts" are not congruent with > the Law, so Herman automatically rules > against any explanation of "undiscussed". > Well, maybe not automatically, but I will look very hard on people who say "I don't know" and then guess correctly. I will extract from them all relevant information and then ask then why they did not give that same information to opponents. Mind you, I have never come accross people who say "undiscussed" and refuse to elaborate. Most people I know are more helpful than that and actually reveal their guesses. So I don't have to rule in the manner above very often. But I would, yes. > Season's greetings > Happy holidays! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Dec 22 08:11:56 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 08:11:56 -0000 Subject: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? References: <009d01c3c813$9e6a3440$519468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <004c01c3c866$057eeed0$e34de150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 10:41 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? > > [Nigel] > Maybe its not quite so clear-cut as I made out a > minute ago because the only winning defence is to > play low on dummy's heart lead. I suppose declarer > blew it when he failed to exit with H:J!. I would > still rule in declarer's favour but now with much > less certainty. > +=+ I wonder whether Rodwell, Helgemo, Balicki, were asked what they would have played with Hearts K x x in East? I wonder what the tempo was, how quickly was the lead to the second trick made, how much time did players have to consider the hand as a whole at trick one? Do we know anything about the class of player involved? It is not that I want to disagree with what others say. I would just like to know the basis on which I should agree. Did anyone discuss the demerits of allowing contract made for EW and light for NS? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Dec 22 08:54:51 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 09:54:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] The one-eyed TD is king In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3FE6B15B.4060606@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > North American Open Pairs, Flight B, second final session > Bd: 18, Dlr: East, Vul: N/S > > The bidding has gone: > > West North East South > --- --- Pass 2C(1) > 2H(2) 2NT 3H 3NT > Pass Pass 4H Dbl > ? > > (1) Alerted and explained as strong and artificial > (2) Alerted and explained as a transfer to spades > > You, West, hold: > > QJ9832 > --- > 952 > T975 > > What call do you make? I don't know. > What other calls do you consider making? > Certainly 4Sp (as well as pass). I appreciate that Richard has failed to mention the UI (probably partner did not alert), but he also forgets the AI: -partner has often forgotten this agreement; -we don't play this convention for a long time; -RHO's double came with a "thumb". If the evidence is such that even with screens we know we're heading for -2200, I allow 4Sp. > Season's greetings, > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Dec 22 08:58:50 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 09:58:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] The one-eyed TD is king In-Reply-To: <3FE6B15B.4060606@hdw.be> References: <3FE6B15B.4060606@hdw.be> Message-ID: <3FE6B24A.5080207@hdw.be> I forgot one: Herman De Wael wrote: > richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >> >> >> >> North American Open Pairs, Flight B, second final session >> Bd: 18, Dlr: East, Vul: N/S >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> West North East South >> --- --- Pass 2C(1) >> 2H(2) 2NT 3H 3NT >> Pass Pass 4H Dbl >> ? >> >> (1) Alerted and explained as strong and artificial >> (2) Alerted and explained as a transfer to spades >> >> You, West, hold: >> >> QJ9832 >> --- >> 952 >> T975 >> >> What call do you make? > > > I don't know. > >> What other calls do you consider making? >> > > Certainly 4Sp (as well as pass). > > I appreciate that Richard has failed to mention the UI (probably partner > did not alert), but he also forgets the AI: > -partner has often forgotten this agreement; > -we don't play this convention for a long time; > -RHO's double came with a "thumb". - partner did not open but happily defends to the 4-level on a suit which a strong 2C opener might have, knowing I have a spade suit and could be extremely short in his suit? > If the evidence is such that even with screens we know we're heading for > -2200, I allow 4Sp. > that should be -2300, of course. > >> Season's greetings, >> >> > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Mon Dec 22 09:42:36 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 10:42:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3c86f$ee973d80$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ............. > >The withdrawn call certainly gives misinformation but=20 > >that is not the reason for its withdrawal. >=20 > Of course the reason for the withdrawal is the misinformation > otherwise why would he want to withdraw it? Let us say he passed > because he thought RHO was bidding 2S: when he discovers it was = actually > [say] 2H he may wish to change it: his change is because he was > misinformed that RHO was bidding 2S. But that will not enable a Law 25A change? He changed his mind when = noticing that RHO had bid 2H rather than 2S. That makes it a Law 25B case. The changes we are discussing are for instance after RHO has indeed bid = 2H when "our" player discovers that he has inadvertently bid 2NT rather = than the 2S which was what he intended to bid all the time and when he = discovers his error after LHO but before his partner has subsequently called. Now LHO can change his pass (following 2NT) to for instance double when "our" player corrected his bid to 2S. Do we have any "misinformation" as reason for "our" player's change of call here? Sven From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon Dec 22 10:39:15 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 10:39:15 +0000 Subject: [blml] Bridge Proprieties In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <16C03CFE-346B-11D8-98F0-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 21 Dec 2003, at 23:01, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > On Thursday, December 18, 2003, at 01:46 AM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au > wrote: > > Surely I am not the only one who feels guilty > about benefiting from an inadvertent revoke, > > > Do you also feel guilty about benefiting from other forms of > inadvertent > mis-card? If not, what is the distinction? > > * * * > > The distinction is that in one case the NOS gains compensation for > an irregularity, in the other case the OS gains a benefit from an > irregularity. No irregularity needed in the latter case. Just insufficient care. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Mon Dec 22 10:46:00 2003 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 10:46:00 -0000 Subject: Fw: [blml] Bidding Box Message-ID: <001801c3c879$cb21bdd0$5c1e2850@multivisionoem> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rui Marques" To: "'David Stevenson'" ; Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 9:56 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Bidding Box > Grattan: >> Therefore, it would make sense to rewrite the Laws > >> in 2005 to make bidding boxes the default assumption, > >> and include spoken bidding as one of the Law 80E > >> options. > >> > >> The 2005 Laws could then include basic parameters > >> for bidding box use, including some definition of > >> when a call is made. > +=+ Not I. Possibly Marv? +=+ From jjl-bridge@libertysurf.fr Mon Dec 22 11:58:23 2003 From: jjl-bridge@libertysurf.fr (Jean-Jacques Lafay) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:58:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] The one-eyed TD is king In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000d01c3c882$e6af07c0$0000fea9@lanfeust> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote : >=20 > North American Open Pairs, Flight B, second final session > Bd: 18, Dlr: East, Vul: N/S >=20 > The bidding has gone: >=20 > West North East South > --- --- Pass 2C(1) > 2H(2) 2NT 3H 3NT > Pass Pass 4H Dbl > ? >=20 > (1) Alerted and explained as strong and artificial > (2) Alerted and explained as a transfer to spades >=20 > You, West, hold: >=20 > QJ9832 > --- > 952 > T975 >=20 > What call do you make? 4S > What other calls do you consider making? None It seems pretty easy since partner is a passed hand, he keeps suggesting H, but he must have S support (actually he probably did not open 2 or 3 H because of his 3 or 4 S). It would be much more difficult if he hadn't passed, in which case pass by me is certainly a possibility, maybe the only one... Of course, partner did *not* alert 2H, and I would feel bad at the table, but as I said I would not consider pass a LA. You cannot say "pass, partner will convert to S if he has them" because he knows that you know he has support, so if you pass it is because you'd rather play 4Hx than 4Sx. Jean-Jacques. -- From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Dec 22 14:10:50 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 09:10:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <3FE6AB21.1050009@hdw.be> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031222085304.00a139f0@pop.starpower.net> At 03:28 AM 12/22/03, Herman wrote: >Indeed. But is it lying? If partner makes a call, with a particular >intent, and you understand the intent, from the context of your whole >system, and you interpret it correctly, is that not prima facie >evidence that your whole system included this intent in the first >place, even if you never actually agreed upon this? > >If you can tell the opponents: "XX means X, and YY means Y, so ZZ >should mean Z", then is that not your system? So is it MI or not if >you say "We have not agreed what ZZ means"? > >I am certain, Richard, that in such cases you, as player, will say >something like "if partner has any sense of logic, ZZ should be Z". >And I am equally certain, Richard, that in such cases you, as >director, would rule MI against a player who simply says "no agreement". I believe that full disclosure means that the opponents, faced with interpreting partner's bid, should be given all of the information you have available for your own determination as to its meaning. Therefore I, as a player, would say something like, "We have no agreement about ZZ, but we do have the potentially relevant agreements that XX means X, and YY means Y." If I conclude from the information available (to both sides) that therefore "ZZ should mean Z", I do so based on my "general knowledge and experience". 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 Dec 22 14:24:46 2003 From: toddz@att.net (toddz@att.net) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 14:24:46 +0000 Subject: [blml] The one-eyed TD is king Message-ID: <122220031424.19174.3f87@att.net> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote : > > North American Open Pairs, Flight B, second final session > > Bd: 18, Dlr: East, Vul: N/S > > Of course, partner did *not* alert 2H, and I would feel bad at the > table, but as I said I would not consider pass a LA. You cannot say > "pass, partner will convert to S if he has them" because he knows that > you know he has support, so if you pass it is because you'd rather play > 4Hx than 4Sx. You certainly can say such a thing. This is a Flight B event/question and a flight B player such as myself did not make the deduction that partner must have spade support. My calculation of inferences didn't go that far. -Todd From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Dec 22 14:31:56 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:31:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031222085304.00a139f0@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031222085304.00a139f0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <3FE7005C.3070200@hdw.be> Eric, don't go hiding behind bushes. Eric Landau wrote: > At 03:28 AM 12/22/03, Herman wrote: > >> Indeed. But is it lying? If partner makes a call, with a particular >> intent, and you understand the intent, from the context of your whole >> system, and you interpret it correctly, is that not prima facie >> evidence that your whole system included this intent in the first >> place, even if you never actually agreed upon this? >> >> If you can tell the opponents: "XX means X, and YY means Y, so ZZ >> should mean Z", then is that not your system? So is it MI or not if >> you say "We have not agreed what ZZ means"? >> >> I am certain, Richard, that in such cases you, as player, will say >> something like "if partner has any sense of logic, ZZ should be Z". >> And I am equally certain, Richard, that in such cases you, as >> director, would rule MI against a player who simply says "no agreement". > > > I believe that full disclosure means that the opponents, faced with > interpreting partner's bid, should be given all of the information you > have available for your own determination as to its meaning. Therefore > I, as a player, would say something like, "We have no agreement about > ZZ, but we do have the potentially relevant agreements that XX means X, > and YY means Y." If I conclude from the information available (to both > sides) that therefore "ZZ should mean Z", I do so based on my "general > knowledge and experience". > And you would be right, Eric, and within the laws. But you'd spend a whole of time explaining all this, all the while omitting the only part that is truely important, namely that ZZ means Z. Suppose this happens: You, Eric, start explaining that XX means X, and YY means Y. Your opponent asks "what about ZZ?". You answer "I'm not telling you, that's just common bridge logic". You have interpreted it as Z, your partner intended it as Z, and still your opponent interprets ZZ as Z1. Now isn't that proof that what you call "common bridge knowledge" is not so? Won't the TD rule against you? So what is wrong with you simply saying it is Z? Again, I repeat, the dWs is not a school for directors, but an advice to players. Just tell the opponents what you believe the agreement is. Don't tell them you're unsure. That's information they are not entitled to, which they will use against you, and which won't help you in your later defence to the TD ("I told them I was uncertain"). > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jjl-bridge@libertysurf.fr Mon Dec 22 16:09:31 2003 From: jjl-bridge@libertysurf.fr (Jean-Jacques Lafay) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:09:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] The one-eyed TD is king References: <122220031424.19174.3f87@att.net> Message-ID: <002201c3c8a5$fc015290$0000fea9@lanfeust> > > Of course, partner did *not* alert 2H, and I would feel bad at the > > table, but as I said I would not consider pass a LA. You cannot say > > "pass, partner will convert to S if he has them" because he knows that > > you know he has support, so if you pass it is because you'd rather play > > 4Hx than 4Sx. > > You certainly can say such a thing. This is a Flight B event/question > and a flight B player such as myself did not make the deduction that partner > must have spade support. My calculation of inferences didn't go that far. Eh, the usual "peers/class of the player" issue ! I answered assuming one of my peers, and I mean peer as much from a pure bridge level point of view (although I'm not familiar with ACBL flights, I guess I would be playing in flight A events) as from general bidding style (which doesn't suit me either : I wouldn't even dream of transfer overcall over a strong 2C, and anyway I would have bid at the 3 level). One last point : partner probably could have passed with a very shapely two suited hand, but then he would have bid his minor over 3NT, not merely repeated his H. Jean-Jacques. -- From adam@irvine.com Mon Dec 22 18:37:23 2003 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 10:37:23 -0800 Subject: [blml] Bridge Proprieties In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 21 Dec 2003 00:40:54 GMT." Message-ID: <200312221837.KAA14641@mailhub.irvine.com> David wrote: > >Yet another of my hermeneutical hobby-horses is > >Law 73A2: > > > >>Calls and plays should be made without special > >>emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without > >>undue hesitation or haste (however, sponsoring > >>organisations may require mandatory pauses, as > >>on the first round of auction, or after a > >>skip-bid warning, or on the first trick). > > > >Some blmlers have argued that - even without an > >SO's first trick mandatory pause reg - it is > >legal to hesitate at trick one with a trick one > >non-problem. Their reasoning is that, in their > >opinion, such a hesitation is "just bridge" and > >so is therefore not an "undue" hesitation. > > True. In fact we have such a recommendation form the regulating > authority. > > >In "Ethics for Experts", Michael Rosenberg wrote: > > > >>>Then, of course, there are the pairs who > >>>"always think before playing to the first > >>>trick," except when they don't. Strangely > >>>enough, they usually forget to think when they > >>>want partner to continue with the "obvious" > >>>defense. > > > >Therefore, blmlers arguing that a trick one > >hesitation is not "undue" cannot logically have > >it both ways. If that is their premise, those > >blmlers must also accept that any play at trick > >one without a hesitation has to be defined by > >them as the infraction of "undue haste". > > Certainly true. In fact, I do try to pause at the first trick, as third hand, even when the defense is obvious, or even when I have a Yarborough and am likely to have nothing to think about for the entire hand. Then again, I'm one of the few players around who pauses before passing in the auction 1NT-pass-3NT-(my turn to call). -- Adam From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Dec 22 19:50:18 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 14:50:18 -0500 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <3FE7005C.3070200@hdw.be> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031222085304.00a139f0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20031222085304.00a139f0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031222115309.01f34ea0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:31 AM 12/22/03, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: >> >>I believe that full disclosure means that the opponents, faced with >>interpreting partner's bid, should be given all of the information >>you have available for your own determination as to its >>meaning. Therefore I, as a player, would say something like, "We >>have no agreement about ZZ, but we do have the potentially relevant >>agreements that XX means X, and YY means Y." If I conclude from the >>information available (to both sides) that therefore "ZZ should mean >>Z", I do so based on my "general knowledge and experience". > >And you would be right, Eric, and within the laws. > >But you'd spend a whole of time explaining all this, all the while >omitting the only part that is truely important, namely that ZZ means Z. But I don't know that ZZ means Z! I know only that XX means X, and that YY means Y. I infer from this that ZZ was probably intended to mean Z, but if I have given my opponents all of the relevant information I have used to come to this inference, their guess as to its logical consequence is every bit as good as mine. If they would have done a better job of infering my partner's intention based on their (correct and complete) information about the agreements I actually do have, but I mislead them by purporting to have an agreement about ZZ into thinking that my own inference is in fact our agreement, they will have been damaged by my having (deliberately) misinformed them. >Suppose this happens: > >You, Eric, start explaining that XX means X, and YY means Y. Your >opponent asks "what about ZZ?". You answer "I'm not telling you, >that's just common bridge logic". At the table, I answer, "Well, you know as much as I do, so I guess we can both draw our own conclusions." My NCBO has specifically told me *not* to reveal my conclusions, as they are *not* my agreements, explicit, implicit, common, uncommon, special, universal, or otherwise. >You have interpreted it as Z, your partner intended it as Z, and still >your opponent interprets ZZ as Z1. No, I have inferred that partner probably intended it to mean Z, while my opponent has inferred that partner probably inteneded it to mean Z1. At this point neither of us knows what partner actually intended it to mean. If my opponent's "general knowledge and experience" is more extensive or sounder than mine, his inference is more likely to be correct than mine is, and vice versa. >Now isn't that proof that what you call "common bridge knowledge" is >not so? Won't the TD rule against you? I don't understand the relevance. At this point, opponent and I share whatever knowledge is to be had regarding our agreements, so I don't see how it makes any difference whether we label any particular piece of it "special" or "common". All it proves is that equal reasoning ability is "not so". >So what is wrong with you simply saying it is Z? What's wrong is that, at this point, with the knowledge I have, it may well not be Z. It may be Z1. My opponent, with his superior abilities, may have been able to work that out where I couldn't. In that case, he will be misled by my telling him (falsely) that it is Z by agreement (notwithstanding that Z1 might make more sense), and he is likely to be damaged in consequence. >Again, I repeat, the dWs is not a school for directors, but an advice >to players. Just tell the opponents what you believe the agreement is. >Don't tell them you're unsure. That's information they are not >entitled to, which they will use against you, and which won't help you >in your later defence to the TD ("I told them I was uncertain"). In my scenario, I cannot have told them that I am unsure, because I have not told them anything that I am unsure of. Nor have I told them what I believe the agreement is, because "the agreement" does not exist. Pretending that there is an agreement, and that, moreover, I know what it is, can only damage my opponents; it cannot help them. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From blml@blakjak.com Mon Dec 22 20:12:08 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:12:08 +0000 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <3FE7005C.3070200@hdw.be> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031222085304.00a139f0@pop.starpower.net> <3FE7005C.3070200@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >Suppose this happens: > >You, Eric, start explaining that XX means X, and YY means Y. Your >opponent asks "what about ZZ?". You answer "I'm not telling you, that's >just common bridge logic". >You have interpreted it as Z, your partner intended it as Z, and still >your opponent interprets ZZ as Z1. > >Now isn't that proof that what you call "common bridge knowledge" is >not so? Won't the TD rule against you? No, it isn't. Apart from the fact that you are mixing 'proof' with 'evidence' [probably deliberately for dramatic effect] few opponents actually refuse to listen when you tell them what relevant agreements oyu do have. > >So what is wrong with you simply saying it is Z? You have not got such an agreement and you ask what is wrong with saying it? Because as players we do not lie if we can avoid it. >Again, I repeat, the dWs is not a school for directors, but an advice >to players. Just tell the opponents what you believe the agreement is. >Don't tell them you're unsure. That's information they are not entitled >to, which they will use against you, and which won't help you in your >later defence to the TD ("I told them I was uncertain"). It is extremely poor advice because any advice that suggests a player lies will, if followed, means that the player will get in the habit of lying, and that will cause far more problems in the long run. Bridge is more fun and fairer amongst people who tell each other the truth. -- 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 Dec 22 20:17:19 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:17:19 +0000 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: <000001c3c86f$ee973d80$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c3c86f$ee973d80$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >............. >> >The withdrawn call certainly gives misinformation but >> >that is not the reason for its withdrawal. >> >> Of course the reason for the withdrawal is the misinformation >> otherwise why would he want to withdraw it? Let us say he passed >> because he thought RHO was bidding 2S: when he discovers it was actually >> [say] 2H he may wish to change it: his change is because he was >> misinformed that RHO was bidding 2S. > >But that will not enable a Law 25A change? He changed his mind when noticing >that RHO had bid 2H rather than 2S. That makes it a Law 25B case. > >The changes we are discussing are for instance after RHO has indeed bid 2H >when "our" player discovers that he has inadvertently bid 2NT rather than >the 2S which was what he intended to bid all the time and when he discovers >his error after LHO but before his partner has subsequently called. > >Now LHO can change his pass (following 2NT) to for instance double when >"our" player corrected his bid to 2S. Do we have any "misinformation" as >reason for "our" player's change of call here? Since I cannot work out what you are saying I shall diagram what I am saying and you can tell me where you disagree. a] South decides to bid 2H b] South bids 2S by accident c] West believes South is bidding 2S which is misinformation d] West decides to pass over 2S because he has six spades e] South changes his 2H to 2S under L25A f] West realises he has been misinformed as to the call South is making g] West would bid 2S over 2H h] L21B allows West to change his call since it was because of the misinformation -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Mon Dec 22 20:24:36 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:24:36 +0000 Subject: [blml] The one-eyed TD is king In-Reply-To: <3FE6B15B.4060606@hdw.be> References: <3FE6B15B.4060606@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >> North American Open Pairs, Flight B, second final session >> Bd: 18, Dlr: East, Vul: N/S >> The bidding has gone: >> West North East South >> --- --- Pass 2C(1) >> 2H(2) 2NT 3H 3NT >> Pass Pass 4H Dbl >> ? >> (1) Alerted and explained as strong and artificial >> (2) Alerted and explained as a transfer to spades >> You, West, hold: >> QJ9832 >> --- >> 952 >> T975 >> What call do you make? > >I don't know. > >> What other calls do you consider making? >> > >Certainly 4Sp (as well as pass). > >I appreciate that Richard has failed to mention the UI (probably >partner did not alert), but he also forgets the AI: >-partner has often forgotten this agreement; >-we don't play this convention for a long time; >-RHO's double came with a "thumb". >If the evidence is such that even with screens we know we're heading >for -2200, I allow 4Sp. According to the dWs West alerts 4H and says "4H is based on a fit for hearts even though I have not shown them because partner has forgotten that 2H shows spades which I know because he did not alert 2H." -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From svenpran@online.no Mon Dec 22 21:27:02 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 22:27:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3c8d2$577fda70$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ............. > Since I cannot work out what you are saying I shall diagram what I = am > saying and you can tell me where you disagree. As far as I can see we agree in the result but not in the reasoning: >=20 > a] South decides to bid 2H > b] South bids 2S by accident > c] West believes South is bidding 2S which is misinformation I would call this an accident, but OK West received "information" that = South never gave. I consider what West received to be "noise", not = "information". (If you inadvertently write "I had a nice desert with my supper = yesterday" I hope you agree that you do not give the information which is inherent in your spelling error?)=20 > d] West decides to pass over 2S because he has six spades > e] South changes his 2H to 2S under L25A > f] West realises he has been misinformed as to the call South is = making > g] West would bid 2S over 2H > h] L21B allows West to change his call since it was because of the > misinformation This is where I disagree in the reasoning: West may change his call, not because he was misinformed by South but because South changed his call = under Law 25A which leads us to Law 21B2. With your reasoning and as far as I can see you allow West to change his call under Law 21B1, but notice for instance the following scenario: South bids 2S West Pass South corrects his bid to 2H West doesn't react at this time (we don't know why, I assume he has a = valid reason) North calls West "discovers" his right to change his call (allegedly) under Law = 21B1. He now requests the changing of his pass to 2S If we apply Law 21B1 we must grant West this right because East has not = yet made any subsequent call. (And then North must next enjoy the same = right) I cannot imagine this scenario to be within the intention of the laws. If we apply Law 21B2 in all cases where a player has called and then his = RHO (for whatever reason) is allowed to change his last previous call there = will be no such problem.=20 Of course if the Director is awake he should make it clear to West that = any change he (West) may want to his call must be made before North calls. = This is evident when the Director reads L21B2, not so evident when he reads L21B1. Regards Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 22 23:01:04 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:01:04 +1000 Subject: [blml] The one-eyed TD is king Message-ID: North American Open Pairs, Flight B, second final session Bd: 18, Dlr: East, Vul: N/S The bidding has gone: West North East South --- --- Pass 2C(1) 2H(2) 2NT 3H 3NT Pass Pass 4H Dbl ? (1) Alerted and explained as strong and artificial (2) Alerted and explained as a transfer to spades You, West, hold: QJ9832 --- 952 T975 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? * * * As I suspected, a significant number of blmlers (including one self-confessed Flight B player) ruled that Pass was a logical alternative. And, as most suspected, at the table 2H was *not* alerted. This was the complete deal: AK4 JT965 84 QJ2 QJ9832 6 --- 87432 952 QJ763 T975 64 T75 AKQ AKT AK83 The unfortunate N/S gained a poor matchpoint score by defending 4Sx for +1400, when most of the rest of the field was scoring +1460 or more. N/S were quadratically unfortunate, since (being Flight B players) they summoned the TD for the wrong reason. N/S claimed damage due to East's MI. N/S failed to notice the damage caused by East's non-Alert UI, which encouraged West to run to 4S. The TD determined that E/W did have an agreement about transfer overcalls after a strong 1C, but E/W did not have an agreement about transfer overcalls after a strong 2C. Therefore, the TD ruled that West had misbid, no MI, no infraction, no adjustment. Was the TD one-eyed in not ruling on the UI infraction? Or because Law 9A "attention" had not been drawn to the UI irregularity, was the TD entitled to turn a Nelsonian blind eye? Or does Law 81C6 permit the TD to "rectify" an error closely related to the reason for the TD call, but a Nelsonian blind eye is required if the TD (only) noticed an unrelated irregularity such as a revoke? Season's greetings, Richard James Hills -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 22 23:33:09 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:33:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) Message-ID: Herman De Wael: [big snip] >>Mind you, I have never come across people who >>say "undiscussed" and refuse to elaborate. Most >>people I know are more helpful than that and >>actually reveal their guesses. So I don't have >>to rule in the manner above very often. But I >>would, yes. Richard James Hills: In my opinion, Herman is guilty of slightly muggled thinking, by ruling that both Gryffindor and Slytherin explanations should be treated identically. Extract from the ABF Alert Regulation: >If there is no partnership agreement as to the >meaning of a call, players must say so (by saying, >"Undiscussed", for example), and not try to offer >a possible explanation. In all such cases, >players should not offer explanations such as, "I >take it to mean ...." When, however, as a result >of partnership experience and style, players are >able to form a cogent view of the likely meaning >of an undiscussed call, that information shall be >given to opponents on request. Richard James Hills: That is, the opponents are entitled to know your implicit agreements, and the opponents are entitled to know your relevant analogous agreements, but the opponents are *not* entitled to know your guesses. Furthermore, giving the opponents your guess - "I take it to mean..." - also gives *unnecessary* UI to partner. Season's greetings, RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From blml@blakjak.com Mon Dec 22 22:47:58 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 22:47:58 +0000 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: <000001c3c8d2$577fda70$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c3c8d2$577fda70$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >............. >> Since I cannot work out what you are saying I shall diagram what I am >> saying and you can tell me where you disagree. > >As far as I can see we agree in the result but not in the reasoning: > >> >> a] South decides to bid 2H >> b] South bids 2S by accident >> c] West believes South is bidding 2S which is misinformation > >I would call this an accident, but OK West received "information" that South >never gave. I consider what West received to be "noise", not "information". >(If you inadvertently write "I had a nice desert with my supper yesterday" I >hope you agree that you do not give the information which is inherent in >your spelling error?) What has that to do with it? Here he has given information, and it was wrong: that *is* misinformation. If we followed your logic we would reach the following scenario: E/W play 2C as showing hearts. N asks, E forgets, and says it is natural. That's inadvertent - he knew really. By your logic it is not misinformation but it surely is. >> d] West decides to pass over 2S because he has six spades >> e] South changes his 2H to 2S under L25A >> f] West realises he has been misinformed as to the call South is making >> g] West would bid 2S over 2H >> h] L21B allows West to change his call since it was because of the >> misinformation > >This is where I disagree in the reasoning: West may change his call, not >because he was misinformed by South but because South changed his call under >Law 25A which leads us to Law 21B2. It does not, unless misinformation is involved. Perhaps it is time you re-read the two Laws. >With your reasoning and as far as I can see you allow West to change his >call under Law 21B1, but notice for instance the following scenario: > >South bids 2S >West Pass >South corrects his bid to 2H >West doesn't react at this time (we don't know why, I assume he has a valid >reason) >North calls >West "discovers" his right to change his call (allegedly) under Law 21B1. He >now requests the changing of his pass to 2S > >If we apply Law 21B1 we must grant West this right because East has not yet >made any subsequent call. (And then North must next enjoy the same right) > >I cannot imagine this scenario to be within the intention of the laws. > >If we apply Law 21B2 in all cases where a player has called and then his RHO >(for whatever reason) is allowed to change his last previous call there will >be no such problem. The only problem is that the Laws do not permit this. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Mon Dec 22 23:09:46 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 23:09:46 +0000 Subject: [blml] The one-eyed TD is king In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote >Was the TD one-eyed in not ruling on the UI infraction? >Or because Law 9A "attention" had not been drawn to the >UI irregularity, was the TD entitled to turn a Nelsonian >blind eye? Or does Law 81C6 permit the TD to "rectify" an >error closely related to the reason for the TD call, but a >Nelsonian blind eye is required if the TD (only) noticed an >unrelated irregularity such as a revoke? When a hand and an explanation do not match, TDs are trained to look at both MI and UI [and fielded misbids in England/Wales] even though damage is only requested because of one of them. -- 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 mustikka@charter.net Mon Dec 22 23:35:38 2003 From: mustikka@charter.net (Raija Davis) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:35:38 -0800 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) References: Message-ID: <00c801c3c8e4$4e996400$9865fea9@hewlettnvdluy3> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 3:33 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) Herman De Wael: [big snip] >>Mind you, I have never come across people who >>say "undiscussed" and refuse to elaborate. Most >>people I know are more helpful than that and >>actually reveal their guesses. So I don't have >>to rule in the manner above very often. But I >>would, yes. Richard James Hills: In my opinion, Herman is guilty of slightly muggled thinking, by ruling that both Gryffindor and Slytherin explanations should be treated identically. Extract from the ABF Alert Regulation: >If there is no partnership agreement as to the >meaning of a call, players must say so (by saying, >"Undiscussed", for example), and not try to offer >a possible explanation. In all such cases, >players should not offer explanations such as, "I >take it to mean ...." When, however, as a result >of partnership experience and style, players are >able to form a cogent view of the likely meaning >of an undiscussed call, that information shall be >given to opponents on request. Richard James Hills: That is, the opponents are entitled to know your implicit agreements, and the opponents are entitled to know your relevant analogous agreements, but the opponents are *not* entitled to know your guesses. Furthermore, giving the opponents your guess - "I take it to mean..." - also gives *unnecessary* UI to partner. Season's greetings, RJH I have a true story, related to the topic of this thread. Sectional tournament ACBL, unknown opponents, MPs - - none of that should matter much. I open 1NT (15-17), LHO pass, partner 2D (announced transfer to hearts), RHO double. I asked what double means. LHO says it should be diamonds. I asked if it was "diamonds" in similar situations before, like doubling Stayman and having clubs. He said "Yes". I bid 2NT with a max 17HCP, Qx heart and AJxx in diamonds. All pass. Opening lead is small diamond, dummy has K10xx in diamonds... I don't remember spots any more. I played the K in order to stay in dummy. RHO shows out...I called the Director and having heard what happened, she gave me a lesson that instead of asking further questions after the first answer, I should have asked "Is that your agreement" instead of asking more questions because that is improper. I didn't quite understand the impropriety. She said that if the answer to the proper question "Is that your agreement" was YES, and it turned out it was not their agreement then I would be protected by the Laws pertaining MI. But wait, there is more... As Director gathered the facts, LHO denied having answered "Yes" to my second question, RHO said he heard no such question asked let alone the YES in response, and they both said they had no agreement on the X and that the situation had never come up before (they turned out to be a longtime regular partnership BTW, I found out later). So, in light of this, had I actually asked "Is that your agreement" and got a YES, what would have stopped opponents from saying that the double was a misbid...Well, perhaps if they had some integrity... In the end, it was all my fault a) for not asking after the opponent offered a guess, whether it was their agreement and b) for harassing an opponent who did not know what their system was. Had I known that the X was plainly just "points/takeout" I would have made the contract. Now I went down, but there was no adjustment. I felt deceived by opponents, unfairly treated by Director (I cannot say which Laws where applied if any, and whether correctly or not), and on top of it I was accused of having harassed an opponent. At least I was not hit with a PP....haha. What do you think of the case and more to the point, did Director give me the right information about questions? Raija Davis From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Dec 23 01:54:20 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:54:20 +1000 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) Message-ID: Raija Davis: [big snip] >I called the Director and having heard what happened, she >gave me a lesson that instead of asking further questions >after the first answer, I should have asked "Is that your >agreement" instead of asking more questions because that >is improper. I didn't quite understand the impropriety. Richard James Hills: Indisputably, the TD was right. When playing against bunny opponents, it is better to ask the neutral question, "What is your agreement?", rather than put words into their mouth by asking, "Is such-and-such your agreement?" For reasons of timidity, a bunny is quite likely to answer "Yes" to "Is such-and-such your agreement", even when this is untrue or only partially true, in order to terminate quickly what for a bunny is an uncomfortable interrogation. Raija Davis: >She said that if the answer to the proper question "Is that >your agreement" was YES, and it turned out it was not their >agreement then I would be protected by the Laws pertaining >MI. But wait, there is more... > >As Director gathered the facts, LHO denied having answered >"Yes" to my second question, RHO said he heard no such >question asked let alone the YES in response, and they both >said they had no agreement on the X and that the situation >had never come up before (they turned out to be a longtime >regular partnership BTW, I found out later). [big snip] Richard James Hills: A longtime regular bunny partnership is not the same as a longtime regular expert partnership. It is quite possible that the only occasions that this partnership has had a TD at the table before, has been for mechanical rulings, such as revokes or leads out of turn. If so, they may have panicked at what may have seemed to them an accusation of severe cheating (rather than what is actually a mere case of either misbidding or alternatively MI). So, faced with the horror of an opponent and the TD applying what seemed to them to be the Spanish Inquisition, they chose the poor option of absolute denial, not realising that their lies converted a trivial infraction into a serious infraction. This entire incident is not the fault of the obvious three villains. Rather, it is the fault of the sponsoring organisation for failing in its duty of *prior* education of the three combatants in appropriate behaviour. The SO also failed to educate at least two of the combatants about the notion that a Director call is *not* an implicit accusation of cheating. Season's greetings, RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From John Mac Gregor" Message-ID: <000001c3c8f3$098f4be0$11070f0a@amnet.co.cr> I would have ruled 5C making, and would have had a very serious discussion with East and most likely assigned a PP as well. This is almost identical to a situation that occurred in a European championship in Portugal. I came down like a ton of bricks on the player at the table, and then they were reprimanded in the AC. John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 11:06 AM Subject: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? | | For quite a while the Polish "Brydz" magazine has been | publishing Norberto Bocchi's articles. | They are normally lighthearted short stories | but the piece in the December issue | left me in a state of little shock. | I must say I am astonished by a lot of aspects | (the tone, among other things) | but I would like to hear some comments first | especially on the "universally accepted" principle | mentioned in the text. How would you have ruled? | Below is my translation: | | | SUCCESSFUL... STRATAGEM??? | | Vanderbilt Cup 2002. Jacobs - Polowan | | Dealer South, Love All | | | A | AJ864 | AQ432 | 32 | QJ943 10875 | 1072 KQ5 | 1085 KJ9 | 104 QJ9 | K62 | 93 | 76 | AK8765 | | In one of the rounds of the Vanderbilt Cup during which | I exceptionally played with Lauria we arrived at 5C with my partner | at the helm. I won't bother you with the auction as it is irrelevant | for the story. To understand the chain of events that lead to one | down you have to put yourself in my partner's shoes. | Lorenzo wins the opening lead of the SQ and, without much of an | idea how to continue, calls for a low heart from dummy. After | a tank longer than eternity Smith, sitting East, rises with the king. | A fulfilled duty or merely an introduction? | It is universally agreed that after a longer hesitation | one is obliged to play the lowest card from a sequence. If it is not | a question of rules and regulations then at least it is a question | of fair play. | Smith now continues with a trump. Lorenzo wins the ace in hand, cashes | the king and with confidence finesses the HJ. What an nasty | surprise! To the amazement of everyone at the table (including the TD | which happened to be watching the play) it is East who has the queen! | We summon the TD who rules in our favor: 5C=, 400 for North-South. | Now, for a change, the opponents appeal and an American Appeals | Committee, as usually in their country, restores the score to one off... | Yet another scandal with the USA behind it. | Going back to bridge I would like to see if there was a winning | line in this contract. Without the East's hesitation Lorenzo would | no doubt have played a heart to the ace ruffing the third heart in hand | keeping the diamond finesse in reserve. Peace of cake. | After the unfavorable ruling we asked three best players in the | world (Rodwell, Helgemo and Balicki) how they would have played if they | had been in Lauria's position. None of them would have played differently. | | | | | | | _______________________________________________ | blml mailing list | blml@rtflb.org | http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Dec 23 01:45:09 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:45:09 -0500 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031222115309.01f34ea0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: On Monday, Dec 22, 2003, at 14:50 US/Eastern, Eric Landau wrote: > What's wrong is that, at this point, with the knowledge I have, it may > well not be Z. It may be Z1. My opponent, with his superior > abilities, may have been able to work that out where I couldn't. In > that case, he will be misled by my telling him (falsely) that it is Z > by agreement (notwithstanding that Z1 might make more sense), and he > is likely to be damaged in consequence. I agree with Eric. I infer, perhaps incorrectly, that Herman would rule misinformation if the opponents concluded Z1, Eric concluded Z, and Eric turned out to be right. But that ruling would be correct only if there were in fact some bit of disclosable information that Eric had withheld. Herman will no doubt maintain that he doesn't have to prove it, or even demonstrate it's likely, and he may well be right, the way the laws are currently written and interpreted. However, it seems to me that Herman should *not* be right. I don't believe we should assume that a player has misinformed opponents without strong evidence that actually supports that conclusion, rather than on a lack of strong evidence that it does not. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Dec 23 01:53:36 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:53:36 -0500 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <00c801c3c8e4$4e996400$9865fea9@hewlettnvdluy3> Message-ID: On Monday, Dec 22, 2003, at 18:35 US/Eastern, Raija Davis wrote: > What do you think of the case and more to the point, did Director give > me > the right information about questions? I think (a) you got screwed and (b) no. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Dec 23 02:56:19 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:56:19 +1000 Subject: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? Message-ID: John MacGregor: >I would have ruled 5C making, and would have had a very serious >discussion with East and most likely assigned a PP as well. >This is almost identical to a situation that occurred in a >European championship in Portugal. I came down like a ton of >bricks on the player at the table, and then they were >reprimanded in the AC. * * * 42nd Generali Europeans Bridge Championships Vilamoura, Portugal June 17th - July 1, 1995 http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/appeals/ebc95.html Appeal # 11 Open Teams Round 6. Reported by Tommy Sandsmark. Appeals Committee: Jose Damiani (Chairman), Helgi Johannsson, Iceland, Marian Frenkiel, Poland and Steen Moller, Denmark. Board 21 N/S Vul. Dealer N A Q 9 5 2 A Q J 8 A J 7 3 T 3 J 7 4 2 A T 9 6 J 8 7 3 K 9 6 5 2 4 3 6 5 K Q 9 K 8 6 K Q 5 4 T 7 T 8 4 2 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1D Pass 1H Pass 1S Pass 1NT Pass 3NT Pass Pass Pass Facts: South called the TD at the end of the hand complaining about an undue hesitation. West led the D2 to the 10, and South played another Diamond to the Jack in dummy. Now, the C3, and after some hesitation, East played the CK. East switched to a heart, which went to the King and the Ace, West continued with another heart. The declarer won with the Queen, followed by three round of spades from the top, ending up with South on lead, who played the C10. East won, cashed his good spade and his heart tricks; declarer discarded the CA from dummy allowing the C9 to take the last trick. Result on the board: 6 tricks to N/S; N/S -300. TD's ruling: TD ruled damage owing to the hesitation. Score adjusted to 3 NT down 1; N/S -100. Appellant: East/West. The players: South claimed that at trick three, it took East at least one minute to play the CK. E/W contested this, and maintained that East had only paused for 5-10 seconds. South then stated that the hesitation may not have been a full minute, and East added, that it might well have been at least 10 seconds. South claimed that the hesitation made him believe that East had a serious problem with e.g. Kx, and East said he was very surprised at the lead of a small club from dummy and that he had to consider playing the C9 in order to avoid a later end play in the suit. The committee: The committee established, that since East had at least two main possibilities in his defense (he could play one of the honors or the 9), he would also have every right to think for as long as he pleased. However, when he decided to play an honor, he should have known that by choosing the "abnormal" alternative, he would (inadvertently) violate the ethic code, as this play was bound to mislead South. In situations of this kind, East should always play the "natural" card, the Queen, which gives the declarer a real choice instead of an imaginative misleading one. The committee's decision: The committee supported the TD's decision. The deposit was returned. Committee's note: The committee was confident that it was not East's intention to coffee-house South. The EBL wants the highest possible standard of ethical conduct to be followed in these championships. Therefore, after a hesitation, players are advised to do the "normal" thing rather than the "abnormal", whenever there is a choice between the two. As an example, consider this situation: C Tx C xxx C KQx C AJ98x South plays a NT contract, and is known to have a weak hand. There are ample entries in North. The 10 is led from dummy. Now East has to consider the possibilities of splitting his honors now, or ducking completely to block the suit. If East, after a hesitation, decides to split, he should use the Queen, and not the King. Relating this to the current appeal: by playing the Queen, East guides his partner as to who has the King, but on the other hand, he really does not help the declarer through his honesty. Declarer will still be facing the same problem after the hesitation. -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From svenpran@online.no Tue Dec 23 02:37:19 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 03:37:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3c8fd$afba9e70$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson > >............. > >(If you inadvertently write "I had a nice desert with my supper > yesterday" I > >hope you agree that you do not give the information which is inherent = in > >your spelling error?) >=20 > What has that to do with it? =20 It was just an attempt to show you a more obvious example demonstrating = the difference between "information" and "noise" where the "noise" is the = result of some inadvertent action. OK, I suppose the example wasn't too good. ............ > >This is where I disagree in the reasoning: West may change his call, = not > >because he was misinformed by South but because South changed his = call > under > >Law 25A which leads us to Law 21B2. >=20 > It does not, unless misinformation is involved. Perhaps it is time > you re-read the two Laws.=20 I am also fully aware of WBFLC minute 6 from Maastricht 2000-08-30. I consider it a pity that they just refer to Law 21B and not explicitly to either of Laws 21B1, 21B2 or 21B3. (As Law 21B3 cannot under any circumstance be applicable after application of Law 25A it seems quite obvious that WBFLC did not intend to incorporate the entire Law 21B). However, as the question concerned "Change of Call by Opponent Following Correction" which is the heading to law 21B2 I find it most likely that = this is the particular law WBFLC must have had in mind.=20 If I am right I consider this minute to instruct directors that they = shall apply Law 21B2 (after applying Law 25A) according to its heading and = ignore the condition in this law text that the correction in question must be = the result of misinformation.=20 Do you agree that whatever "misinformation" West may have received must = have been caused by South inadvertently bidding 2S and not from his = subsequent 2H bid or the fact that he actually did change his call under Law 25A? If = you don't agree with me here I would like to hear you on exactly what misinformation has been passed to West by the 2H bid and/or the fact = that South did use his rights under Law 25A to change his call. Consider what would happen if South instead had chosen not to change his inadvertent 2S bid after hearing the Director telling him his options. Exactly the same misinformation to West is still there. I suppose we agree that West has no right whatsoever to change his call unless South first changes his inadvertent 2S bid, but why not so if the reason for allowing West to change his call shall be misinformation and = not South first changing his call under Law 25A? Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Dec 23 06:06:09 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:06:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? Message-ID: 1995 European Championship AC: [big snip] >Committee's note: The committee was confident that it was not >East's intention to coffee-house South. The EBL wants the highest >possible standard of ethical conduct to be followed in these >championships. Therefore, after a hesitation, players are advised >to do the "normal" thing rather than the "abnormal", whenever there >is a choice between the two. > >As an example, consider this situation: > > C Tx >C xxx C KQx > C AJ98x > >South plays a NT contract, and is known to have a weak hand. There >are ample entries in North. The 10 is led from dummy. Now East has >to consider the possibilities of splitting his honors now, or >ducking completely to block the suit. > >If East, after a hesitation, decides to split, he should use the >Queen, and not the King. [snip] Richard James Hills: Beware of the Leopard! Why can this practical advice on the interaction between falsecards and Law 73F2, only be found after following a series of links to the Swiss NCBO website? Why is this 1995 AC recommendation missing from the Appeals Examples in the WBF Code of Practice? Is a mere 8 years too short a time to expect this recommendation to be added to the WBF CoP? It is ridiculous that poor promulgation of this recommendation means that some experts and TDs, such as Norberto Bocchi and Ton Kooijman, expect the recommendation to be obeyed; while others, such as prominent ACBL experts and blmlers, are totally unaware of the recommendation. :-( Season's greetings, RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Dec 23 08:20:05 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:20:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031222085304.00a139f0@pop.starpower.net> <3FE7005C.3070200@hdw.be> Message-ID: <3FE7FAB5.6050803@hdw.be> David, Hello, glad to see you back taking an interest in my posts, Merry Christmas, and all that, but: David Stevenson wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote > >> Suppose this happens: >> >> You, Eric, start explaining that XX means X, and YY means Y. Your >> opponent asks "what about ZZ?". You answer "I'm not telling you, >> that's just common bridge logic". >> You have interpreted it as Z, your partner intended it as Z, and still >> your opponent interprets ZZ as Z1. >> >> Now isn't that proof that what you call "common bridge knowledge" is >> not so? Won't the TD rule against you? > > > No, it isn't. Apart from the fact that you are mixing 'proof' with > 'evidence' [probably deliberately for dramatic effect] few opponents > actually refuse to listen when you tell them what relevant agreements > oyu do have. > Noted about proof and evidence, but still: if you deduce Z1, and someone other deduces Z2 from the same facts, then Z1 is _NOT_ based on common bridge knowledge. So claiming that it is will not get past this TD. >> >> So what is wrong with you simply saying it is Z? > > > You have not got such an agreement and you ask what is wrong with > saying it? Because as players we do not lie if we can avoid it. > But that is the crux of the matter - that was my first question - Is it a lie? If my partner intends bid ZZ as Z, and I interpret it as Z - don't we have some sort of agreement? I am really pissed off when people tell the table "no agreement" and then proceed to completely correctly interpret partner's bids. I call it cheating. I find that much more damaging to the game than supposed "lying" about non-existent agreements. >> Again, I repeat, the dWs is not a school for directors, but an advice >> to players. Just tell the opponents what you believe the agreement is. >> Don't tell them you're unsure. That's information they are not >> entitled to, which they will use against you, and which won't help you >> in your later defence to the TD ("I told them I was uncertain"). > > > It is extremely poor advice because any advice that suggests a player > lies will, if followed, means that the player will get in the habit of > lying, and that will cause far more problems in the long run. Bridge is > more fun and fairer amongst people who tell each other the truth. > It is only poor advice when you tell the person he is lying. I don't. I tell him to tell his opponents what he thinks his agreements are. I don't tell him to go hiding behind phrases such as "we never actually agreed anything, so I'm not telling you what I think". I am surprised that your advice to players seems to be to hide potential agreements from them. While all the time you, as Director, will stand waiting to rule against them if they happen to guess correctly. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Dec 23 08:36:03 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:36:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031222115309.01f34ea0@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031222085304.00a139f0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20031222085304.00a139f0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20031222115309.01f34ea0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <3FE7FE73.9040306@hdw.be> Eric makes some valid points here (you know there's a BUT coming): Eric Landau wrote: > At 09:31 AM 12/22/03, Herman wrote: > >> Eric Landau wrote: >> >>> >>> I believe that full disclosure means that the opponents, faced with >>> interpreting partner's bid, should be given all of the information >>> you have available for your own determination as to its meaning. >>> Therefore I, as a player, would say something like, "We have no >>> agreement about ZZ, but we do have the potentially relevant >>> agreements that XX means X, and YY means Y." If I conclude from the >>> information available (to both sides) that therefore "ZZ should mean >>> Z", I do so based on my "general knowledge and experience". >> >> >> And you would be right, Eric, and within the laws. >> >> But you'd spend a whole of time explaining all this, all the while >> omitting the only part that is truely important, namely that ZZ means Z. > > > But I don't know that ZZ means Z! Don't you? However you come by it, you do know it (at least that is so in the example I create - if you will allow me a full set of possibilities XX,YY,ZZ) > I know only that XX means X, and that > YY means Y. I infer from this that ZZ was probably intended to mean Z, > but if I have given my opponents all of the relevant information I have > used to come to this inference, their guess as to its logical > consequence is every bit as good as mine. True, except when it isn't. My points are twofold: - why should you hide behind "general bridge knowledge" when you can actually help them? - if they do come to a different conclusion, is it fair from you to hide behind "general bridge knowledge" which turns out to be not general after all? > If they would have done a > better job of infering my partner's intention based on their (correct > and complete) information about the agreements I actually do have, but I > mislead them by purporting to have an agreement about ZZ into thinking > that my own inference is in fact our agreement, they will have been > damaged by my having (deliberately) misinformed them. > Yes, but you will have misinterpreted it as well. You're heading for a bad score as a result already. I'm not concerned with this case. I'm concerned with the case where you interpret correctly, they incorrectly, and you hiding behind a smoke screen of "I've told them all our agreements", which is something you cannot prove. >> Suppose this happens: >> >> You, Eric, start explaining that XX means X, and YY means Y. Your >> opponent asks "what about ZZ?". You answer "I'm not telling you, >> that's just common bridge logic". > > > At the table, I answer, "Well, you know as much as I do, so I guess we > can both draw our own conclusions." My NCBO has specifically told me > *not* to reveal my conclusions, as they are *not* my agreements, > explicit, implicit, common, uncommon, special, universal, or otherwise. > OK, and I'm not saying that you'd be wrong. I'm only saying that I do it differently, because I don't wish to hide behind smoke-screens. I maintain that if XX,YY and ZZ form a complete set, and you know he's not showing XX or YY, then ZZ _IS_ your agreement. >> You have interpreted it as Z, your partner intended it as Z, and still >> your opponent interprets ZZ as Z1. > > > No, I have inferred that partner probably intended it to mean Z, while > my opponent has inferred that partner probably inteneded it to mean Z1. > At this point neither of us knows what partner actually intended it to > mean. If my opponent's "general knowledge and experience" is more > extensive or sounder than mine, his inference is more likely to be > correct than mine is, and vice versa. > Eric, suppose we're sitting next to one another. We're having the same kind of explanation to make: -mine takes 2 seconds: "Z1". -yours takes half a minute: "not X, not Y, draw your own conclusions". if we're correct in our assumptions: -I have given correct information -you must wait and hope that opponents draw the same conclusion if we are incorrect in our assumptions: -I have given misinformation -you could still face the proble that your opponents draw the same wrong conclusion I fail to see what I've done wrong. And I certainly fail to see why your tactic should be better than mine. Both in a helpful sense and in a bridge sense (I will have far fewer rulings against me). >> Now isn't that proof that what you call "common bridge knowledge" is >> not so? Won't the TD rule against you? > > > I don't understand the relevance. At this point, opponent and I share > whatever knowledge is to be had regarding our agreements, so I don't see > how it makes any difference whether we label any particular piece of it > "special" or "common". All it proves is that equal reasoning ability is > "not so". > Well, it proves that you were right in your assumptions, but wrong in your belief that the conclusions came from general bridge knowledge alone. You may well face a MI charge from the TD, and you won't be allowed the "general knowledge defence". >> So what is wrong with you simply saying it is Z? > > > What's wrong is that, at this point, with the knowledge I have, it may > well not be Z. It may be Z1. My opponent, with his superior abilities, > may have been able to work that out where I couldn't. In that case, he > will be misled by my telling him (falsely) that it is Z by agreement > (notwithstanding that Z1 might make more sense), and he is likely to be > damaged in consequence. > Yes, true. But I'd be damaged as well, since I already believed Z in the first place. I'm quite willing to accept a MI ruling on top of a misunderstanding. Teaches me to learn my system better. >> Again, I repeat, the dWs is not a school for directors, but an advice >> to players. Just tell the opponents what you believe the agreement is. >> Don't tell them you're unsure. That's information they are not >> entitled to, which they will use against you, and which won't help you >> in your later defence to the TD ("I told them I was uncertain"). > > > In my scenario, I cannot have told them that I am unsure, because I have > not told them anything that I am unsure of. Nor have I told them what I > believe the agreement is, because "the agreement" does not exist. > Pretending that there is an agreement, and that, moreover, I know what > it is, can only damage my opponents; it cannot help them. > Please explain how it can damage them? I shall tell you how it can help them: they get correct information (about the hand if not the actual level of agreement that you have) in less time. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Dec 23 08:40:59 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:40:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3FE7FF9B.7020006@hdw.be> Sorry Ed, but this is the lamest excuse I've heard. Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Monday, Dec 22, 2003, at 14:50 US/Eastern, Eric Landau wrote: > >> What's wrong is that, at this point, with the knowledge I have, it may >> well not be Z. It may be Z1. My opponent, with his superior >> abilities, may have been able to work that out where I couldn't. In >> that case, he will be misled by my telling him (falsely) that it is Z >> by agreement (notwithstanding that Z1 might make more sense), and he >> is likely to be damaged in consequence. > > > I agree with Eric. I infer, perhaps incorrectly, that Herman would rule > misinformation if the opponents concluded Z1, Eric concluded Z, and Eric > turned out to be right. But that ruling would be correct only if there > were in fact some bit of disclosable information that Eric had withheld. > Herman will no doubt maintain that he doesn't have to prove it, or even > demonstrate it's likely, and he may well be right, the way the laws are > currently written and interpreted. However, it seems to me that Herman > should *not* be right. I don't believe we should assume that a player > has misinformed opponents without strong evidence that actually supports > that conclusion, rather than on a lack of strong evidence that it does not. > What you're saying, Ed, is that you feel that I should not be right because the laws should not be the way they are. That's actually saying that I'm right, Ed. BTW, your inference is correct. I would rule misinformation if some player were to correctly infer something from his system, while giving opponents incomplete information about that same system, information which leads them to infer something else. I'm fully with you as long as your explanation to opponents leads them to infer the same thing you do. And I am not saying that in that case, your actions are wrong. I'm only saying that my actions are, IMHO, better when we are right (because I'm not fatigueing my opponents), and far superior if my opponents turn out to infer something else (because I won't get a MI ruling, you might). > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Dec 23 08:49:39 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:49:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: References: <000001c3c86f$ee973d80$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3FE801A3.6020000@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: > Sven Pran wrote > >>> David Stevenson >> >> ............. >> >>> >The withdrawn call certainly gives misinformation but >>> >that is not the reason for its withdrawal. >>> >>> Of course the reason for the withdrawal is the misinformation >>> otherwise why would he want to withdraw it? Let us say he passed >>> because he thought RHO was bidding 2S: when he discovers it was actually >>> [say] 2H he may wish to change it: his change is because he was >>> misinformed that RHO was bidding 2S. >> >> >> But that will not enable a Law 25A change? He changed his mind when >> noticing >> that RHO had bid 2H rather than 2S. That makes it a Law 25B case. >> >> The changes we are discussing are for instance after RHO has indeed >> bid 2H >> when "our" player discovers that he has inadvertently bid 2NT rather than >> the 2S which was what he intended to bid all the time and when he >> discovers >> his error after LHO but before his partner has subsequently called. >> >> Now LHO can change his pass (following 2NT) to for instance double when >> "our" player corrected his bid to 2S. Do we have any "misinformation" as >> reason for "our" player's change of call here? > > > Since I cannot work out what you are saying I shall diagram what I am > saying and you can tell me where you disagree. > > a] South decides to bid 2H > b] South bids 2S by accident > c] West believes South is bidding 2S which is misinformation I don't get this. Misinformation is a legal term which means "not the correct meaning". In the above scenario, both 2H and 2S are correctly explained, so there is no "misinformation". > d] West decides to pass over 2S because he has six spades > e] South changes his 2H to 2S under L25A > f] West realises he has been misinformed as to the call South is making > g] West would bid 2S over 2H > h] L21B allows West to change his call since it was because of the > misinformation > Since there is no "misinformation" I don't see how we can apply L21B. I don't have any idea which law allows West to change his call, although it is logical that he should be allowed to. Possibly an oversight of the LC. I suggest L17C. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Dec 23 08:50:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 08:50 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] The one-eyed TD is king In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > North American Open Pairs, Flight B, second final session > Bd: 18, Dlr: East, Vul: N/S > > The bidding has gone: > > West North East South > --- --- Pass 2C(1) > 2H(2) 2NT 3H 3NT > Pass Pass 4H Dbl > ? > > (1) Alerted and explained as strong and artificial > (2) Alerted and explained as a transfer to spades > > You, West, hold: > > QJ9832 > --- > 952 > T975 > > What call do you make? Pass or 4S depending on how much I trust partner, his propensity for passing solid majors 1st in hand at favourable and our agreements. The UI from the alert and explanation suggest that partner has not forgotten the system and that pass might be the best action. However before I disallow a pass I would wish to find out whether this sequence shows spade tolerance (very likely). If my 2H promised 4+ spades (eg S+another) then pard is probably showing a 3631 and 4H is not an LA. Behind screens (and absent UI) I would consider the chances of partner having forgotten the system and the chances of him showing 3631 as equally likely (in neither case would a pass of 4H be an LA). I would consider the chance that pard has a hand where 4H will play better than 4S as almost negligible (unless I know pard to like psyching passes with single suiters). Even in this instance the psych does not seem to be exposed so I don't think a pass of 4H can be allowed. Tim. From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Dec 23 08:50:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 08:50 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > I remember one of David Bird's excellent > "Monks of St Titus" stories where the Abbot > was faced with just such a dilemma. > > The Abbot could tell the truth about his > partner explaining as an agreement what was > actually undiscussed, and then have the TD > adjust the score for MI. > > Or the Abbot could lie, say that he had > forgotten the system, and there would be no > adjustment as his call would be ruled a > misbid. As I recall (but it may be a different story). The auction was a standard Acol: 2C-2D-3D-4H (which shows a one loser H suit in an otherwise worthless hand*). The Abbot's choice was between the galling (but truthful) admission that he had forgotten the system and arguing that his choice of bid was correct since they were not playing this way and suffering an MI ruling. He chose to be truthful, despite having to admit to a misbid. * His partner did say that the sequence didn't come up very often and explained the standard Acol meaning rather than stating it as an agreement. 2nd last hand of "Cardinal Sins". Tim From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Dec 23 09:01:17 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 04:01:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <3FE7FAB5.6050803@hdw.be> Message-ID: <91AA52E3-3526-11D8-9BC8-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Dec 23, 2003, at 03:20 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > Noted about proof and evidence, but still: if you deduce Z1, and > someone other deduces Z2 from the same facts, then Z1 is _NOT_ based > on common bridge knowledge. So claiming that it is will not get past > this TD. That does not necessarily follow. It is possible that the chain of logic which led to one or the other conclusion is flawed in some other way. For example, it *is* general bridge knowledge, and both players knew it, but one forgot. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Dec 23 09:03:48 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 04:03:48 -0500 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <3FE7FF9B.7020006@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Tuesday, Dec 23, 2003, at 03:40 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > What you're saying, Ed, is that you feel that I should not be right > because the laws should not be the way they are. Is that what I'm saying? Ah, thank you for telling me. I thought I was saying something else. The laws of bridge do not address the standards of evidence. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Dec 23 09:07:46 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 04:07:46 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bridge Proprieties In-Reply-To: <200312221837.KAA14641@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <79AE9DD0-3527-11D8-9BC8-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Dec 22, 2003, at 13:37 US/Eastern, Adam Beneschan wrote: > Then again, I'm one of the few players around who pauses before > passing in > the auction 1NT-pass-3NT-(my turn to call). I've tried to do that. I've also gotten some mighty strange looks. From svenpran@online.no Tue Dec 23 09:22:35 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:22:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: <3FE801A3.6020000@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c3c936$4d510c40$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael .......... (David Stevenson wrote) > > a] South decides to bid 2H > > b] South bids 2S by accident > > c] West believes South is bidding 2S which is misinformation >=20 > I don't get this. > Misinformation is a legal term which means "not the correct meaning". > In the above scenario, both 2H and 2S are correctly explained, so > there is no "misinformation". That is also my opinion, and where David and I seem to disagree. >=20 > > d] West decides to pass over 2S because he has six spades > > e] South changes his 2H to 2S under L25A > > f] West realises he has been misinformed as to the call South is = making > > g] West would bid 2S over 2H > > h] L21B allows West to change his call since it was because of the > > misinformation > > >=20 > Since there is no "misinformation" I don't see how we can apply L21B. WBFLC minute 6 from Maastricht 200008-30: 6. The Committee examined a statement that "When = bidding boxes are in use the attempt to correct an inadvertent call (Law 25A) = must follow instantaneously upon the player's discovery of his mistake. = (Should LHO have meanwhile made a call over the player's first call Laws 25A, = 21B and 16C apply)." The Committee finds this principle acceptable and = urges regulating authorities to incorporate it (or an alternative statement) = in their tournament regulations. Directors are recommended, where there is = no regulation to cover the point, to follow the above guidelines. I read this to state that when a call has been changed under Law 25A; if = the next player in rotation had already made a call then this last call may = also be changed (under Law 21B2) whether or not any "misinformation" can be deemed to exist. WBFLC effectively removed the prerequisite condition "misinformation" = from Law 21B2. Agreed? Regards Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Dec 23 10:42:46 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:42:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <91AA52E3-3526-11D8-9BC8-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <91AA52E3-3526-11D8-9BC8-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <3FE81C26.7080107@hdw.be> OK Ed, granted in the sense of logic, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Tuesday, Dec 23, 2003, at 03:20 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Noted about proof and evidence, but still: if you deduce Z1, and >> someone other deduces Z2 from the same facts, then Z1 is _NOT_ based >> on common bridge knowledge. So claiming that it is will not get past >> this TD. > > > That does not necessarily follow. It is possible that the chain of logic > which led to one or the other conclusion is flawed in some other way. > For example, it *is* general bridge knowledge, and both players knew it, > but one forgot. > OK Ed, granted in the sense of logic, but now you would be talking of logical errors, not bridge ones. I think it would be very difficult to find examples where the error of one of the two participants be ascribable solely to logic, not merely to general bridge knowledge. Besides, all this talk about exceptions to general statements are unnecessary to the main topic of this thread - and others. The DwS is not, I repeat _NOT_, a school for directors. It is an advice given to bridge players. I maintain that this advice is legal, and I hear few objections to that (the one exception being David who accuses the players of lying). I maintain that the advice leads to more gentle bridge, by being slightly more helpful to opponents than the laws require. I hear no objections to that, rather I hear people defending that their actions are also legal, something I have never contested. I maintain that in the long run, my ways are winning bridge, because they do not grant to opponents some pieces of information that they could use, but to which they are not entitled (the fact that we are uncertain). I really don't see what the problem is. You tell your players what you want, I'll tell them what I want. My advice is legal, so is yours. My players will get better results. I don't care what you do. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Martin.Sinot@Micronas.com Tue Dec 23 10:45:18 2003 From: Martin.Sinot@Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:45:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bridge Proprieties Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E5B78@rama.micronas.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On=20 > Behalf Of Ed > Reppert > Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 10:08 > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Bridge Proprieties >=20 >=20 >=20 > On Monday, Dec 22, 2003, at 13:37 US/Eastern, Adam Beneschan wrote: >=20 > > Then again, I'm one of the few players around who pauses before=20 > > passing in > > the auction 1NT-pass-3NT-(my turn to call). >=20 > I've tried to do that. I've also gotten some mighty strange looks. Just keep doing it. Otherwise you will end up as that player that paused in this auction, which he otherwise never did, after which partner of course found his long suit. Unfortunately for him, the TD foud out this little fact and changed the result (very alert TD, that one. And no, it was not me :) ) --=20 Martin Sinot martin.sinot@nospam.micronas.com From jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr Tue Dec 23 11:03:05 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:03:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? References: Message-ID: <012701c3c947$dae4e200$38e17f50@vaio> Nice, two conflicting rulings. I don't like the 1995 decision. First most members of that AC didn't have the level of the players (E.C. teams ?) wich is always dubious with this kind of rulings. Second, when attacking such a suit that way (non standard) you often provoke some pause because opponents won't often expect such a line. Subsequently you can always try to claim damage if you get the suit wrong. Third, in both cases defender has a bridge reason to think (playing small rather than an honnor which was the right thing to do in the second case) and IMO we should in general restrain ourselves to adjust the score. A good declarer is well aware that KQx is one of the holdings, if not the most likely holding, that is likely to provoke a pause. Fourth, that defender has to play Q from that holding after a pause (given he has a bridge reason to think) is nowhere in the rules and it might be qualified as a private opinion of the majority of the members of that AC. We all remember Bobby Wolff who as member/chair of AC's also imposed private opinions. Do we? Fifth, don't put too much in a single AC ruling. We all remember the infamous Turku Lightner ruling among a dozen others. Do we? IMO we need more than a single AC ruling, whatever the AC level, before there is a 'recommendation'. The primary task of an AC is to make a ruling so the tournament/championship has a result. This might impose all kind of constraints (time, member quality, etc.) which means that on the spot rulings are not necessarily good guidelines. Let alone that one AC ruling might indicate consensus. Anyway, I do think the 1995 ruling is 'wrong' and I do think the American AC ruling was 'right'. But that is just an opinion. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 7:06 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? 1995 European Championship AC: [big snip] >Committee's note: The committee was confident that it was not >East's intention to coffee-house South. The EBL wants the highest >possible standard of ethical conduct to be followed in these >championships. Therefore, after a hesitation, players are advised >to do the "normal" thing rather than the "abnormal", whenever there >is a choice between the two. > >As an example, consider this situation: > > C Tx >C xxx C KQx > C AJ98x > >South plays a NT contract, and is known to have a weak hand. There >are ample entries in North. The 10 is led from dummy. Now East has >to consider the possibilities of splitting his honors now, or >ducking completely to block the suit. > >If East, after a hesitation, decides to split, he should use the >Queen, and not the King. [snip] Richard James Hills: Beware of the Leopard! Why can this practical advice on the interaction between falsecards and Law 73F2, only be found after following a series of links to the Swiss NCBO website? Why is this 1995 AC recommendation missing from the Appeals Examples in the WBF Code of Practice? Is a mere 8 years too short a time to expect this recommendation to be added to the WBF CoP? It is ridiculous that poor promulgation of this recommendation means that some experts and TDs, such as Norberto Bocchi and Ton Kooijman, expect the recommendation to be obeyed; while others, such as prominent ACBL experts and blmlers, are totally unaware of the recommendation. :-( Season's greetings, RJH ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA). DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr Tue Dec 23 11:03:47 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:03:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] The one-eyed TD is king References: Message-ID: <012801c3c947$dba6ab60$38e17f50@vaio> Richard, In this sequence 4S a 100% bid. You are not going to put this in dummy in 4H* opposite a passed partner. Just try to construct a hand witch is consistent with the EW bidding where 4H is the thing to do. For me it is clear from the bidding we just had a mixup. Something else, I still will compensate EW because IMO it is not acceptable to get away with misbid only if your partnership fails to explain a first round obstructive convention 'correctly'. But this is a well known debate. IMO misbid versus MI is not a black and white affair. I prefer to restore to 1460 (if that is the normal result) rather than to be forced to choose between 1400 and 2300 or whatever. And yes I know, the legal backup is a little bit shaky. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 12:01 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The one-eyed TD is king North American Open Pairs, Flight B, second final session Bd: 18, Dlr: East, Vul: N/S The bidding has gone: West North East South --- --- Pass 2C(1) 2H(2) 2NT 3H 3NT Pass Pass 4H Dbl ? (1) Alerted and explained as strong and artificial (2) Alerted and explained as a transfer to spades You, West, hold: QJ9832 --- 952 T975 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? * * * As I suspected, a significant number of blmlers (including one self-confessed Flight B player) ruled that Pass was a logical alternative. And, as most suspected, at the table 2H was *not* alerted. This was the complete deal: AK4 JT965 84 QJ2 QJ9832 6 --- 87432 952 QJ763 T975 64 T75 AKQ AKT AK83 The unfortunate N/S gained a poor matchpoint score by defending 4Sx for +1400, when most of the rest of the field was scoring +1460 or more. N/S were quadratically unfortunate, since (being Flight B players) they summoned the TD for the wrong reason. N/S claimed damage due to East's MI. N/S failed to notice the damage caused by East's non-Alert UI, which encouraged West to run to 4S. The TD determined that E/W did have an agreement about transfer overcalls after a strong 1C, but E/W did not have an agreement about transfer overcalls after a strong 2C. Therefore, the TD ruled that West had misbid, no MI, no infraction, no adjustment. Was the TD one-eyed in not ruling on the UI infraction? Or because Law 9A "attention" had not been drawn to the UI irregularity, was the TD entitled to turn a Nelsonian blind eye? Or does Law 81C6 permit the TD to "rectify" an error closely related to the reason for the TD call, but a Nelsonian blind eye is required if the TD (only) noticed an unrelated irregularity such as a revoke? Season's greetings, Richard James Hills ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA). DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr Tue Dec 23 11:28:01 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:28:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031222085304.00a139f0@pop.starpower.net> <3FE7005C.3070200@hdw.be> <3FE7FAB5.6050803@hdw.be> Message-ID: <012c01c3c947$e009b760$38e17f50@vaio> Herman > I am really pissed off when people tell the table "no agreement" and > then proceed to completely correctly interpret partner's bids. I call > it cheating. I find that much more damaging to the game than supposed > "lying" about non-existent agreements. Dear Herman, This statemant means 'playing bridge = cheating'. I have played quite succesful this season Dutch competion with a new partner without a lot of system. So we had to explain 'your guess is as good as mine' quite often. Of course 'no agreement' means something in this context because all opponents know both of us for already 20 years, outside Holland I guess 'no agreement' can be elaborated on by Dutch 'habits'. But now to the point. Being good players we guess right at least 90% of the time about what partner is trying to do lacking agreements (of course knowing each others culture but so do the opps). Does this make us cheaters? Nonsense of course. To make sure in Holland the authorities prefer the explanation 'no agreement' when that is the case. As a player and AC member I agree. As a player I am very happy with this answer because it is often exactly what I want to know. If I want to know more I can always ask some more like 'what is your style' or whatever (and I never ran into someone who refused to answer). As a AC member I have seen too many cases where peolpe tried to be helpfull (guessing the meaning of a call) but messed things up beyond repair. In the end it is an infraction (under current law) to give an explanation when you bloody well know there is no agreement. Don't forget that (for the moment) the laws say you should disclose agreements. I agree, both local habits, partnership experience and such are part of that. But situations do come up which are undiscussed, both explicitly and implicitly. What is wrong with 'no agreement' in those cases if only to make very clear that answers to subsequent questions are just 'guesses'. Another well known problem. Suppose partner bids 2NT in the 4th round of those well known free for all crazy competitive sequences. Nobody knows what that really means apart from the fact that he doesn't want to defend 2S (assuming that was the previous bid). Sometimes it is minors, sometimes it is take out, sometimes he wants to play, often all three (and some lunatics might convince themselves it is a Sohl or good/bad). But looking at my own cards I can tell quite often what is going on. Any other answer than 'guess yourself' (assuming high level opps) comes close to telling them what I have in my hand. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 9:20 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) > David, Hello, glad to see you back taking an interest in my posts, > Merry Christmas, and all that, but: > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > Herman De Wael wrote > > > >> Suppose this happens: > >> > >> You, Eric, start explaining that XX means X, and YY means Y. Your > >> opponent asks "what about ZZ?". You answer "I'm not telling you, > >> that's just common bridge logic". > >> You have interpreted it as Z, your partner intended it as Z, and still > >> your opponent interprets ZZ as Z1. > >> > >> Now isn't that proof that what you call "common bridge knowledge" is > >> not so? Won't the TD rule against you? > > > > > > No, it isn't. Apart from the fact that you are mixing 'proof' with > > 'evidence' [probably deliberately for dramatic effect] few opponents > > actually refuse to listen when you tell them what relevant agreements > > oyu do have. > > > > Noted about proof and evidence, but still: if you deduce Z1, and > someone other deduces Z2 from the same facts, then Z1 is _NOT_ based > on common bridge knowledge. So claiming that it is will not get past > this TD. > > >> > >> So what is wrong with you simply saying it is Z? > > > > > > You have not got such an agreement and you ask what is wrong with > > saying it? Because as players we do not lie if we can avoid it. > > > > But that is the crux of the matter - that was my first question - Is > it a lie? > If my partner intends bid ZZ as Z, and I interpret it as Z - don't we > have some sort of agreement? > > I am really pissed off when people tell the table "no agreement" and > then proceed to completely correctly interpret partner's bids. I call > it cheating. I find that much more damaging to the game than supposed > "lying" about non-existent agreements. > > >> Again, I repeat, the dWs is not a school for directors, but an advice > >> to players. Just tell the opponents what you believe the agreement is. > >> Don't tell them you're unsure. That's information they are not > >> entitled to, which they will use against you, and which won't help you > >> in your later defence to the TD ("I told them I was uncertain"). > > > > > > It is extremely poor advice because any advice that suggests a player > > lies will, if followed, means that the player will get in the habit of > > lying, and that will cause far more problems in the long run. Bridge is > > more fun and fairer amongst people who tell each other the truth. > > > > It is only poor advice when you tell the person he is lying. I don't. > I tell him to tell his opponents what he thinks his agreements are. I > don't tell him to go hiding behind phrases such as "we never actually > agreed anything, so I'm not telling you what I think". I am surprised > that your advice to players seems to be to hide potential agreements > from them. While all the time you, as Director, will stand waiting to > rule against them if they happen to guess correctly. > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Dec 23 12:12:53 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:12:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <012c01c3c947$e009b760$38e17f50@vaio> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031222085304.00a139f0@pop.starpower.net> <3FE7005C.3070200@hdw.be> <3FE7FAB5.6050803@hdw.be> <012c01c3c947$e009b760$38e17f50@vaio> Message-ID: <3FE83145.8000103@hdw.be> Hello Jaap, nothing you say (below - and I might interject some comments in there too) is basically wrong. Nor do I believe you are contradicting me. Because Jaap, we are talking of two extremely different situations. You are talking of top players in a top country. I am talking of medium players in a medium country. You are talking of a fixed partnership in a top level competition. I am talking of a pick-up partnership in a club tournament. You are talking of a pair basing their system on vast common experience (even if not with oneanother), who rely on having both a similar view on situations. I am talking of a pair basing theis system on the few things they are willing to discuss between the two first beers of the evening. You are talking of a field that knows your basic system better than you do yourself (having been based outside the country for a long time). I am talking of a field who are largely unaware of there being more than one possible system. You are talking of rare situations, that you did not bother agreeing upon beforehand, because you knew you could rely on general principles. I am talking of people not having bothered to discuss whether system is on or off after a simple intervention. So basically Jaap, there is nothing you say that can possibly contradict anything I have said in this thread so far. The situations are too different. That being said: Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Herman > >>I am really pissed off when people tell the table "no agreement" and >>then proceed to completely correctly interpret partner's bids. I call >>it cheating. I find that much more damaging to the game than supposed >>"lying" about non-existent agreements. > > > > Dear Herman, > > This statemant means 'playing bridge = cheating'. I have played quite > succesful this season Dutch competion with a new partner without a lot of > system. So we had to explain 'your guess is as good as mine' quite often. Of > course 'no agreement' means something in this context because all opponents > know both of us for already 20 years, outside Holland I guess 'no agreement' > can be elaborated on by Dutch 'habits'. So basically you have been saying - "nothing out of the ordinary - you know what it should mean". That is no misinformation. You would be very happy to explain what you consider the ordinary to be if your opponent asked you. You are using shorthand. Your example is no test case for my principles. > But now to the point. Being good > players we guess right at least 90% of the time about what partner is trying > to do lacking agreements (of course knowing each others culture but so do > the opps). Does this make us cheaters? Nonsense of course. > Of course it does not make you cheaters. All being said, you have not been misinforming your opponents. > To make sure in Holland the authorities prefer the explanation 'no > agreement' when that is the case. As a player and AC member I agree. As a > player I am very happy with this answer because it is often exactly what I > want to know. If I want to know more I can always ask some more like 'what > is your style' or whatever (and I never ran into someone who refused to > answer). As a AC member I have seen too many cases where peolpe tried to be > helpfull (guessing the meaning of a call) but messed things up beyond > repair. In the end it is an infraction (under current law) to give an > explanation when you bloody well know there is no agreement. > I think I know what kind of cases you are referring to. They occur most frequently behind screens, when a player explains what is in his hand, not in his system. You are right of course, but this again is not an example to which the dWs is applicable. > > Don't forget that (for the moment) the laws say you should disclose > agreements. I agree, both local habits, partnership experience and such are > part of that. But situations do come up which are undiscussed, both > explicitly and implicitly. What is wrong with 'no agreement' in those cases > if only to make very clear that answers to subsequent questions are just > 'guesses'. Nothing is wrong with it. What's wrong with simply saying what you believe the meaning is, when there is "no agreement"? You want to make it very clear that your answers to subsequent questions are guesses. Why? Will the TD be more lenient on you if your guesses turn out to be wrong? I don't think so. Will your opponents thank you for revealing you are only guessing? Yes they will, when they double you and score +500. But only because you have told them something they are not entitled to. So why would you want to tell them you are guessing? > Another well known problem. Suppose partner bids 2NT in the 4th > round of > those well known free for all crazy competitive sequences. Nobody knows what > that really means apart from the fact that he doesn't want to defend 2S > (assuming that was the previous bid). Sometimes it is minors, sometimes it > is take out, sometimes he wants to play, often all three (and some lunatics > might convince themselves it is a Sohl or good/bad). But looking at my own > cards I can tell quite often what is going on. Any other answer than 'guess > yourself' (assuming high level opps) comes close to telling them what I have > in my hand. > Indeed - but your example is one where "no agreement" is a true and complete description of facts. I have never said that this is impossible, and certainly not in the kind of competitions you are talking of. But you have also read the statements by Americans and Australians who see no qualms in hiding behind "no agreement" and refuse to elaborate. The kind of example I am talking of is the one of a player bidding 2He in a sequence like 1NT (2Cl) 2He and his partner refusing to tell whether this shows spades, hearts or neither. Even if it is true, saying that you have not agreed on anything in this situation (without revealing what you believe the default meaning ought to be) is a kind of bridge I don't want to be playing. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Dec 23 12:23:06 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:23:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? In-Reply-To: <012701c3c947$dae4e200$38e17f50@vaio> References: <012701c3c947$dae4e200$38e17f50@vaio> Message-ID: <3FE833AA.2090801@hdw.be> I have not yet commented in this thread, also because I believe the play implications are way above my head. But I'd like to chime in with what Jaap writes here: Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Nice, two conflicting rulings. > > I don't like the 1995 decision. > > First most members of that AC didn't have the level of the players (E.C. > teams ?) wich is always dubious with this kind of rulings. Sorry Jaap, but that is not a valid argument. > Second, when attacking such a suit that way (non standard) you often provoke > some pause because opponents won't often expect such a line. Subsequently > you can always try to claim damage if you get the suit wrong. Very important point. If you play quickly in order to provoke a pause, you should not be looking for a undue pause as well. > Third, in both cases defender has a bridge reason to think (playing small > rather than an honnor which was the right thing to do in the second case) > and IMO we should in general restrain ourselves to adjust the score. A good > declarer is well aware that KQx is one of the holdings, if not the most > likely holding, that is likely to provoke a pause. Indeed - if playing small is a real possibility (and I trust Jaap on this one) then the player does have a bridge reason for thinking. > Fourth, that defender has to play Q from that holding after a pause (given > he has a bridge reason to think) is nowhere in the rules and it might be > qualified as a private opinion of the majority of the members of that AC. We > all remember Bobby Wolff who as member/chair of AC's also imposed private > opinions. Do we? Exactly - this is not a regulation, so we should not hold a player to it. In as far as it is a piece of good advice, it is only applicable as far as the situations are similar. More about that later. > Fifth, don't put too much in a single AC ruling. We all remember the > infamous Turku Lightner ruling among a dozen others. Do we? IMO we need more > than a single AC ruling, whatever the AC level, before there is a > 'recommendation'. The primary task of an AC is to make a ruling so the > tournament/championship has a result. This might impose all kind of > constraints (time, member quality, etc.) which means that on the spot > rulings are not necessarily good guidelines. Let alone that one AC ruling > might indicate consensus. > Not necessarily true, Jaap. A single ruling, when not contradicted by "the powers that be", should be sufficient as a precedent. Might I include a "sixth" to Jaap's remarks? sixth, in some situations it is "obvious" what the falsecard ought to be. I cannot tell for sure in this case, but it might well be that the Queen is an impossible play here. Either one plays low, or one plays an honor. But if an honor, then certainly the king, not the queen. So we should not be asking a player, after deciding between king and five, to play the queen. This is not a case of deciding which falsecard to play. I agree - wholeheartedly - that deciding on falsecards is not a "bridge reason". But if a player is deciding on covering or not, then after he has reached his decision, he must be allowed to "falsecard" if such a device is normal and natural to him. > Anyway, I do think the 1995 ruling is 'wrong' and I do think the American AC > ruling was 'right'. But that is just an opinion. > I have not gone back through the thread to see if I agree with Jaap here. Anyway, I believe Bocchi was wrong. > Jaap > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Dec 23 12:24:56 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:24:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] The one-eyed TD is king In-Reply-To: <012801c3c947$dba6ab60$38e17f50@vaio> References: <012801c3c947$dba6ab60$38e17f50@vaio> Message-ID: <3FE83418.30908@hdw.be> Again I agree with Jaap to the tune of 100%. +1460 yes. +2300 no. Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Richard, > > In this sequence 4S a 100% bid. You are not going to put this in dummy in > 4H* opposite a passed partner. Just try to construct a hand witch is > consistent with the EW bidding where 4H is the thing to do. For me it is > clear from the bidding we just had a mixup. > > Something else, I still will compensate EW because IMO it is not acceptable > to get away with misbid only if your partnership fails to explain a first > round obstructive convention 'correctly'. But this is a well known debate. > IMO misbid versus MI is not a black and white affair. I prefer to restore to > 1460 (if that is the normal result) rather than to be forced to choose > between 1400 and 2300 or whatever. And yes I know, the legal backup is a > little bit shaky. > not at all. I'd need pretty good convincing evidence that 2He was NOT a transfer before I rule misbid. > Jaap > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jurgenr@t-online.de Tue Dec 23 09:47:11 2003 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:47:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ton and the Laws Message-ID: [Ton:][written quite a while ago] To be honest, I do think that I am more or less aware of the opinion on claims most of our distinguished contributors do have. Even David starts repeating himself though he tries to hide it by using new words and poems now and then. And let me confess that I will not be influenced by freshly written known arguments on this subject for a while. I know, stubbornness, shortsighted, whatever, but it remains a fact. ========================================================================== There are several 'distinguished contributors', David and Jaap in particular, whose contributions are usually carefully considered, logically consistent, and often at odds with received opinion. This does not mean that all reasonable people must be convinced by their arguments, but if you were interested in a civilized discussion on a respectable intellectual level, you would find a more appropriate response than simply stating your disagreement. In at least two respects the next revision of the laws is likely to be the last opportunity for the LC to affect the game positively: 1. Online bridge may become the dominant form of play. Online games bring together people from all corners of the world. This makes uniformity of the rules essential. 2. The largest federation has been shrinking steadily for more than 30 years and will probably reach critical mass before the end of the decade, at which time an accelerated decline should be expected. Although it is probably already too late to have a decisive effect, the simplification of the laws should be an urgent concern. It is, in general, appropriate for lawmakers to have a conservative attitude and to respect the work of their predecessors. However, in this configuration, where conservatism is guaranteed structurally, politically adept radicals are needed. Jürgen From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Dec 23 13:39:11 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 08:39:11 -0500 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <3FE7FF9B.7020006@hdw.be> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031223081912.009ef3f0@pop.starpower.net> At 03:40 AM 12/23/03, Herman wrote: >I'm fully with you as long as your explanation to opponents leads them >to infer the same thing you do. And I am not saying that in that case, >your actions are wrong. I'm only saying that my actions are, IMHO, >better when we are right (because I'm not fatigueing my opponents), >and far superior if my opponents turn out to infer something else >(because I won't get a MI ruling, you might). But that only accounts for two out of three possible cases. The "De Wael school" would have a great deal of merit if that was all there were. But there is a third case, which occurs when my explanation to opponents leads them to infer something different than I do, and *they are right and I am wrong*. In that case, my opponents will potentially have been severely damaged by my misleading them, intentionally and deliberately, into thinking that my interpretation is actually a partnership agreement. Herman, in an earlier post, revealed what appears to me to be the hidden assumption of the De Wael school when he wrote, "[W]hen people tell the table "no agreement" and then proceed to completely correctly interpret partner's bids[,] I call it cheating." If whenever people told the table "no agreement" they proceeded to completely correctly interpret partner's bids, we would all have converted to the De Wael school long since, but that's not what happens in real life. I suspect that Herman has been a very fine player for so long that he has forgotten about the ordindary, everyday situations that arise when one routinely encounters opponents whose "general bridge knowledge and experience" is superior to one's own. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From blml@blakjak.com Tue Dec 23 14:13:51 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 14:13:51 +0000 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <3FE7FAB5.6050803@hdw.be> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031222085304.00a139f0@pop.starpower.net> <3FE7005C.3070200@hdw.be> <3FE7FAB5.6050803@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >David, Hello, glad to see you back taking an interest in my posts, >Merry Christmas, and all that, but: > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Herman De Wael wrote >> >>> Suppose this happens: >>> >>> You, Eric, start explaining that XX means X, and YY means Y. Your >>>opponent asks "what about ZZ?". You answer "I'm not telling you, >>>that's just common bridge logic". >>> You have interpreted it as Z, your partner intended it as Z, and >>>still your opponent interprets ZZ as Z1. >>> >>> Now isn't that proof that what you call "common bridge knowledge" is >>>not so? Won't the TD rule against you? >> No, it isn't. Apart from the fact that you are mixing 'proof' >>with 'evidence' [probably deliberately for dramatic effect] few >>opponents actually refuse to listen when you tell them what relevant >>agreements oyu do have. >> > >Noted about proof and evidence, but still: if you deduce Z1, and >someone other deduces Z2 from the same facts, then Z1 is _NOT_ based on >common bridge knowledge. So claiming that it is will not get past this >TD. Maybe not, but it should. If you have no agreement then your ability to deduce is not a matter for the Laws. We have had an example recently. Many people play DOPI and ROPI which became common many years ago. Playing RKCB with a partner with whom my agreement was to play DOPI and ROPI with no further discussion I had a sequence that agreed hearts, followed by 4NT Dbl 5C What was I mean to tell my opponents as to the meaning of 5C? >>> So what is wrong with you simply saying it is Z? >> You have not got such an agreement and you ask what is wrong with >>saying it? Because as players we do not lie if we can avoid it. >> > >But that is the crux of the matter - that was my first question - Is it >a lie? >If my partner intends bid ZZ as Z, and I interpret it as Z - don't we >have some sort of agreement? > >I am really pissed off when people tell the table "no agreement" and >then proceed to completely correctly interpret partner's bids. I call >it cheating. I find that much more damaging to the game than supposed >"lying" about non-existent agreements. > >>> Again, I repeat, the dWs is not a school for directors, but an >>>advice to players. Just tell the opponents what you believe the >>>agreement is. Don't tell them you're unsure. That's information they >>>are not entitled to, which they will use against you, and which >>>won't help you in your later defence to the TD ("I told them I was uncertain"). >> It is extremely poor advice because any advice that suggests a >>player lies will, if followed, means that the player will get in the >>habit of lying, and that will cause far more problems in the long >>run. Bridge is more fun and fairer amongst people who tell each >>other the truth. >> > >It is only poor advice when you tell the person he is lying. I don't. I >tell him to tell his opponents what he thinks his agreements are. I >don't tell him to go hiding behind phrases such as "we never actually >agreed anything, so I'm not telling you what I think". I am surprised >that your advice to players seems to be to hide potential agreements >from them. While all the time you, as Director, will stand waiting to >rule against them if they happen to guess correctly. It is poor advice to tell him to lie whether you use the term lying or not. The suggestion that if they do not lie they will be ruled against automatically is naive to a very great degree. -- 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 Tue Dec 23 14:15:34 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 14:15:34 +0000 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <3FE81C26.7080107@hdw.be> References: <91AA52E3-3526-11D8-9BC8-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <3FE81C26.7080107@hdw.be> Message-ID: <+XpQZRCG4E6$EwT3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Hi Herman De Wael >OK Ed, granted in the sense of logic, > >Ed Reppert wrote: > >> On Tuesday, Dec 23, 2003, at 03:20 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>> Noted about proof and evidence, but still: if you deduce Z1, and >>>someone other deduces Z2 from the same facts, then Z1 is _NOT_ based >>>on common bridge knowledge. So claiming that it is will not get past >>>this TD. >> That does not necessarily follow. It is possible that the chain of >>logic which led to one or the other conclusion is flawed in some >>other way. For example, it *is* general bridge knowledge, and both >>players knew it, but one forgot. >> > >OK Ed, granted in the sense of logic, but now you would be talking of >logical errors, not bridge ones. >I think it would be very difficult to find examples where the error of >one of the two participants be ascribable solely to logic, not merely >to general bridge knowledge. Just given you one in another article. Hearts agreed, playing ROPI, 4NT Dbl 5C. >I really don't see what the problem is. You tell your players what you >want, I'll tell them what I want. My advice is legal, so is yours. My >players will get better results. I don't care what you do. Your method is illegal because you tell them to ignore the dictates of the Laws by telling untruths. -- 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 Tue Dec 23 14:21:05 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 14:21:05 +0000 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: <000001c3c8fd$afba9e70$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c3c8fd$afba9e70$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> >This is where I disagree in the reasoning: West may change his call, not >> >because he was misinformed by South but because South changed his call >> under >> >Law 25A which leads us to Law 21B2. >> >> It does not, unless misinformation is involved. Perhaps it is time >> you re-read the two Laws. > >I am also fully aware of WBFLC minute 6 from Maastricht 2000-08-30. I >consider it a pity that they just refer to Law 21B and not explicitly to >either of Laws 21B1, 21B2 or 21B3. (As Law 21B3 cannot under any >circumstance be applicable after application of Law 25A it seems quite >obvious that WBFLC did not intend to incorporate the entire Law 21B). > >However, as the question concerned "Change of Call by Opponent Following >Correction" which is the heading to law 21B2 I find it most likely that this >is the particular law WBFLC must have had in mind. > >If I am right I consider this minute to instruct directors that they shall >apply Law 21B2 (after applying Law 25A) according to its heading and ignore >the condition in this law text that the correction in question must be the >result of misinformation. > >Do you agree that whatever "misinformation" West may have received must have >been caused by South inadvertently bidding 2S and not from his subsequent 2H >bid or the fact that he actually did change his call under Law 25A? If you >don't agree with me here I would like to hear you on exactly what >misinformation has been passed to West by the 2H bid and/or the fact that >South did use his rights under Law 25A to change his call. The misinformation that is passed to West is that South is calling 2S when in fact he is calling 2H. Thus West can change his call under L21B1. >Consider what would happen if South instead had chosen not to change his >inadvertent 2S bid after hearing the Director telling him his options. >Exactly the same misinformation to West is still there. So the change would still be legal. >I suppose we agree that West has no right whatsoever to change his call >unless South first changes his inadvertent 2S bid, but why not so if the >reason for allowing West to change his call shall be misinformation and not >South first changing his call under Law 25A? No, we do not agree. I apply L21B1 whenever it is relevant. Mind you the scenario you postulate now is rare enough to be worth ignoring, but that does not mean it will never happen. -- 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 Tue Dec 23 14:22:10 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 14:22:10 +0000 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: <3FE801A3.6020000@hdw.be> References: <000001c3c86f$ee973d80$6900a8c0@WINXP> <3FE801A3.6020000@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Sven Pran wrote >> >>>> David Stevenson >>> >>> ............. >>> >>>> >The withdrawn call certainly gives misinformation but >>>> >that is not the reason for its withdrawal. >>>> >>>> Of course the reason for the withdrawal is the misinformation >>>> otherwise why would he want to withdraw it? Let us say he passed >>>> because he thought RHO was bidding 2S: when he discovers it was actually >>>> [say] 2H he may wish to change it: his change is because he was >>>> misinformed that RHO was bidding 2S. >>> >>> >>> But that will not enable a Law 25A change? He changed his mind when >>>noticing >>> that RHO had bid 2H rather than 2S. That makes it a Law 25B case. >>> >>> The changes we are discussing are for instance after RHO has indeed >>>bid 2H >>> when "our" player discovers that he has inadvertently bid 2NT rather than >>> the 2S which was what he intended to bid all the time and when he >>>discovers >>> his error after LHO but before his partner has subsequently called. >>> >>> Now LHO can change his pass (following 2NT) to for instance double when >>> "our" player corrected his bid to 2S. Do we have any "misinformation" as >>> reason for "our" player's change of call here? >> Since I cannot work out what you are saying I shall diagram what >>I am saying and you can tell me where you disagree. >> a] South decides to bid 2H >> b] South bids 2S by accident >> c] West believes South is bidding 2S which is misinformation > >I don't get this. >Misinformation is a legal term which means "not the correct meaning". Oh yes? It does not mean giving the wrong information then? -- 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 Tue Dec 23 14:23:56 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 14:23:56 +0000 Subject: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? In-Reply-To: <000001c3c8f3$098f4be0$11070f0a@amnet.co.cr> References: <000d01c3c7e4$e60ba6a0$b02a4cd5@c5s5d3> <000001c3c8f3$098f4be0$11070f0a@amnet.co.cr> Message-ID: Hi John Mac Gregor >I would have ruled 5C making, and would have had a very serious >discussion with East and most likely assigned a PP as well. >This is almost identical to a situation that occurred in a European >championship in Portugal. I came down like a ton of bricks on the >player at the table, and then they were reprimanded in the AC. Fine. Now, since East breached no Law whatever, why would you have a serious discussion with him? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Tue Dec 23 14:40:58 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:40:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ton and the Laws References: Message-ID: <004801c3c962$cbb1a1e0$1f83b6d4@LNV> > [Ton:][written quite a while ago] > To be honest, I do think that I am more or less aware of the opinion on > claims most of our distinguished contributors do have. Even David start= s > repeating himself though he tries to hide it by using new words and poe= ms > now and then. And let me confess that I will not be influenced by fresh= ly > written known arguments on this subject for a while. I know, stubbornne= ss, > shortsighted, whatever, but it remains a fact. > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > Jurgen > There are several 'distinguished contributors', David and Jaap in > particular, > whose contributions are usually carefully considered, logically > consistent, and often at odds with received opinion. This does not mean > that all reasonable people must be convinced by their arguments, but > if you were interested in a civilized discussion on a respectable > intellectual > level, you would find a more appropriate response than simply stating y= our > disagreement. This is a nice example of the debating technique some of us apply. My beautifully written statement which I enjoy to read again, thank you, = was the last one in an till that moment endless series of messages about clai= ms in which we didn't succeed to agree. And then Jurgen puts things together= by saying that I should find a more apropriate response than simply stating = my disagreement. > In at least two respects the next revision of the laws is likely to be = the > last > opportunity for the LC to affect the game positively: > > 1. Online bridge may become the dominant form of play. Online > games bring together people from all corners of the world. This makes > uniformity of the rules essential. > > 2. The largest federation has been shrinking steadily for more than 30 years > and will probably reach critical mass before the end of the decade, at which > time > an accelerated decline should be expected. Although it is probably alre= ady > too late to have a decisive effect, the simplification of the laws shou= ld be > an > urgent concern. > > It is, in general, appropriate for lawmakers to have a conservative attitude > and > to respect the work of their predecessors. However, in this configurati= on, > where conservatism is guaranteed structurally, politically adept radica= ls > are needed. I assume that my suggested conservatism is the link between the first and the second subject? For what it is worth: I am a member of the Dutch Bridge Federation for so= me 40 years now, with some influence for half that period, and in that perio= d it has grown from I don't know (50.000?) till 110.000 nowadays. May be things are more complicated than your analysis copes with. Have a peaceful X-mas, ton > J=FCrgen From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Dec 23 14:59:44 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:59:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <+XpQZRCG4E6$EwT3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <91AA52E3-3526-11D8-9BC8-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <3FE81C26.7080107@hdw.be> <+XpQZRCG4E6$EwT3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <3FE85860.60304@hdw.be> Hello David, David Stevenson wrote: > >>I really don't see what the problem is. You tell your players what you >>want, I'll tell them what I want. My advice is legal, so is yours. My >>players will get better results. I don't care what you do. > > > Your method is illegal because you tell them to ignore the dictates > of the Laws by telling untruths. > And where does it say that in the laws? Sorry David, we've had this discussion before. And you refuse to see the light. My partner has spades. He calls 2He. I say "transfer". Your partner has spades. he calls 2He. You say "no agreement". Which one of us has informed his opponent the better? Which one is lying? Which of those two questions is morally the more important? Which one of us two will get a director at the table? Which one of us may get a score adjustment for MI? There is no law in the book that says "thou shalt not lie". There is a law in the book that says "your opponents shall know your system". And there is a footnote that says "if you cannot prove otherwise, the intent shall be the system". So please go ahead and tell your players to hide behind "no agreement". But let me go ahead and tell my players to say "transfer", even when they have not actually sat down with that particular partner and agreed to "system on". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Dec 23 15:09:02 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:09:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031222085304.00a139f0@pop.starpower.net> <3FE7005C.3070200@hdw.be> <3FE7FAB5.6050803@hdw.be> Message-ID: <3FE85A8E.7070105@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote > > > Maybe not, but it should. If you have no agreement then your ability > to deduce is not a matter for the Laws. > > We have had an example recently. Many people play DOPI and ROPI which > became common many years ago. Playing RKCB with a partner with whom my > agreement was to play DOPI and ROPI with no further discussion I had a > sequence that agreed hearts, followed by > > 4NT Dbl 5C > > What was I mean to tell my opponents as to the meaning of 5C? > I presume this should mean 2 key-cards. Did you have 4 yourself? Now that is really not the same thing, is it? You did have an agreement. You knew that he had forgotten. My cases in point are like the following: 4NT (Dbl) Pass Suppose I am playing with any regular from the Squeeze, in Liverpool. Except with my regular partner Thierry, I have "no agreement" to play DOPI and ROPI. But I know that the majority in the Squeeze play DOPI, not DEPO. So what do I say: (a)-"no agreement" (b)-"no agreement, but I presume DOPI" (c)-"DOPI" I am quite certain that we both agree that the (a) is MI. Do you agree that (b) and (c) are basically the same? Now please tell me what you shall do, as TD, when I say the (c), and it turns out to be correct, but I admit later that we hadn't actually agreed this. What law shall you use to rule against me? "thou shalt not lie" ? please provide a law number. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Dec 23 15:16:43 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:16:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031222085304.00a139f0@pop.starpower.net> <3FE7005C.3070200@hdw.be> <3FE7FAB5.6050803@hdw.be> Message-ID: <3FE85C5B.2080501@hdw.be> (second reply to the same post, different part) David Stevenson wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote > >> >> It is only poor advice when you tell the person he is lying. I don't. >> I tell him to tell his opponents what he thinks his agreements are. I >> don't tell him to go hiding behind phrases such as "we never actually >> agreed anything, so I'm not telling you what I think". I am surprised >> that your advice to players seems to be to hide potential agreements >> from them. While all the time you, as Director, will stand waiting to >> rule against them if they happen to guess correctly. > > > It is poor advice to tell him to lie whether you use the term lying or > not. The suggestion that if they do not lie they will be ruled against > automatically is naive to a very great degree. > Is it? Well, probably it is. But is it naive to believe that one might be ruled against, even if not "automatically"? I'm returning to my example of the transfer. If I say "no agreement" and it was a transfer, is it possible for me to get an adverse ruling? I suppose you must agree that this is possible, even if not automatic. And if I say "transfer" and it was a transfer, is it possible for me to get an adverse ruling? Based on what? Lying? I agree that I should not tell people to lie, but why should they be disallowed in saying "transfer" when the truth is "transfer, but I'm not 100% certain of that" or "transfer, but I'm only guessing" or "I have no idea what it is and I'm gambling on transfer". Where in the laws is it stated that one has to admit to uncertainties? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Dec 23 19:01:17 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 19:01:17 -0000 Subject: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? References: Message-ID: <003101c3c987$4fe4f9c0$0a38e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 6:06 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? Beware of the Leopard! Why can this practical advice on the interaction between falsecards and Law 73F2, only be found after following a series of links to the Swiss NCBO website? Why is this 1995 AC recommendation missing from the Appeals Examples in the WBF Code of Practice? Is a mere 8 years too short a time to expect this recommendation to be added to the WBF CoP? > +=+ Because when we started to put the Jurisprudence together I had no recollection of what was, for the EBL, a landmark decision. And because my EBL colleague in the group that put the Jurisprudence together obviously did not recall it either. After all, it did happen four years before the Lausanne meeting, in September 1999, led in January 2000 to the CoP. +=+ > It is ridiculous that poor promulgation of this recommendation means that some experts and TDs, such as Norberto Bocchi and Ton Kooijman, expect the recommendation to be obeyed; while others, such as prominent ACBL experts and blmlers, are totally unaware of the recommendation. > > +=+ I have now, belatedly you have suggested, quoted the case to the WBF Appeals Committee officers and asked if they support the EBL stance. If they do we can add it to the jurisprudence.The CoP is a WBF Appeals Committee responsibility. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ . From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Dec 23 19:19:54 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 19:19:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? References: <012701c3c947$dae4e200$38e17f50@vaio> Message-ID: <000d01c3c989$d1f2d200$204fe150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" ; Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 11:03 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? > Nice, two conflicting rulings. > > I don't like the 1995 decision. > -------------- \x/ --------------- > > Anyway, I do think the 1995 ruling is 'wrong' and I do > think the American AC ruling was 'right'. But that is > just an opinion. > > Jaap > +=+ I do not seem to have progressed in the last three days from the point when I wrote: <<< I wonder whether Rodwell, Helgemo, Balicki, were asked what they would have played with Hearts K x x in East? I wonder what the tempo was, how quickly was the lead to the second trick made, how much time did players have to consider the hand as a whole at trick one? Do we know anything about the class of player involved? It is not that I want to disagree with what others say. I would just like to know the basis on which I should agree. Did anyone discuss the demerits of allowing contract made for EW and light for NS?>>> But never mind, the spirit of Christmas Goodwill may still be around when I get some answers to the question I have put to senior colleagues on the WBF AC. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Dec 23 22:00:43 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 08:00:43 +1000 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >>My partner has spades. He calls 2He. I say "transfer". >>Your partner has spades. he calls 2He. You say "no agreement". >> >>Which one of us has informed his opponent the better? Richard James Hills: Herman's own words have just revealed the logical fallacy at the heart of the De Wael School. The Laws require that a mutual partnership agreement is described. The Laws do *not* require that partner's actual cards be described. If Herman De Wael does *not* have an explicit or implicit agreement with his partner, Herman describing 2H as "transfer" is incorrect information, and MI. If David Stevenson does *not* have an explicit or implicit agreement with his partner, David describing 2H as "no agreement" is correct information, and not MI. In that case, David, not Herman, has informed his opponent the better. See Law 40A, and also the following explicit words in the footnote to Law 75: >...there is no infraction of Law, since East-West did receive >an accurate description of the North-South agreement; they have >no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands... Season's greetings, Richard James Hills -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Dec 23 21:23:44 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:23:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? In-Reply-To: <3FE833AA.2090801@hdw.be> Message-ID: <49AF1E0F-358E-11D8-BA8E-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Dec 23, 2003, at 07:23 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > I agree - wholeheartedly - that deciding on falsecards is not a > "bridge reason". I don't understand. Falsecarding is not bridge? From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Dec 23 22:40:49 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 08:40:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? Message-ID: Jaap van der Neut: >Nice, two conflicting rulings. > >I don't like the 1995 decision. > >First most members of that AC didn't have the level of >the players (E.C. teams ?) which is always dubious with >this kind of rulings. WBF Code of Practice: >>The view is taken that an appeal committee will >>incorporate a quota of strong players together with >>other members considered to be of broad bridge >>experience and to have a balanced objective approach >>to the decision making process. Richard James Hills: Since the AC membership included the Polish World Champion Marian Frenkiel, and also the top-class Danish player Steen Moller, the CoP recommendation of a quota of strong players appears to have been fulfilled. Jaap van der Neut: [snip] >Fourth, that defender has to play Q from that holding >after a pause (given he has a bridge reason to think) is >nowhere in the rules and it might be qualified as a >private opinion of the majority of the members of that >AC. We all remember Bobby Wolff who as member/chair of >AC's also imposed private opinions. Do we? Richard James Hills: Whether or not the AC recommendation is to be regarded as a private opinion will be revealed shortly. I wish to congratulate Grattan for him immediately (as soon as Grattan became aware) forwarding this EBL AC decision to the WBF AC, for the WBF AC to determine whether this recommendation becomes official WBF jurisprudence. Jaap van der Neut: >Fifth, don't put too much in a single AC ruling. We all >remember the infamous Turku Lightner ruling among a >dozen others. Do we? IMO we need more than a single AC >ruling, whatever the AC level, before there is a >'recommendation'. [snip] Richard James Hills: The Turku ruling is a false analogy. After a Turku AC incorrectly ruled that a Lightner Double was alertable, the AC decision was promptly reversed by the relevant National Authority acting under Law 93C. No such reversal has yet occurred in this case. Season's greetings, RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Dec 23 21:44:22 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:44:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <3FE85860.60304@hdw.be> Message-ID: <2BD0E932-3591-11D8-BA8E-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Dec 23, 2003, at 09:59 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > Which one of us has informed his opponent the better? Given the premise that the bid is undiscussed, David. > Which one is lying? You are. > Which of those two questions is morally the more important? The moral value of each is the same. > Which one of us two will get a director at the table? Probably both of you. > Which one of us may get a score adjustment for MI? Oh, David, surely. > And there is a footnote that says "if you cannot prove otherwise, the > intent shall be the system". Bull. > So please go ahead and tell your players to hide behind "no > agreement". But let me go ahead and tell my players to say "transfer", > even when they have not actually sat down with that particular partner > and agreed to Your acrimony betrays you. If I tell opponents my partner and I have no agreement, it's because we have no agreement, not because I'm "hiding behind" anything. And I resent the implication that I am, and so should any player. You, on the other hand, justify lying by "it's only a little white lie, and it makes things easier". My mother woulda washed your mouth out with soap anyway. :-) From wayne@ebridgenz.com Tue Dec 23 21:55:17 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 10:55:17 +1300 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <3FE2BB56.8050702@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001101c3c99f$76e3a7c0$8ab337d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: Herman De Wael [mailto:hermandw@hdw.be] > Sent: Friday, 19 December 2003 8:48 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) > > > Please Richard, don't attribute things to a DeWael school (which does > not even exist), certainly not when you're talking of something > entirely different. > > richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > > > > > > Richard Hills said, elsethread, that: > > > > > > > > Now we come to what is meant by a *mutual* partnership > > understanding. I agree with Ed (and disagree with the De Wael > > School) that a call *one* partner thinks has a particular > > intended meaning, does not necessarily demonstrate that *both* > > members of the partnership have an agreement about the meaning > > of the call. > > > > The De Wael school says no such thing. The DeWael school says that if > this happens, the director may well rule that the agreement exists. > Therefore, it is better (for the player) to not answer "I think it's > this", but rather "It's this". > The DeWael school gives this advice to players - you do with it what > you want. I ignore it. It is not in the laws. Wayne From blml@blakjak.com Wed Dec 24 04:06:53 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 04:06:53 +0000 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <3FE85A8E.7070105@hdw.be> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031222085304.00a139f0@pop.starpower.net> <3FE7005C.3070200@hdw.be> <3FE7FAB5.6050803@hdw.be> <3FE85A8E.7070105@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Herman De Wael wrote >> Maybe not, but it should. If you have no agreement then your >>ability to deduce is not a matter for the Laws. >> We have had an example recently. Many people play DOPI and ROPI >>which became common many years ago. Playing RKCB with a partner with >>whom my agreement was to play DOPI and ROPI with no further >>discussion I had a sequence that agreed hearts, followed by >> 4NT Dbl 5C >> What was I mean to tell my opponents as to the meaning of 5C? >I presume this should mean 2 key-cards. Did you have 4 yourself? > >Now that is really not the same thing, is it? You did have an >agreement. You knew that he had forgotten. No, I had not forgotten our agreement, thankyou for your presumption. My agreement was that we were playing RKCB and ROPI. It is interesting that when a real example where we might see your methods in action comes along you do not even answer it. Shows how much you know you are talking rubbish and how little you actually believe your trolling. >My cases in point are like the following: > >4NT (Dbl) Pass > >Suppose I am playing with any regular from the Squeeze, in Liverpool. >Except with my regular partner Thierry, I have "no agreement" to play >DOPI and ROPI. But I know that the majority in the Squeeze play DOPI, >not DEPO. So what do I say: >(a)-"no agreement" >(b)-"no agreement, but I presume DOPI" >(c)-"DOPI" >I am quite certain that we both agree that the (a) is MI. >Do you agree that (b) and (c) are basically the same? >Now please tell me what you shall do, as TD, when I say the (c), and it >turns out to be correct, but I admit later that we hadn't actually >agreed this. >What law shall you use to rule against me? "thou shalt not lie" ? >please provide a law number. > I give you the situation and you answer something different. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Dec 24 05:21:03 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 15:21:03 +1000 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) Message-ID: Herman De Wael quodlibertarianated: [big snip] >What law shall you use to rule against me? "thou >shalt not lie" ? please provide a law number. Law 40B: >>...his side discloses the use of such call or >>play in accordance with the regulations of the >>sponsoring organisation. Regulation of the Aussie sponsoring organisation: [snip] >>>It is intrinsic to active ethics that opponents >>>should not be deliberately deceived [snip] >>>If there is no partnership agreement as to the >>>meaning of a call, players must say so (by >>>saying, "Undiscussed", for example), and not try >>>to offer a possible explanation. [snip] Richard James Hills urticates: Therefore, if Herman were an Aussie TD, his advice to players to lie about undiscussed calls would be an infraction of Law 40B and Law 81B2. Season's greetings, RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Dec 24 07:57:12 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 07:57:12 -0000 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) References: Message-ID: <001d01c3c9f3$c396c620$be29e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 5:21 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) Herman De Wael quodlibertarianated: ------------------ ?x/ -------------------- Therefore, if Herman were an Aussie TD, his advice to players to lie about undiscussed calls would be an infraction of Law 40B and Law 81B2. Season's greetings, RJH < +=+ My judgement is that Herman, bless his little cotton socks, is infinitely more adept with his quiet persistence at getting this fraternity frothing at the mouth than any of those blustering, choleric subscribers who attempt to shock us, or insult us, into outrage. A very Merry Christmas to you, Herman, and thank you for the entertainment. And warm festive greetings to all our readers. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Dec 24 08:02:27 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 09:02:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <001101c3c99f$76e3a7c0$8ab337d2@Desktop> References: <001101c3c99f$76e3a7c0$8ab337d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <3FE94813.2040203@hdw.be> wayne@ebridgenz.com wrote: > >>The DeWael school gives this advice to players - you do with it what >>you want. > > > I ignore it. It is not in the laws. > You also ignore Blackwood, Double Squeezes and Finesses then? > Wayne > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Dec 24 08:04:25 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 09:04:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <2A6F858C-358D-11D8-BA8E-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <2A6F858C-358D-11D8-BA8E-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <3FE94889.1030405@hdw.be> Ed, you really have no idea. Ed Reppert wrote: > > It is not *just* slightly more helpful. We currently have a culture in > bridge in which most players will tell the truth, or at least the truth > as they perceive it to be. What you propose would engender a change in > that culture, which would not, IMO, be a good thing. > You don't tell people what your partner is up to, and you call that a good thing? I'm outta here. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Dec 24 08:07:42 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 09:07:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031222085304.00a139f0@pop.starpower.net> <3FE7005C.3070200@hdw.be> <3FE7FAB5.6050803@hdw.be> <3FE85A8E.7070105@hdw.be> Message-ID: <3FE9494E.60909@hdw.be> Sorry David, to have misunderstood you, but I really did not see shere you were heading: David Stevenson wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote > >> David Stevenson wrote: >> >>> Herman De Wael wrote >>> Maybe not, but it should. If you have no agreement then your >>> ability to deduce is not a matter for the Laws. >>> We have had an example recently. Many people play DOPI and ROPI >>> which became common many years ago. Playing RKCB with a partner >>> with whom my agreement was to play DOPI and ROPI with no further >>> discussion I had a sequence that agreed hearts, followed by >>> 4NT Dbl 5C >>> What was I mean to tell my opponents as to the meaning of 5C? > OK, I'll try again: 2 aces. WTP? > >> I presume this should mean 2 key-cards. Did you have 4 yourself? >> >> Now that is really not the same thing, is it? You did have an >> agreement. You knew that he had forgotten. > > > No, I had not forgotten our agreement, thankyou for your presumption. > I said you knew HE had forgotten. Why else did you ask the question? > My agreement was that we were playing RKCB and ROPI. > So 5Cl should show 2 aces. Not? > It is interesting that when a real example where we might see your > methods in action comes along you do not even answer it. Shows how much > you know you are talking rubbish and how little you actually believe > your trolling. > Well, I have answered now, what is the problem? >> My cases in point are like the following: >> >> 4NT (Dbl) Pass >> >> Suppose I am playing with any regular from the Squeeze, in Liverpool. >> Except with my regular partner Thierry, I have "no agreement" to play >> DOPI and ROPI. But I know that the majority in the Squeeze play DOPI, >> not DEPO. So what do I say: >> (a)-"no agreement" >> (b)-"no agreement, but I presume DOPI" >> (c)-"DOPI" >> I am quite certain that we both agree that the (a) is MI. >> Do you agree that (b) and (c) are basically the same? >> Now please tell me what you shall do, as TD, when I say the (c), and >> it turns out to be correct, but I admit later that we hadn't actually >> agreed this. >> What law shall you use to rule against me? "thou shalt not lie" ? >> please provide a law number. >> > I give you the situation and you answer something different. > Yes, because your example, so far, teaches us nothing. Please enlighten us David, as to what the point was to your DOPI example. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Dec 24 08:12:46 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 09:12:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3FE94A7E.7000204@hdw.be> Sorry Richard, but you are talking rubbish. I'm very sorry to all readers, but I'm growing ever more frustrated this morning. richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > Herman De Wael: > > >>>My partner has spades. He calls 2He. I say "transfer". >>>Your partner has spades. he calls 2He. You say "no agreement". >>> >>>Which one of us has informed his opponent the better? > > > Richard James Hills: > > Herman's own words have just revealed the logical fallacy at > the heart of the De Wael School. The Laws require that a > mutual partnership agreement is described. The Laws do *not* > require that partner's actual cards be described. > I know that. > If Herman De Wael does *not* have an explicit or implicit > agreement with his partner, Herman describing 2H as "transfer" > is incorrect information, and MI. > No it is not. If partner intends 2He to show spades, then the TD will in all probability rule that there is an agreement, and so I cannot be guilty of MI. > If David Stevenson does *not* have an explicit or implicit > agreement with his partner, David describing 2H as "no > agreement" is correct information, and not MI. > Yes it is. If partner intends 2He to show spades, then the TD will in all probability rule that there is an agreement, and so David can be guilty of MI. > In that case, David, not Herman, has informed his opponent the > better. > I have told them partner has spades (which he does). David has told them nothing, and you say that David has informed the better? Are you guys crazy or simply lunatic? > See Law 40A, and also the following explicit words in the > footnote to Law 75: > > >>...there is no infraction of Law, since East-West did receive >>an accurate description of the North-South agreement; they have >>no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands... > I know all that. So I've told them more than they are entitled to. How can that be a crime? David has told them less than they are entitled to (you are not going to tell me that "no agreement" is the total sum of David's knowledge), and he is the better of the two of us? > Season's greetings, > I need them. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Dec 24 08:15:09 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 09:15:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? In-Reply-To: <49AF1E0F-358E-11D8-BA8E-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <49AF1E0F-358E-11D8-BA8E-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <3FE94B0D.8020606@hdw.be> What is this, Bash Herman week? Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Tuesday, Dec 23, 2003, at 07:23 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> I agree - wholeheartedly - that deciding on falsecards is not a >> "bridge reason". > > > I don't understand. Falsecarding is not bridge? NO it's not. Not in the sense of misleading without a "bridge reason". > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 siegmund@mosquitonet.com Wed Dec 24 08:10:05 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 23:10:05 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <3FE94A7E.7000204@hdw.be> Message-ID: If I may offer one more variation on the RKC+DOPI question: I think it's perfectly obvious that "DOPI" implies "Double = first step, pass = second step, cheapest bid = third step, etc", and have a hard time imagining 5C meaning anything other than 2 keys without the queen. Then I realized something odd: what do the people who play 1430 call their convention over interference? THAT is quite sticky - they might play XX=1 or 4 and still call it ROPI, or they might swap the names round to match how the (normal) 5C and 5D bids are swapped. If I saw 1430 + DOPI (or 1430 + PODI) I would feel like I needed to ask a question, and feel quite aggrieved if I was told "no agreement" and the opps guessed right. GRB From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Dec 24 08:51:55 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 03:51:55 -0500 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <3FE94889.1030405@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6CC44AB8-35EE-11D8-BA8E-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Dec 24, 2003, at 03:04 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > You don't tell people what your partner is up to, and you call that a > good thing? > I'm outta here. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Dec 24 08:59:43 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 03:59:43 -0500 Subject: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? In-Reply-To: <3FE94B0D.8020606@hdw.be> Message-ID: <83D0B0B1-35EF-11D8-BA8E-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Dec 24, 2003, at 03:15 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > What is this, Bash Herman week? I might have asked a similar question. No, it's not bash Herman week. > Ed Reppert wrote: > >> On Tuesday, Dec 23, 2003, at 07:23 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: >>> I agree - wholeheartedly - that deciding on falsecards is not a >>> "bridge reason". >> I don't understand. Falsecarding is not bridge? > > > NO it's not. Not in the sense of misleading without a "bridge reason". Don't yell. I still don't understand. If a player needs to decide whether or not to falsecard, or with which card to falsecard, he has a "bridge reason" to consider the question, does he not? How then is it no longer a "bridge reason" if he takes longer than normal tempo to do so? From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Wed Dec 24 09:15:21 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 10:15:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box References: <000001c3c86f$ee973d80$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <005801c3ca05$3fb09450$51f7f0c3@LNV> David: > Since I cannot work out what you Sven >are saying I shall diagram what I am > saying and you can tell me where you disagree. > > a] South decides to bid 2H > b] South bids 2S by accident > c] West believes South is bidding 2S which is misinformation > d] West decides to pass over 2S because he has six spades > e] South changes his 2H to 2S under L25A that is a pity, it should be 'changes his 2S to 2H...' I am happy you don't use the word 'substitutes', since that word is quite confusing for Dutch people. > f] West realises he has been misinformed as to the call South is making > g] West would bid 2S over 2H > h] L21B allows West to change his call since it was because of the > misinformation We are talking about L 21B1 here. I have to admit though that the wording is not meant for this specific irregularity. But supported by the first sentence of L16C there can't be any doubt that L21B is valid in this situation. ton From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Wed Dec 24 09:52:10 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 10:52:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? References: Message-ID: <005901c3ca05$407bd390$51f7f0c3@LNV> Richard James Hills: The Turku ruling is a false analogy. After a Turku AC incorrectly ruled that a Lightner Double was alertable, the AC decision was promptly reversed by the relevant National Authority acting under Law 93C. No such reversal has yet occurred in this case. **** I am afraid you are mixing things here. The French are still mad about the decison taken in Turku, nothing was changed there. Only 3 years later in the Olympiad in Salsomaggiore aWBF AC decided that the non alert of a double on 6S (the Austrian ladies involved who referred to Turku) did not damage the opposing side, but they still thought the lightner double to be alertable. And then next episode of the same thing (I could try to find what and where) an 'important' AC decided this double not to be alertable even. So let me support Jaap here, what are decisions of AC worth? I remember this case so vividly because I was the TD in Turku who decided to award an adjusted score of 7NT made in stead of 7D one off after a lightner ruff. I was shocked when the AC upheld my decision, this was the time when TD's had to rule in favour of the non-offending side, leaving the real job to these admirable AC's. It was the last time I did so. No top level players in the committee in Turku. And I remember that I spoke with some members of the AC in Salsomaggiore before the case was held there, explaining what happened in Turku and suggesting them not to use it as jurisprudence. ton **** Season's greetings, RJH From jurgenr@t-online.de Wed Dec 24 10:03:40 2003 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 11:03:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ton and the Laws Message-ID: [Ton:] >I assume that my suggested conservatism is the link between the first and >the second subject? Not necessarily; a body such as the LC needs both conservatives and progressives and neither side should have the strength to defeat the other decisively. >For what it is worth: I am a member of the Dutch Bridge Federation for so= >me >40 years now, with some influence for half that period, and in that perio= >d >it has grown from I don't know (50.000?) till 110.000 nowadays. >May be things are more complicated than your analysis copes with. Of course they are. The reasons for the decline of bridge in the U.S. while the game thrives in Holland and Scandinavia can perhaps be explained - I don't pretend to have done so - but the explanation is not likely to be simple. >Have a peaceful X-mas, Same to you. Jürgen >ton From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Wed Dec 24 10:35:16 2003 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 11:35:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? References: <83D0B0B1-35EF-11D8-BA8E-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <006c01c3ca09$bb327b30$51f7f0c3@LNV> Herman: > > NO it's not. Not in the sense of misleading without a "bridge reason". Ed: > Don't yell. > I still don't understand. If a player needs to decide whether or not to > falsecard, or with which card to falsecard, he has a "bridge reason" to > consider the question, does he not? How then is it no longer a "bridge > reason" if he takes longer than normal tempo to do so? Words, words, words, and probably the wrong ones. Yes false carding is part of bridge, so when thinking about false carding a player has a bridge reason. But we do not like the use of tempo as a factor when a player tries to mislead an opponent with the play of a particular card. To express this opinion we need an interpretation of the laws. May I suggest to take the first two sentence of 73D1? A player does not behave particularly careful when he varies tempo during falsecarding, knowing that the variation in tempo could be benificial to his side. Which leads to the approach as described: either a false card in tempo or use more time and play the normal card. It has my support. ton From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Dec 24 12:32:09 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 07:32:09 -0500 Subject: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? In-Reply-To: <006c01c3ca09$bb327b30$51f7f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <31020CC4-360D-11D8-BA8E-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Dec 24, 2003, at 05:35 US/Eastern, Ton Kooijman wrote: > Yes false carding is part of bridge, so when thinking about false > carding a > player has a bridge reason. > But we do not like the use of tempo as a factor when a player tries to > mislead an opponent with the play of a particular card. To express this > opinion we need an interpretation of the laws. May I suggest to take > the > first two sentence of 73D1? A player does not behave particularly > careful > when he varies tempo during falsecarding, knowing that the variation in > tempo could be benificial to his side. Okay, I can understand this, although, to me, the second sentence of 73D1 does not equate to > either a false card in tempo or use more time and play the normal card. For myself (and probably most other players at my level), when I have a knotty problem to work out, and take an extra second or two or five to do so, it rarely occurs to me to think about whether I have now exceeded "appropriate tempo" and should thus go back and reconsider my decision. Put it another way: if I have to think about that, it will likely cause even non-problem actions to take longer - and so become problems. OTOH, if TDs are going to rule "if you can't falsecard in tempo, you can't falsecard" I'll just have to find some way to live with that. :-( From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Dec 24 13:40:16 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 08:40:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <3FE9494E.60909@hdw.be> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031222085304.00a139f0@pop.starpower.net> <3FE7005C.3070200@hdw.be> <3FE7FAB5.6050803@hdw.be> <3FE85A8E.7070105@hdw.be> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031224080121.009ef730@pop.starpower.net> At 03:07 AM 12/24/03, Herman wrote: >>>David Stevenson wrote: >>> >>>> Maybe not, but it should. If you have no agreement then your >>>> ability to deduce is not a matter for the Laws. >>>> We have had an example recently. Many people play DOPI and >>>> ROPI which became common many years ago. Playing RKCB with a >>>> partner with whom my agreement was to play DOPI and ROPI with no >>>> further discussion I had a sequence that agreed hearts, followed by >>>> 4NT Dbl 5C >>>> What was I mean to tell my opponents as to the meaning of 5C? > >OK, I'll try again: 2 aces. >WTP? > >>>My cases in point are like the following: >>> >>>4NT (Dbl) Pass >>> >>>Suppose I am playing with any regular from the Squeeze, in Liverpool. >>>Except with my regular partner Thierry, I have "no agreement" to >>>play DOPI and ROPI. But I know that the majority in the Squeeze play >>>DOPI, not DEPO. So what do I say: >>>(a)-"no agreement" >>>(b)-"no agreement, but I presume DOPI" >>>(c)-"DOPI" >>>I am quite certain that we both agree that the (a) is MI. >>>Do you agree that (b) and (c) are basically the same? >>>Now please tell me what you shall do, as TD, when I say the (c), and >>>it turns out to be correct, but I admit later that we hadn't >>>actually agreed this. >>>What law shall you use to rule against me? "thou shalt not lie" ? >>>please provide a law number. >> I give you the situation and you answer something different. > >Yes, because your example, so far, teaches us nothing. >Please enlighten us David, as to what the point was to your DOPI example. I am guessing that David's example is flawed because he got his conventions crossed. Let me try to do better: I am playing with a pick-up partner with whom I have agreed to play RKCB and DEPO/REPO. I bid 4NT holding two key cards, LHO doubles, and partner bids 5C. That call "doesn't exist" playing REPO. I reason as follows: What is partner doing? I see four possibilities: (a) she forgot we agreed REPO and thinks we are playing ROPI (she has two key cards), (b) she forgot we agreed REPO and thinks we are playing standard (she has one key card), (c) she knows she is breaking system and expects me to read it (she has something like long clubs and wants to discourage my bidding a slam opposite her key cards), or (d) she read my 4NT as something other than RKCB (she has whatever, depending on the auction to that point). But wait -- I'm the one who offered the DEPO/REPO agreement, and we had a quick discussion; maybe she is confused. Given my hand and the auction so far, I'd be surprised if she only has one key card. She doesn't strike me as the type to pull a bid out of her hat undiscussed, and 4NT should clearly have sounded like RKCB on this auction. My best guess is that she probably thinks we're playing ROPI. OK, I'm going to play her for two key cards..." Opponent asks me what our agreement about 5C is. My choices are: "We have no agreement." Literally true, but obviously inadequate. "I'm assuming she has two key cards, but I'm not sure." True, but inappropriate, and gives partner gratuitous UI. "Two key cards." Not true, and clearly misleading. I have been asked about my agreements, but would give a different answer if I held four key cards. And it gives partner even more flagrant UI. "We have no agreement about 5C. We agreed to play REPO over doubles of RKCB, if that's what she thought 4NT was, but we are a pick-up partnership, it was a rather hurried discussion, and REPO was my choice." True, not misleading in any way, and shares with the opponents everything I would know about partner's 5C bid without having looked at my hand. WTP? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From toddz@att.net Wed Dec 24 18:37:07 2003 From: toddz@att.net (toddz@att.net) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 18:37:07 +0000 Subject: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? Message-ID: <122420031837.25649.560d@att.net> Ed Reppert wrote: > On Tuesday, Dec 23, 2003, at 07:23 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: >> I agree - wholeheartedly - that deciding on falsecards is not a >> "bridge reason". > > I don't understand. Falsecarding is not bridge? Deception is a part of bridge, but the use of tempo to deceive is so egregious that one cannot create a break in tempo to decide whether nor how to deceive an opponent. Is that statement representative of Herman's argument? Does it reflect current bridge proprieties? -Todd From richard_willey@symantec.com Wed Dec 24 18:53:44 2003 From: richard_willey@symantec.com (Richard Willey) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 10:53:44 -0800 Subject: Fw: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote: >> On Tuesday, Dec 23, 2003, at 07:23 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: >> I agree - wholeheartedly - that deciding on falsecards is not a=20 >> "bridge reason". >>=20 >> I don't understand. Falsecarding is not bridge? > Deception is a part of bridge, but the use of tempo to deceive is so = >egregious that one cannot create a break in tempo to decide whether nor=20 how=20 >to deceive an opponent. Is that statement representative of Herman's=20 >argument? Does it reflect current bridge proprieties? > >-Todd I have a fairly ?basic? question here: Has anyone ever considered whether it might not be reasonable to allow=20 players to deliberately vary their tempo in a deliberate attempt to=20 deceive the opponents? As a concrete example, let players hesitate=20 holding a singleton.=20 In turn, strongly advise players that they need to exercise caution basing = their decisions based on the opponent?s tempo. >From my perspective, we have reached a point where the ?cure? is far worse = than the ?disease?.=20 From jurgenr@t-online.de Wed Dec 24 19:10:42 2003 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 20:10:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? Message-ID: >Yes false carding is part of bridge, so when thinking about false carding a >player has a bridge reason. >But we do not like Who are these WE-people? > the use of tempo as a factor when a player tries to >mislead an opponent with the play of a particular card. To express this >opinion we need an interpretation of the laws. > May I suggest to take the first two sentence of 73D1? So if WE do not like some kind of behavior WE look for a sufficiently vaguely formulated law and bend the meaning in the desired direction? > A player does not behave particularly careful >when he varies tempo during falsecarding, knowing that the variation in >tempo could be benificial to his side. > >Which leads to the approach as described: either a false card in tempo or >use more time and play the normal card. It has my support. The player may not take time to think - about what exactly? Every card played broadcasts information and every play deserves to be considered with respect to deductions available to partner and opponent. Do WE seriously think that the TD ought to judge what is and what is not a falsecard in a given situation? What about 'obligatory' falsecards? We are not amused... Jürgen >ton From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Dec 24 22:32:43 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 17:32:43 -0500 Subject: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? In-Reply-To: <83D0B0B1-35EF-11D8-BA8E-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <3FE94B0D.8020606@hdw.be> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031224171241.02679cb0@pop.starpower.net> At 03:59 AM 12/24/03, Ed wrote: >I still don't understand. If a player needs to decide whether or not >to falsecard, or with which card to falsecard, he has a "bridge >reason" to consider the question, does he not? How then is it no >longer a "bridge reason" if he takes longer than normal tempo to do so? Falsecards are "special" because they are inherently deceptive; they have no effect unless declarer is deceived. The deception may be one in which declarer is deceived into thinking that one may, or may not, have a "genuine bridge problem", i.e. one where your play matters to the outcome without regard to any potential deception. If not (such as when the falsecard is pertinent only to the count), the falsecard cannot work if you huddle -- you can only be thinking of falsecarding, and declarer (or defender, if you are declarer) will know this, so in order for the deception to be successful you will need to falsecard in tempo. Similarly, it cannot work after a huddle if you are trying to fool declarer into believing that you don't have a problem. So there is no legitimate reason for falsecarding after a huddle unless you are trying to fool declarer into believing that you have a genuine problem when you don't. In that case, you have a valid reason for the falsecard, but no valid reason for the huddle; it's effect can only be to further deceive declarer beyond what you can achieve by the effect of the falsecard alone. The huddle, in isolation, will deceive equally whether or not you do eventually falsecard, and therefore must be considered inherently "deceptive". There can be no "demonstrable bridge reason" for the huddle, regardless of whether or not there is a "demonstrable bridge reason" for the falsecard itself. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From blml@blakjak.com Wed Dec 24 22:59:23 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 22:59:23 +0000 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031224080121.009ef730@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031222085304.00a139f0@pop.starpower.net> <3FE7005C.3070200@hdw.be> <3FE7FAB5.6050803@hdw.be> <3FE85A8E.7070105@hdw.be> <3FE9494E.60909@hdw.be> <5.2.0.9.0.20031224080121.009ef730@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6jqRkFHLph6$Ewg5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Eric Landau wrote >I am guessing that David's example is flawed because he got his >conventions crossed. Let me try to do better: What do you mean, it is flawed? One of the reasons this Wael school is a nonsense is because it requires me to ignore the Laws and lie in the example given. It is not flawed. It is a good example of why it is an undesirable practice. -- 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 Wed Dec 24 23:04:08 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 23:04:08 +0000 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: References: <3FE94A7E.7000204@hdw.be> Message-ID: <3TySojHoth6$EwiQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Gordon Bower wrote >If I may offer one more variation on the RKC+DOPI question: > >I think it's perfectly obvious that "DOPI" implies "Double = first step, >pass = second step, cheapest bid = third step, etc", and have a hard time >imagining 5C meaning anything other than 2 keys without the queen. If it were perfectly obvious then why is it called something different? DOPI means double = zero aces. It does *not* mean that double = first step. Since this accident I have gone round and one thing is perfectly obvious: people do not have an agreement what DOPI means with RKCB. It is very reasonable to play double = first step, pass = second and so on, but calling it DOPI is completely wrong. I have now agreed to play DFPS and RFPS with partners who want to play this. >Then I realized something odd: what do the people who play 1430 call their >convention over interference? THAT is quite sticky - they might play XX=1 >or 4 and still call it ROPI, or they might swap the names round to match >how the (normal) 5C and 5D bids are swapped. > >If I saw 1430 + DOPI (or 1430 + PODI) I would feel like I needed to ask a >question, and feel quite aggrieved if I was told "no agreement" and the >opps guessed right. Maybe they won't guess right anyway. It seems crazy to me that DOPI stands for double is not zero aces necessarily, pass is not one ace necessarily. -- 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 Wed Dec 24 23:06:11 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 23:06:11 +0000 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: <005801c3ca05$3fb09450$51f7f0c3@LNV> References: <000001c3c86f$ee973d80$6900a8c0@WINXP> <005801c3ca05$3fb09450$51f7f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: Ton Kooijman wrote > >David: > >> Since I cannot work out what you > >Sven > >>are saying I shall diagram what I am >> saying and you can tell me where you disagree. >> >> a] South decides to bid 2H >> b] South bids 2S by accident >> c] West believes South is bidding 2S which is misinformation >> d] West decides to pass over 2S because he has six spades >> e] South changes his 2H to 2S under L25A > >that is a pity, it should be 'changes his 2S to 2H...' Sorry. >I am happy you don't use the word 'substitutes', since that word is quite >confusing for Dutch people. I do not like it anyway because it has different shades of meaning for English people. >> f] West realises he has been misinformed as to the call South is making >> g] West would bid 2S over 2H >> h] L21B allows West to change his call since it was because of the >> misinformation >We are talking about L 21B1 here. I have to admit though that the wording >is not meant for this specific irregularity. >But supported by the first sentence of L16C there can't be any doubt that >L21B is valid in this situation. -- 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 Wed Dec 24 23:08:33 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 23:08:33 +0000 Subject: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? In-Reply-To: <83D0B0B1-35EF-11D8-BA8E-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <3FE94B0D.8020606@hdw.be> <83D0B0B1-35EF-11D8-BA8E-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote >On Wednesday, Dec 24, 2003, at 03:15 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> What is this, Bash Herman week? > >I might have asked a similar question. No, it's not bash Herman week. > >> Ed Reppert wrote: >> >>> On Tuesday, Dec 23, 2003, at 07:23 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: >>>> I agree - wholeheartedly - that deciding on falsecards is not a >>>>"bridge reason". >>> I don't understand. Falsecarding is not bridge? >> >> >> NO it's not. Not in the sense of misleading without a "bridge reason". > >Don't yell. > >I still don't understand. If a player needs to decide whether or not to >falsecard, or with which card to falsecard, he has a "bridge reason" to >consider the question, does he not? How then is it no longer a "bridge >reason" if he takes longer than normal tempo to do so? That particular Law does need interpretation, as was proved by Grattan's story of the WBFLC. It is the interpretation of every authority that I know that deciding whether to falsecard is inadequate as a reason for the purposes of this Law. -- 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 Wed Dec 24 23:12:13 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 23:12:13 +0000 Subject: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? In-Reply-To: <31020CC4-360D-11D8-BA8E-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <006c01c3ca09$bb327b30$51f7f0c3@LNV> <31020CC4-360D-11D8-BA8E-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote >For myself (and probably most other players at my level), when I have a >knotty problem to work out, and take an extra second or two or five to >do so, it rarely occurs to me to think about whether I have now >exceeded "appropriate tempo" and should thus go back and reconsider my >decision. Put it another way: if I have to think about that, it will >likely cause even non-problem actions to take longer - and so become >problems. When your RHO leads the DJ towards Kxxx in dummy and you hold 53 do you believe it is acceptable to consider which card to play? Well, most of us don't. Now, we know that, so if we accidentally pause, we know without any further thought we have to apologise, so we do. >OTOH, if TDs are going to rule "if you can't falsecard in tempo, you >can't falsecard" I'll just have to find some way to live with that. :-( In effect that is what we do in tempo-sensitive areas. -- 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 Wed Dec 24 23:15:22 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 23:15:22 +0000 Subject: Fw: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Richard Willey wrote >I have a fairly ?basic? question here: > >Has anyone ever considered whether it might not be reasonable to allow >players to deliberately vary their tempo in a deliberate attempt to >deceive the opponents? As a concrete example, let players hesitate >holding a singleton. > >In turn, strongly advise players that they need to exercise caution basing >their decisions based on the opponent?s tempo. It has been suggested a few times. It does make cheating remarkably easy since random length hesitations would be the norm, followed immediately by agreements over hesitation length. >From my perspective, we have reached a point where the ?cure? is far worse >than the ?disease?. Phufff! We have very few problems of this sort, so the cure is nothing. But the disease would be awful. -- 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 Wed Dec 24 23:19:54 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 23:19:54 +0000 Subject: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Jürgen Rennenkampff wrote >The player may not take time to think - about what exactly? Every card >played broadcasts information and every play deserves to be considered >with respect to deductions available to partner and opponent. Do WE >seriously think that the TD ought to judge what is and what is not a >falsecard in a given situation? What about 'obligatory' falsecards? > >We are not amused... If you seriously think this is relevant then you have missed the point of the argument. It is, of course, normal to false-card, and there are many situations that one should do so. However, to think about false-carding in a position where [a] it is not particularly normal to false-card and [b] it is tempo-sensitive is ludicrous. For a start, when you false-card you do so in tempo so as not to alert declarer. The reason for this approach is that in practice a player who hesitates in such a position is trying to deceive declarer by tempo, which is an infraction of Law, and pretending to an excuse which in fact does not hold water to try to avoid suffering for it. Fortunately TDs are not that naive. -- 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 walt1@verizon.net Wed Dec 24 23:34:59 2003 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 18:34:59 -0500 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: References: <3FE94A7E.7000204@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.0.20031224183209.0326c4d0@incoming.verizon.net> At 03:10 AM 24/12/2003, Gordon Bower wrote: >If I may offer one more variation on the RKC+DOPI question: > >I think it's perfectly obvious that "DOPI" implies "Double = first step, >pass = second step, cheapest bid = third step, etc", and have a hard time >imagining 5C meaning anything other than 2 keys without the queen. > >Then I realized something odd: what do the people who play 1430 call their >convention over interference? THAT is quite sticky - they might play XX=1 >or 4 and still call it ROPI, or they might swap the names round to match >how the (normal) 5C and 5D bids are swapped. > >If I saw 1430 + DOPI (or 1430 + PODI) I would feel like I needed to ask a >question, and feel quite aggrieved if I was told "no agreement" and the >opps guessed right. Gordon I have played DOPI/ROPI in many asking bid sequences and the sequence was always: Double/Redouble = 1st step Pass = 2nd step Cheapest bid = 3rd step et cetera Does anyone play it any different? Walt From blml@blakjak.com Wed Dec 24 23:53:03 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 23:53:03 +0000 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.0.20031224183209.0326c4d0@incoming.verizon.net> References: <3FE94A7E.7000204@hdw.be> <6.0.1.1.0.20031224183209.0326c4d0@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: Walt wrote >At 03:10 AM 24/12/2003, Gordon Bower wrote: > >>If I may offer one more variation on the RKC+DOPI question: >> >>I think it's perfectly obvious that "DOPI" implies "Double = first step, >>pass = second step, cheapest bid = third step, etc", and have a hard time >>imagining 5C meaning anything other than 2 keys without the queen. >> >>Then I realized something odd: what do the people who play 1430 call their >>convention over interference? THAT is quite sticky - they might play XX=1 >>or 4 and still call it ROPI, or they might swap the names round to match >>how the (normal) 5C and 5D bids are swapped. >> >>If I saw 1430 + DOPI (or 1430 + PODI) I would feel like I needed to ask a >>question, and feel quite aggrieved if I was told "no agreement" and the >>opps guessed right. > > >Gordon > >I have played DOPI/ROPI in many asking bid sequences and the sequence >was always: > >Double/Redouble = 1st step >Pass = 2nd step >Cheapest bid = 3rd step >et cetera > >Does anyone play it any different? Obviously, me. Why do you call it DOPI and ROPI when it isn't? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Thu Dec 25 00:21:36 2003 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 15:21:36 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031224171241.02679cb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, Eric Landau wrote: > At 03:59 AM 12/24/03, Ed wrote: > > >I still don't understand. If a player needs to decide whether or not > >to falsecard, or with which card to falsecard, he has a "bridge > >reason" to consider the question, does he not? How then is it no > >longer a "bridge reason" if he takes longer than normal tempo to do so? > > Falsecards are "special" because they are inherently deceptive; they > have no effect unless declarer is deceived. The deception may be one > in which declarer is deceived into thinking that one may, or may not, > have a "genuine bridge problem", i.e. one where your play matters to > the outcome without regard to any potential deception. With respect to the question of whether deciding to falsecard can be a genuine bridge problem... Do you distinguish between situations that analysis reveals to be "mandatory falsecards" (really non-intuitive but technically correct plays); situations that analysis reveals to genuinely require a mixed strategy (as in some choosing-between-equals situations); and situations where you deliberately choose to make the technically incorrect play? It seems that the first two of these three ARE legitimate bridge problems, though I am not sure that I could convince a committee of randomly selected BLMLers to believe it. (In the actual case, there was an actual problem choosing between honour and small, but it was admitted he was only thinking about which honour to play, if I recall.) GRB From blml@wellsborocomputing.com Thu Dec 25 01:42:24 2003 From: blml@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 20:42:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <3TySojHoth6$EwiQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <3FE94A7E.7000204@hdw.be> <3TySojHoth6$EwiQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 23:04:08 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > If it were perfectly obvious then why is it called something >different? DOPI means double = zero aces. It does *not* mean that >double = first step. > > Since this accident I have gone round and one thing is perfectly >obvious: people do not have an agreement what DOPI means with RKCB. > > It is very reasonable to play double = first step, pass = second and >so on, but calling it DOPI is completely wrong. I have now agreed to >play DFPS and RFPS with partners who want to play this. > and > Maybe they won't guess right anyway. It seems crazy to me that DOPI >stands for double is not zero aces necessarily, pass is not one ace >necessarily. David, I understand what you're saying about the strict meaning of D0P1 and R0P1, and yes, I guess people who keep the same RKCB response structure should strictly write D0or3P1or4 and R0or3P1or4, or your suggested DFPS and RFPS, but is it really that crazy to think otherwise? If you interpret D0P1 as meaning that double is the response that shows zero aces, and pass the response that shows one ace, why should folks who play RKCB change the response structure simply because opponents intervene? Surely it's at least as logical to expect 0 or 3 aces to continue to be combined into one response, and 1 or 4 to be combined into another? Let me change the question a little. If someone had standard Blackwood on their card, and also D0P1 and R0P1, and if their opponents intervened over the 4NT bid, would you expect the responder to 4NT to now use separate bids to show 0 and 4 aces? I certainly wouldn't, and I can't see that it's that illogical to expect someone playing RKCB not to follow the same principle. Please note, I'm not disputing your findings that the people you asked have no agreement what D0P1 means with RKCB, only that it's "crazy" to think that double shows 0 or 3, and pass 1 or 4, when a pair is playing RKCB. If anything, it's splitting them out that seems illogical to me, as it can far too easily consume more bidding space than you can afford. Brian. From walt1@verizon.net Thu Dec 25 03:35:55 2003 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 22:35:55 -0500 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <3TySojHoth6$EwiQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <3FE94A7E.7000204@hdw.be> <3TySojHoth6$EwiQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.0.20031224222736.0340a100@incoming.verizon.net> At 06:04 PM 24/12/2003, David Stevenson wrote: >Gordon Bower wrote > >>If I may offer one more variation on the RKC+DOPI question: >> >>I think it's perfectly obvious that "DOPI" implies "Double = first step, >>pass = second step, cheapest bid = third step, etc", and have a hard time >>imagining 5C meaning anything other than 2 keys without the queen. > > If it were perfectly obvious then why is it called something > different? DOPI means double = zero aces. It does *not* mean that > double = first step. David It has always been apparent to me (perhaps wrongly) that DOPI is called DOPI because it was designed to deal with interference in Blackwood auctions where: Double = 1st step = 0 (or 4) Pass = 2nd step = 1 Cheapest Bid = 3rd step = 2 Next Cheapest Bid = 4th step = 3 and that it had been extended to all kinds of asking auctions in the form: Double = 1st step Pass = 2nd step Cheapest Bid = 3rd step Next Cheapest Bid = 4th step et cetera Walt From blml@blakjak.com Thu Dec 25 03:50:04 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 03:50:04 +0000 Subject: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031224171241.02679cb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Gordon Bower wrote >On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, Eric Landau wrote: > >> At 03:59 AM 12/24/03, Ed wrote: >> >> >I still don't understand. If a player needs to decide whether or not >> >to falsecard, or with which card to falsecard, he has a "bridge >> >reason" to consider the question, does he not? How then is it no >> >longer a "bridge reason" if he takes longer than normal tempo to do so? >> >> Falsecards are "special" because they are inherently deceptive; they >> have no effect unless declarer is deceived. The deception may be one >> in which declarer is deceived into thinking that one may, or may not, >> have a "genuine bridge problem", i.e. one where your play matters to >> the outcome without regard to any potential deception. > >With respect to the question of whether deciding to falsecard can be a >genuine bridge problem... > >Do you distinguish between situations that analysis reveals to be >"mandatory falsecards" (really non-intuitive but technically correct >plays); situations that analysis reveals to genuinely require a mixed >strategy (as in some choosing-between-equals situations); and situations >where you deliberately choose to make the technically incorrect play? > >It seems that the first two of these three ARE legitimate bridge problems, >though I am not sure that I could convince a committee of randomly >selected BLMLers to believe it. (In the actual case, there was an actual >problem choosing between honour and small, but it was admitted he was only >thinking about which honour to play, if I recall.) While some of them are legitimate bridge problems, very few are suitable for tempo-sensitive situations. It is the combination that worries us. Take the traditional case: declarer leads the J towards Kxxx in dummy. Which one of your genuine bridge problems covers wondering whether to show or hide your length with xx? OK, some people have suggested that whether to false-card is not a legitimate bridge problem. Wrong, it can be. But it often is not, since most false-cards are useless unless made in tempo. Remember, it is the break in tempo "to decide whether to false-card or not" that we are worrying about. -- 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 Dec 25 03:52:32 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 03:52:32 +0000 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: References: <3FE94A7E.7000204@hdw.be> <3TySojHoth6$EwiQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: Brian Meadows wrote >On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 23:04:08 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > > >> If it were perfectly obvious then why is it called something >>different? DOPI means double = zero aces. It does *not* mean that >>double = first step. >> >> Since this accident I have gone round and one thing is perfectly >>obvious: people do not have an agreement what DOPI means with RKCB. >> >> It is very reasonable to play double = first step, pass = second and >>so on, but calling it DOPI is completely wrong. I have now agreed to >>play DFPS and RFPS with partners who want to play this. >> > >and > >> Maybe they won't guess right anyway. It seems crazy to me that DOPI >>stands for double is not zero aces necessarily, pass is not one ace >>necessarily. > >David, I understand what you're saying about the strict meaning >of D0P1 and R0P1, and yes, I guess people who keep the same RKCB >response structure should strictly write D0or3P1or4 and >R0or3P1or4, or your suggested DFPS and RFPS, but is it really >that crazy to think otherwise? > >If you interpret D0P1 as meaning that double is the response that >shows zero aces, and pass the response that shows one ace, why >should folks who play RKCB change the response structure simply >because opponents intervene? Surely it's at least as logical to >expect 0 or 3 aces to continue to be combined into one response, >and 1 or 4 to be combined into another? > >Let me change the question a little. If someone had standard >Blackwood on their card, and also D0P1 and R0P1, and if their >opponents intervened over the 4NT bid, would you expect the >responder to 4NT to now use separate bids to show 0 and 4 aces? I >certainly wouldn't, and I can't see that it's that illogical to >expect someone playing RKCB not to follow the same principle. I always have, and I think it perfectly reasonable that others do. When I played DOPI with standard Blackwood a three step response showed four aces. >Please note, I'm not disputing your findings that the people you >asked have no agreement what D0P1 means with RKCB, only that it's >"crazy" to think that double shows 0 or 3, and pass 1 or 4, when >a pair is playing RKCB. If anything, it's splitting them out that >seems illogical to me, as it can far too easily consume more >bidding space than you can afford. So I am crazy. Thankyou. I think it crazy to say you are playing DOPI when you are not. -- 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 Dec 25 03:54:50 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 03:54:50 +0000 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.0.20031224222736.0340a100@incoming.verizon.net> References: <3FE94A7E.7000204@hdw.be> <3TySojHoth6$EwiQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <6.0.1.1.0.20031224222736.0340a100@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: Walt wrote >At 06:04 PM 24/12/2003, David Stevenson wrote: >>Gordon Bower wrote >> >>>If I may offer one more variation on the RKC+DOPI question: >>> >>>I think it's perfectly obvious that "DOPI" implies "Double = first step, >>>pass = second step, cheapest bid = third step, etc", and have a hard time >>>imagining 5C meaning anything other than 2 keys without the queen. >> >> If it were perfectly obvious then why is it called something >>different? DOPI means double = zero aces. It does *not* mean that >>double = first step. > > >David > >It has always been apparent to me (perhaps wrongly) that DOPI is called >DOPI because it was designed to deal with interference in Blackwood >auctions where: > >Double = 1st step = 0 (or 4) >Pass = 2nd step = 1 >Cheapest Bid = 3rd step = 2 >Next Cheapest Bid = 4th step = 3 Most people that I know used to play next cheapest bid =4, not double. >and that it had been extended to all kinds of asking auctions in the form: > >Double = 1st step >Pass = 2nd step >Cheapest Bid = 3rd step >Next Cheapest Bid = 4th step >et cetera That's not an extension: that's a different convention. Anyway, it is quite clear form polling that unless they get their act together others will have the same difficulty, and misnaming a convention seems crazy when it gets this sort of effect. -- 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 xmas2@blakjak.com Thu Dec 25 04:09:39 2003 From: xmas2@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 04:09:39 +0000 Subject: [blml] Merry Xmas Message-ID: + / /\ //\\ Best wishes for a *//O\\\* ////\\\\ */////\\\O\ MERRY CHRISTMAS ////O/\\\\\\* *///////\\\O\\\ HAPPY NEW YEAR O////O///\\\\\\\\* /////////\\\\O\\\\ *///////O//\\\\\\\O\\* from DAVID ___ ___ || |___|___| || | | | || --- --- -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK I am not sending individual Xmas emails this year: sorry Web: blakjak.com Please use this eddress only for Xmas messages not after Jan 31st Use for ordinary emails: other eddresses may fail From Anne Jones" Message-ID: <000901c3ca9f$42befed0$e7546e51@annespc> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2003 4:09 AM Subject: [blml] Merry Xmas > > + > / > /\ > //\\ Best wishes for a > *//O\\\* > ////\\\\ > */////\\\O\ MERRY CHRISTMAS > ////O/\\\\\\* > *///////\\\O\\\ HAPPY NEW YEAR > O////O///\\\\\\\\* > /////////\\\\O\\\\ > *///////O//\\\\\\\O\\* from DAVID > ___ ___ || > |___|___| || > | | | || > --- --- > > > Diolch David Nadolig llawen i chi i gyd, a flwythyn newydd dda ichi hefyd. Oddi Anne From blml@wellsborocomputing.com Thu Dec 25 04:50:51 2003 From: blml@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 23:50:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: References: <3FE94A7E.7000204@hdw.be> <3TySojHoth6$EwiQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 03:52:32 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: Sorry for the excessive quoting, folks, but the reason will become clear.... >Brian Meadows wrote > >>On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 23:04:08 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >> >> >>> If it were perfectly obvious then why is it called something >>>different? DOPI means double = zero aces. It does *not* mean that >>>double = first step. >>> >>> Since this accident I have gone round and one thing is perfectly >>>obvious: people do not have an agreement what DOPI means with RKCB. >>> >>> It is very reasonable to play double = first step, pass = second and >>>so on, but calling it DOPI is completely wrong. I have now agreed to >>>play DFPS and RFPS with partners who want to play this. >>> >> >>and >> >>> Maybe they won't guess right anyway. It seems crazy to me that DOPI >>>stands for double is not zero aces necessarily, pass is not one ace >>>necessarily. >> >>David, I understand what you're saying about the strict meaning >>of D0P1 and R0P1, and yes, I guess people who keep the same RKCB >>response structure should strictly write D0or3P1or4 and >>R0or3P1or4, or your suggested DFPS and RFPS, but is it really >>that crazy to think otherwise? >> >>If you interpret D0P1 as meaning that double is the response that >>shows zero aces, and pass the response that shows one ace, why >>should folks who play RKCB change the response structure simply >>because opponents intervene? Surely it's at least as logical to >>expect 0 or 3 aces to continue to be combined into one response, >>and 1 or 4 to be combined into another? >> >>Let me change the question a little. If someone had standard >>Blackwood on their card, and also D0P1 and R0P1, and if their >>opponents intervened over the 4NT bid, would you expect the >>responder to 4NT to now use separate bids to show 0 and 4 aces? I >>certainly wouldn't, and I can't see that it's that illogical to >>expect someone playing RKCB not to follow the same principle. > > I always have, and I think it perfectly reasonable that others do. >When I played DOPI with standard Blackwood a three step response showed >four aces. > You surprise me. Yes, some (or even most) of the times it won't matter, but there's obviously a percentage of them, depending on your suit and the intervention, where splitting 0 and 4 will cost you the room for a King ask. >>Please note, I'm not disputing your findings that the people you >>asked have no agreement what D0P1 means with RKCB, only that it's >>"crazy" to think that double shows 0 or 3, and pass 1 or 4, when >>a pair is playing RKCB. If anything, it's splitting them out that >>seems illogical to me, as it can far too easily consume more >>bidding space than you can afford. > > So I am crazy. Thankyou. I've deliberately quoted my entire posting in order to reply to this. Will you please show me *exactly* where I said that you're crazy? You've complained on quite a number of occasions about people (including me, on occasion) claiming that you said things that you didn't, so I now expect an answer or a retraction. And no, I don't accept that my saying that I think something is illogical is the same as saying that you're crazy for holding that view. >I think it crazy to say you are playing >DOPI when you are not. I think there are arguments for both views. You said that when you asked around, people did not have an agreement. Presumably that means that you didn't get unanimous agreement with your views. Does that make everyone who disagreed with you crazy? Brian. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Dec 25 06:59:43 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 01:59:43 -0500 Subject: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? In-Reply-To: <122420031837.25649.560d@att.net> Message-ID: On Wednesday, Dec 24, 2003, at 13:37 US/Eastern, toddz@att.net wrote: > Deception is a part of bridge, but the use of tempo to deceive is > so > egregious that one cannot create a break in tempo to decide whether > nor how > to deceive an opponent. Is that statement representative of Herman's > argument? Does it reflect current bridge proprieties? I can't speak for Herman, but I *think*so, and yes on the second question. But I would say rather that in deciding on a deception, the principle seems to be, as I expressed it elsethread, "If you cannot falsecard in tempo, you cannot falsecard". I'm not entirely sure it's completely fair, or completely legal technically, but there it is. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Dec 25 07:03:10 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 02:03:10 -0500 Subject: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031224171241.02679cb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6656C79A-36A8-11D8-BA8E-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Dec 24, 2003, at 17:32 US/Eastern, Eric Landau wrote: > Falsecards are "special" because they are inherently deceptive; they > have no effect unless declarer is deceived... There can be no > "demonstrable bridge reason" for the huddle, regardless of whether or > not there is a "demonstrable bridge reason" for the falsecard itself. Convoluted, at least at first glance. I'll have to reread it later. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Dec 25 07:08:12 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 02:08:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1A31C661-36A9-11D8-BA8E-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Dec 24, 2003, at 18:08 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > That particular Law does need interpretation, as was proved by > Grattan's story of the WBFLC. > > It is the interpretation of every authority that I know that > deciding whether to falsecard is inadequate as a reason for the > purposes of this Law. Long ago, in a galaxy far away, I used to play Dungeons and Dragons. I had questions about the way the magic system in this fantasy game worked. I, and others, asked them of one of the game's creators. In the end, his response boiled down to "it's that way because I say so. Now shut up." I'll shut up now. :-) Merry Christmas, listfolk. From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Wed Dec 24 22:13:59 2003 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 22:13:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? References: <005901c3ca05$407bd390$51f7f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <000601c3caba$32d6eda0$1e182850@multivisionoem> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: ; Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 9:52 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? > > **** > I am afraid you are mixing things here. The French are still mad about the > decison taken in Turku, nothing was changed there. > Only 3 years later in the Olympiad in Salsomaggiore aWBF AC decided that the > non alert of a double on 6S (the Austrian ladies involved who referred to > Turku) did not damage the opposing side, but they still thought the lightner > double to be alertable. And then next episode of the same thing (I could try > to find what and where) an 'important' AC decided this double not to be > alertable even. > > So let me support Jaap here, what are decisions of AC worth? > > I remember this case so vividly because I was the TD in Turku who decided to > award an adjusted score of 7NT made in stead of 7D one off after a lightner > ruff. I was shocked when the AC upheld my decision, this was the time when > TD's had to rule in favour of the non-offending side, leaving the real job > to these admirable AC's. It was the last time I did so. No top level players > in the committee in Turku. > And I remember that I spoke with some members of the AC in Salsomaggiore > before the case was held there, explaining what happened in Turku and > suggesting them not to use it as jurisprudence. > > > ton **** > +=+ It is hardly the case that the need is for 'strong players' to settle a Rules & Regulations matter. What is needed is to understand the application of the alerting regulation. My memory tells me that the Turku appeal was the one where they asked Harold Franklin to chair it, but I am unsure who were his two colleagues. Leaving aside tournaments in which alerting ceases beyond the level of 3NT or whatever, I do not recall any AC that has decided the Lightner Double is 'not alertable'. More than once I have come across international ACs that have said that even if a Lightner Double is not alerted the general bridge knowledge is that such high level doubles are frequently likely to call for an unusual lead - on the basis that it will either be the case that the lead is wanted to defeat the slam or it will be the case that the doubler can stand the unusual lead and has the beating of the contract anyway - so that experienced players should know the possibilities and should anticipate an unusual lead. In which case the failure to double is not the cause of damage. In the occasional situations where in a WBF event play is without screens, no doubles are alertable. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Thu Dec 25 09:05:20 2003 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 09:05:20 -0000 Subject: Prologue - was Re: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? References: <1A31C661-36A9-11D8-BA8E-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000701c3cac6$5174f2a0$281e2850@multivisionoem> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2003 7:08 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? > > On Wednesday, Dec 24, 2003, at 18:08 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > > > That particular Law does need interpretation, > > as was proved by Grattan's story of the WBFLC. > > > > It is the interpretation of every authority that > > I know that deciding whether to falsecard is > > inadequate as a reason for the purposes of this Law. > > Long ago, in a galaxy far away, I used to play > Dungeons and Dragons. I had questions about the > way the magic system in this fantasy game worked. > I, and others, asked them of one of the game's creators. > In the end, his response boiled down to "it's that way > because I say so. Now shut up." > > I'll shut up now. :-) > > Merry Christmas, listfolk. > +=+ (1) At the 2003 European Championships the TAC developed a greater tolerance for delays in returning the tray than in the past. 20 seconds was not deemed automatically information-conveying. (2) The WBF drafting subcommittee has decreed that the following be incorporated in the draft '2006' Laws: << Proper tempo is not absolute and identical at every table. It is expected to vary depending on the complexity of the situation, the skill and experience of the players, the normal tempo of the player involved, and other factors that have evident bridge considerations. In determining any breach of tempo, and whether it conveys unauthorized information, the Director takes these issues into account." >> (3) The recently mentioned EBL 1995 Appeal will not find its way into the CoP Jurisprudence because analysis of the complexity of the defender's problem, and the possible holdings in declarer's hand, reveals that there is occasion for the defender to think and his doing so does not reveal anything crucial about his hand that we do not know when he plays the King. The level of skill possessed by declarer is another factor: given what we say about East's occasion to think, should it be expected of the declarer that he will recognize that East can have a variety of hands that include the King? So, however the principle may be expressed this is not the best example illustration, and reading (2) again we see a future filled with new judgements for Directors and ACs, bringing fresh griefs - to quote a colleague when responding on the 1995 Appeal: 'Everything considered, East should be permitted to break tempo'.although 'after breaking tempo he might say to declarer "no real problem" or at least not boldly falsecard'. Which I read, all taken together in answer to the question put, as "Pass". Enjoy the feast and the wine, ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Dec 25 09:20:36 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 10:20:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031222085304.00a139f0@pop.starpower.net> <3FE7005C.3070200@hdw.be> <3FE7FAB5.6050803@hdw.be> <3FE85A8E.7070105@hdw.be> <3FE9494E.60909@hdw.be> Message-ID: <3FEAABE4.3@hdw.be> Hello David, yes, interesting story. David Stevenson wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote > >> Sorry David, to have misunderstood you, but I really did not see shere >> you were heading: > > > Maybe, but if you want a discussion, why not just answer the question > posed rather than a different one entirely? > Maybe because I did not believe the original question had any interest. I now see that it does. >> David Stevenson wrote: >> >>>>> We have had an example recently. Many people play DOPI and ROPI >>>>> which became common many years ago. Playing RKCB with a partner >>>>> with whom my agreement was to play DOPI and ROPI with no further >>>>> discussion I had a sequence that agreed hearts, followed by >>>>> 4NT Dbl 5C >>>>> What was I mean to tell my opponents as to the meaning of 5C? >>> >>> >> >> OK, I'll try again: 2 aces. >> WTP? > > > The problem is that that is not our agreement, and I would be lying if > I said it was. This is what I dislike *intensely* about your methods. > > In fact I play it as three aces - should I have said that? > No, it does not matter to our discussion. You see, every story has a lot of background, and without the background we are bound to make mistakes in conclusion. I have never heard of a system where the first reply after double or pass shows three aces. I was under the impression that the only system which one could be playing, especially when discussing no further than the two words DOPI-ROPI, would be that 5C shows 2 aces. I was wrong in that impression, but you cannot blame me for that. Now do you understand that I, with my notions of bidding, would be 100% certain that 5Cl would show 2 aces? And do you understand that I also tell this to opponents. I believe that once I've "agreed" on DOPI, 5Cl shows 2 aces. OK? > But the *agreement* I had with partner was that we play RKCB and ROPI, > and *that* is what I should tell opponents when they ask - and > furthermore, it is what I did tell my LHO. > And he did not ask what 5Cl meant? Now, there are two possibilities: 1) Your opponent is of the same opinion as I am, that 5Cl can only mean 2 aces. I, as TD, would then rule that you had misinformed your opponent. By not stressing that in your system, 5Cl has a different meaning than the standard implied in the word ROPI, you have mistakenly informed your opponent that your partner has 2 aces. Don't go hiding behind general bridge knowledge either. If your opponent, like myself, does not know there is more than one possible meaning, then the fact that there are more than one possibilities is not generel knowledge. I won't rule against this opponent of yours. 2) or your opponent also realizes that there are two possible systems in circulation, and he did not ask anyway. Well, this is not an interesting case. You cannot be blamed for MI when they don't ask you any questions. So at the risk of being accused of answering questions that are not posed, I'll continue our little story: Suppose your opponent asks you for the precise meaning, within the already mentioned RKCB and ROPI, of 5Cl? What would you have answered? > It transpired that my partner played it as two aces, no queen, I > played it as three aces, our opponents were told our exact agreement > perfectly correctly, and everyone was informed correctly. I still see > *no* requirement under the Laws of bridge, the ethics of the game, or > commonsense to do anything but tell the truth. We bid a bad slam which > deservedly went off and Tony Forrester got 13 imps off us. > So you see David, that stories in which partners are genuinely without agreement, are hardly interesting? Through the misunderstanding, Forrester scored 13 IMPs. Much more interesting is the story in which both of you are on the same track. In this story, you thought partner had 3 aces. But suppose that he had them, and you bid and make the slam. Forrester loses 12 IMPs and calls the director. It turns out that Tony has a subtle way of showing that his lead would have been different with the knowledge that your partner has 3 aces. NOW the story is interesting. Tell me what your reply would have been to Forrester, had he asked more than he did. And if that answer is not something that includes at least "more probably 3 aces than 2", tell me why the TD should not rule against you and make the slam one down. > I still think that players who deliberately misinform their opponents > as to their agreements whatever their motives deserve to get ruled > against because they have deliberately failed to follow the laws of the > game. > And I still think that players who deliberately withhold information from their opponents as to the likely meaning of calls deserve to get ruled against because they have deliberately failed to follow the spirit of the game. And yes David, I realize that your sentence is stronger than mine (your sentence uses laws, mine only spirit). But as I said, I don't agree with you that telling your opponents MORE than what you believe they are entitled to (your guess rather than your agreement) is against the laws of the game. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Dec 25 09:22:56 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 10:22:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031222085304.00a139f0@pop.starpower.net> <3FE7005C.3070200@hdw.be> <3FE7FAB5.6050803@hdw.be> <3FE85A8E.7070105@hdw.be> <3FE9494E.60909@hdw.be> Message-ID: <3FEAAC70.1090907@hdw.be> Hello David, yes, interesting story. David Stevenson wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote > >> Sorry David, to have misunderstood you, but I really did not see shere >> you were heading: > > > Maybe, but if you want a discussion, why not just answer the question > posed rather than a different one entirely? > Maybe because I did not believe the original question had any interest. I now see that it does. >> David Stevenson wrote: >> >>>>> We have had an example recently. Many people play DOPI and ROPI >>>>> which became common many years ago. Playing RKCB with a partner >>>>> with whom my agreement was to play DOPI and ROPI with no further >>>>> discussion I had a sequence that agreed hearts, followed by >>>>> 4NT Dbl 5C >>>>> What was I mean to tell my opponents as to the meaning of 5C? >>> >>> >> >> OK, I'll try again: 2 aces. >> WTP? > > > The problem is that that is not our agreement, and I would be lying if > I said it was. This is what I dislike *intensely* about your methods. > > In fact I play it as three aces - should I have said that? > No, it does not matter to our discussion. You see, every story has a lot of background, and without the background we are bound to make mistakes in conclusion. I have never heard of a system where the first reply after double or pass shows three aces. I was under the impression that the only system which one could be playing, especially when discussing no further than the two words DOPI-ROPI, would be that 5C shows 2 aces. I was wrong in that impression, but you cannot blame me for that. Now do you understand that I, with my notions of bidding, would be 100% certain that 5Cl would show 2 aces? And do you understand that I also tell this to opponents. I believe that once I've "agreed" on DOPI, 5Cl shows 2 aces. OK? > But the *agreement* I had with partner was that we play RKCB and ROPI, > and *that* is what I should tell opponents when they ask - and > furthermore, it is what I did tell my LHO. > And he did not ask what 5Cl meant? Now, there are two possibilities: 1) Your opponent is of the same opinion as I am, that 5Cl can only mean 2 aces. I, as TD, would then rule that you had misinformed your opponent. By not stressing that in your system, 5Cl has a different meaning than the standard implied in the word ROPI, you have mistakenly informed your opponent that your partner has 2 aces. Don't go hiding behind general bridge knowledge either. If your opponent, like myself, does not know there is more than one possible meaning, then the fact that there are more than one possibilities is not generel knowledge. I won't rule against this opponent of yours. 2) or your opponent also realizes that there are two possible systems in circulation, and he did not ask anyway. Well, this is not an interesting case. You cannot be blamed for MI when they don't ask you any questions. So at the risk of being accused of answering questions that are not posed, I'll continue our little story: Suppose your opponent asks you for the precise meaning, within the already mentioned RKCB and ROPI, of 5Cl? What would you have answered? > It transpired that my partner played it as two aces, no queen, I > played it as three aces, our opponents were told our exact agreement > perfectly correctly, and everyone was informed correctly. I still see > *no* requirement under the Laws of bridge, the ethics of the game, or > commonsense to do anything but tell the truth. We bid a bad slam which > deservedly went off and Tony Forrester got 13 imps off us. > So you see David, that stories in which partners are genuinely without agreement, are hardly interesting? Through the misunderstanding, Forrester scored 13 IMPs. Much more interesting is the story in which both of you are on the same track. In this story, you thought partner had 3 aces. But suppose that he had them, and you bid and make the slam. Forrester loses 12 IMPs and calls the director. It turns out that Tony has a subtle way of showing that his lead would have been different with the knowledge that your partner has 3 aces. NOW the story is interesting. Tell me what your reply would have been to Forrester, had he asked more than he did. And if that answer is not something that includes at least "more probably 3 aces than 2", tell me why the TD should not rule against you and make the slam one down. > I still think that players who deliberately misinform their opponents > as to their agreements whatever their motives deserve to get ruled > against because they have deliberately failed to follow the laws of the > game. > And I still think that players who deliberately withhold information from their opponents as to the likely meaning of calls deserve to get ruled against because they have deliberately failed to follow the spirit of the game. And yes David, I realize that your sentence is stronger than mine (your sentence uses laws, mine only spirit). But as I said, I don't agree with you that telling your opponents MORE than what you believe they are entitled to (your guess rather than your agreement) is against the laws of the game. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Dec 25 09:26:24 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 10:26:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031222085304.00a139f0@pop.starpower.net> <3FE7005C.3070200@hdw.be> <3FE7FAB5.6050803@hdw.be> <3FE85A8E.7070105@hdw.be> <3FE9494E.60909@hdw.be> Message-ID: <3FEAAD40.3050205@hdw.be> Hello David, yes, interesting story. David Stevenson wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote > >> Sorry David, to have misunderstood you, but I really did not see shere >> you were heading: > > > Maybe, but if you want a discussion, why not just answer the question > posed rather than a different one entirely? > Maybe because I did not believe the original question had any interest. I now see that it does. >> David Stevenson wrote: >> >>>>> We have had an example recently. Many people play DOPI and ROPI >>>>> which became common many years ago. Playing RKCB with a partner >>>>> with whom my agreement was to play DOPI and ROPI with no further >>>>> discussion I had a sequence that agreed hearts, followed by >>>>> 4NT Dbl 5C >>>>> What was I mean to tell my opponents as to the meaning of 5C? >>> >>> >> >> OK, I'll try again: 2 aces. >> WTP? > > > The problem is that that is not our agreement, and I would be lying if > I said it was. This is what I dislike *intensely* about your methods. > > In fact I play it as three aces - should I have said that? > No, it does not matter to our discussion. You see, every story has a lot of background, and without the background we are bound to make mistakes in conclusion. I have never heard of a system where the first reply after double or pass shows three aces. I was under the impression that the only system which one could be playing, especially when discussing no further than the two words DOPI-ROPI, would be that 5C shows 2 aces. I was wrong in that impression, but you cannot blame me for that. Now do you understand that I, with my notions of bidding, would be 100% certain that 5Cl would show 2 aces? And do you understand that I also tell this to opponents. I believe that once I've "agreed" on DOPI, 5Cl shows 2 aces. OK? > But the *agreement* I had with partner was that we play RKCB and ROPI, > and *that* is what I should tell opponents when they ask - and > furthermore, it is what I did tell my LHO. > And he did not ask what 5Cl meant? Now, there are two possibilities: 1) Your opponent is of the same opinion as I am, that 5Cl can only mean 2 aces. I, as TD, would then rule that you had misinformed your opponent. By not stressing that in your system, 5Cl has a different meaning than the standard implied in the word ROPI, you have mistakenly informed your opponent that your partner has 2 aces. Don't go hiding behind general bridge knowledge either. If your opponent, like myself, does not know there is more than one possible meaning, then the fact that there are more than one possibilities is not generel knowledge. I won't rule against this opponent of yours. 2) or your opponent also realizes that there are two possible systems in circulation, and he did not ask anyway. Well, this is not an interesting case. You cannot be blamed for MI when they don't ask you any questions. So at the risk of being accused of answering questions that are not posed, I'll continue our little story: Suppose your opponent asks you for the precise meaning, within the already mentioned RKCB and ROPI, of 5Cl? What would you have answered? > It transpired that my partner played it as two aces, no queen, I > played it as three aces, our opponents were told our exact agreement > perfectly correctly, and everyone was informed correctly. I still see > *no* requirement under the Laws of bridge, the ethics of the game, or > commonsense to do anything but tell the truth. We bid a bad slam which > deservedly went off and Tony Forrester got 13 imps off us. > So you see David, that stories in which partners are genuinely without agreement, are hardly interesting? Through the misunderstanding, Forrester scored 13 IMPs. Much more interesting is the story in which both of you are on the same track. In this story, you thought partner had 3 aces. But suppose that he had them, and you bid and make the slam. Forrester loses 12 IMPs and calls the director. It turns out that Tony has a subtle way of showing that his lead would have been different with the knowledge that your partner has 3 aces. NOW the story is interesting. Tell me what your reply would have been to Forrester, had he asked more than he did. And if that answer is not something that includes at least "more probably 3 aces than 2", tell me why the TD should not rule against you and make the slam one down. > I still think that players who deliberately misinform their opponents > as to their agreements whatever their motives deserve to get ruled > against because they have deliberately failed to follow the laws of the > game. > And I still think that players who deliberately withhold information from their opponents as to the likely meaning of calls deserve to get ruled against because they have deliberately failed to follow the spirit of the game. And yes David, I realize that your sentence is stronger than mine (your sentence uses laws, mine only spirit). But as I said, I don't agree with you that telling your opponents MORE than what you believe they are entitled to (your guess rather than your agreement) is against the laws of the game. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html your example From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Dec 25 09:27:18 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 10:27:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031222085304.00a139f0@pop.starpower.net> <3FE7005C.3070200@hdw.be> <3FE7FAB5.6050803@hdw.be> <3FE85A8E.7070105@hdw.be> <3FE9494E.60909@hdw.be> Message-ID: <3FEAAD76.3050100@hdw.be> Hello David, yes, interesting story. David Stevenson wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote > >> Sorry David, to have misunderstood you, but I really did not see shere >> you were heading: > > > Maybe, but if you want a discussion, why not just answer the question > posed rather than a different one entirely? > Maybe because I did not believe the original question had any interest. I now see that it does. >> David Stevenson wrote: >> >>>>> We have had an example recently. Many people play DOPI and ROPI >>>>> which became common many years ago. Playing RKCB with a partner >>>>> with whom my agreement was to play DOPI and ROPI with no further >>>>> discussion I had a sequence that agreed hearts, followed by >>>>> 4NT Dbl 5C >>>>> What was I mean to tell my opponents as to the meaning of 5C? >>> >>> >> >> OK, I'll try again: 2 aces. >> WTP? > > > The problem is that that is not our agreement, and I would be lying if > I said it was. This is what I dislike *intensely* about your methods. > > In fact I play it as three aces - should I have said that? > No, it does not matter to our discussion. You see, every story has a lot of background, and without the background we are bound to make mistakes in conclusion. I have never heard of a system where the first reply after double or pass shows three aces. I was under the impression that the only system which one could be playing, especially when discussing no further than the two words DOPI-ROPI, would be that 5C shows 2 aces. I was wrong in that impression, but you cannot blame me for that. Now do you understand that I, with my notions of bidding, would be 100% certain that 5Cl would show 2 aces? And do you understand that I also tell this to opponents. I believe that once I've "agreed" on DOPI, 5Cl shows 2 aces. OK? > But the *agreement* I had with partner was that we play RKCB and ROPI, > and *that* is what I should tell opponents when they ask - and > furthermore, it is what I did tell my LHO. > And he did not ask what 5Cl meant? Now, there are two possibilities: 1) Your opponent is of the same opinion as I am, that 5Cl can only mean 2 aces. I, as TD, would then rule that you had misinformed your opponent. By not stressing that in your system, 5Cl has a different meaning than the standard implied in the word ROPI, you have mistakenly informed your opponent that your partner has 2 aces. Don't go hiding behind general bridge knowledge either. If your opponent, like myself, does not know there is more than one possible meaning, then the fact that there are more than one possibilities is not generel knowledge. I won't rule against this opponent of yours. 2) or your opponent also realizes that there are two possible systems in circulation, and he did not ask anyway. Well, this is not an interesting case. You cannot be blamed for MI when they don't ask you any questions. So at the risk of being accused of answering questions that are not posed, I'll continue our little story: Suppose your opponent asks you for the precise meaning, within the already mentioned RKCB and ROPI, of 5Cl? What would you have answered? > It transpired that my partner played it as two aces, no queen, I > played it as three aces, our opponents were told our exact agreement > perfectly correctly, and everyone was informed correctly. I still see > *no* requirement under the Laws of bridge, the ethics of the game, or > commonsense to do anything but tell the truth. We bid a bad slam which > deservedly went off and Tony Forrester got 13 imps off us. > So you see David, that stories in which partners are genuinely without agreement, are hardly interesting? Through the misunderstanding, Forrester scored 13 IMPs. Much more interesting is the story in which both of you are on the same track. In this story, you thought partner had 3 aces. But suppose that he had them, and you bid and make the slam. Forrester loses 12 IMPs and calls the director. It turns out that Tony has a subtle way of showing that his lead would have been different with the knowledge that your partner has 3 aces. NOW the story is interesting. Tell me what your reply would have been to Forrester, had he asked more than he did. And if that answer is not something that includes at least "more probably 3 aces than 2", tell me why the TD should not rule against you and make the slam one down. > I still think that players who deliberately misinform their opponents > as to their agreements whatever their motives deserve to get ruled > against because they have deliberately failed to follow the laws of the > game. > And I still think that players who deliberately withhold information from their opponents as to the likely meaning of calls deserve to get ruled against because they have deliberately failed to follow the spirit of the game. And yes David, I realize that your sentence is stronger than mine (your sentence uses laws, mine only spirit). But as I said, I don't agree with you that telling your opponents MORE than what you believe they are entitled to (your guess rather than your agreement) is against the laws of the game. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html your example From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Dec 25 09:26:43 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 10:26:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <6jqRkFHLph6$Ewg5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031222085304.00a139f0@pop.starpower.net> <3FE7005C.3070200@hdw.be> <3FE7FAB5.6050803@hdw.be> <3FE85A8E.7070105@hdw.be> <3FE9494E.60909@hdw.be> <5.2.0.9.0.20031224080121.009ef730@pop.starpower.net> <6jqRkFHLph6$Ewg5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <3FEAAD53.2080806@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: > Eric Landau wrote > >> I am guessing that David's example is flawed because he got his >> conventions crossed. Let me try to do better: > > > What do you mean, it is flawed? One of the reasons this Wael school > is a nonsense is because it requires me to ignore the Laws and lie in > the example given. It is not flawed. It is a good example of why it is > an undesirable practice. > No David, your example is very very very flawed and one of the reasons why the discussion lingers on. Eric and I read into your example two completely different backgrounds, and the real one was a third still. Without some basic background information, every example is flawed. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Dec 25 09:36:06 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 10:36:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031224171241.02679cb0@pop.starpower.net> References: <3FE94B0D.8020606@hdw.be> <5.2.0.9.0.20031224171241.02679cb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <3FEAAF86.6090601@hdw.be> Well done Eric, I suggest we keep this text framed somewhere as the definitive answer to a difficult question. Eric Landau wrote: > At 03:59 AM 12/24/03, Ed wrote: > >> I still don't understand. If a player needs to decide whether or not >> to falsecard, or with which card to falsecard, he has a "bridge >> reason" to consider the question, does he not? How then is it no >> longer a "bridge reason" if he takes longer than normal tempo to do so? > > > Falsecards are "special" because they are inherently deceptive; they > have no effect unless declarer is deceived. The deception may be one in > which declarer is deceived into thinking that one may, or may not, have > a "genuine bridge problem", i.e. one where your play matters to the > outcome without regard to any potential deception. If not (such as when > the falsecard is pertinent only to the count), the falsecard cannot work > if you huddle -- you can only be thinking of falsecarding, and declarer > (or defender, if you are declarer) will know this, so in order for the > deception to be successful you will need to falsecard in tempo. > Similarly, it cannot work after a huddle if you are trying to fool > declarer into believing that you don't have a problem. So there is no > legitimate reason for falsecarding after a huddle unless you are trying > to fool declarer into believing that you have a genuine problem when you > don't. In that case, you have a valid reason for the falsecard, but no > valid reason for the huddle; it's effect can only be to further deceive > declarer beyond what you can achieve by the effect of the falsecard > alone. The huddle, in isolation, will deceive equally whether or not > you do eventually falsecard, and therefore must be considered inherently > "deceptive". There can be no "demonstrable bridge reason" for the > huddle, regardless of whether or not there is a "demonstrable bridge > reason" for the falsecard itself. > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Dec 25 09:27:52 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 10:27:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031222085304.00a139f0@pop.starpower.net> <3FE7005C.3070200@hdw.be> <3FE7FAB5.6050803@hdw.be> <3FE85A8E.7070105@hdw.be> <3FE9494E.60909@hdw.be> Message-ID: <3FEAAD98.8040203@hdw.be> Hello David, yes, interesting story. David Stevenson wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote > >> Sorry David, to have misunderstood you, but I really did not see shere >> you were heading: > > > Maybe, but if you want a discussion, why not just answer the question > posed rather than a different one entirely? > Maybe because I did not believe the original question had any interest. I now see that it does. >> David Stevenson wrote: >> >>>>> We have had an example recently. Many people play DOPI and ROPI >>>>> which became common many years ago. Playing RKCB with a partner >>>>> with whom my agreement was to play DOPI and ROPI with no further >>>>> discussion I had a sequence that agreed hearts, followed by >>>>> 4NT Dbl 5C >>>>> What was I mean to tell my opponents as to the meaning of 5C? >>> >>> >> >> OK, I'll try again: 2 aces. >> WTP? > > > The problem is that that is not our agreement, and I would be lying if > I said it was. This is what I dislike *intensely* about your methods. > > In fact I play it as three aces - should I have said that? > No, it does not matter to our discussion. You see, every story has a lot of background, and without the background we are bound to make mistakes in conclusion. I have never heard of a system where the first reply after double or pass shows three aces. I was under the impression that the only system which one could be playing, especially when discussing no further than the two words DOPI-ROPI, would be that 5C shows 2 aces. I was wrong in that impression, but you cannot blame me for that. Now do you understand that I, with my notions of bidding, would be 100% certain that 5Cl would show 2 aces? And do you understand that I also tell this to opponents. I believe that once I've "agreed" on DOPI, 5Cl shows 2 aces. OK? > But the *agreement* I had with partner was that we play RKCB and ROPI, > and *that* is what I should tell opponents when they ask - and > furthermore, it is what I did tell my LHO. > And he did not ask what 5Cl meant? Now, there are two possibilities: 1) Your opponent is of the same opinion as I am, that 5Cl can only mean 2 aces. I, as TD, would then rule that you had misinformed your opponent. By not stressing that in your system, 5Cl has a different meaning than the standard implied in the word ROPI, you have mistakenly informed your opponent that your partner has 2 aces. Don't go hiding behind general bridge knowledge either. If your opponent, like myself, does not know there is more than one possible meaning, then the fact that there are more than one possibilities is not generel knowledge. I won't rule against this opponent of yours. 2) or your opponent also realizes that there are two possible systems in circulation, and he did not ask anyway. Well, this is not an interesting case. You cannot be blamed for MI when they don't ask you any questions. So at the risk of being accused of answering questions that are not posed, I'll continue our little story: Suppose your opponent asks you for the precise meaning, within the already mentioned RKCB and ROPI, of 5Cl? What would you have answered? > It transpired that my partner played it as two aces, no queen, I > played it as three aces, our opponents were told our exact agreement > perfectly correctly, and everyone was informed correctly. I still see > *no* requirement under the Laws of bridge, the ethics of the game, or > commonsense to do anything but tell the truth. We bid a bad slam which > deservedly went off and Tony Forrester got 13 imps off us. > So you see David, that stories in which partners are genuinely without agreement, are hardly interesting? Through the misunderstanding, Forrester scored 13 IMPs. Much more interesting is the story in which both of you are on the same track. In this story, you thought partner had 3 aces. But suppose that he had them, and you bid and make the slam. Forrester loses 12 IMPs and calls the director. It turns out that Tony has a subtle way of showing that his lead would have been different with the knowledge that your partner has 3 aces. NOW the story is interesting. Tell me what your reply would have been to Forrester, had he asked more than he did. And if that answer is not something that includes at least "more probably 3 aces than 2", tell me why the TD should not rule against you and make the slam one down. > I still think that players who deliberately misinform their opponents > as to their agreements whatever their motives deserve to get ruled > against because they have deliberately failed to follow the laws of the > game. > And I still think that players who deliberately withhold information from their opponents as to the likely meaning of calls deserve to get ruled against because they have deliberately failed to follow the spirit of the game. And yes David, I realize that your sentence is stronger than mine (your sentence uses laws, mine only spirit). But as I said, I don't agree with you that telling your opponents MORE than what you believe they are entitled to (your guess rather than your agreement) is against the laws of the game. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html your example From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Dec 25 09:27:55 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 10:27:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <6jqRkFHLph6$Ewg5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031222085304.00a139f0@pop.starpower.net> <3FE7005C.3070200@hdw.be> <3FE7FAB5.6050803@hdw.be> <3FE85A8E.7070105@hdw.be> <3FE9494E.60909@hdw.be> <5.2.0.9.0.20031224080121.009ef730@pop.starpower.net> <6jqRkFHLph6$Ewg5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <3FEAAD9B.9020203@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: > Eric Landau wrote > >> I am guessing that David's example is flawed because he got his >> conventions crossed. Let me try to do better: > > > What do you mean, it is flawed? One of the reasons this Wael school > is a nonsense is because it requires me to ignore the Laws and lie in > the example given. It is not flawed. It is a good example of why it is > an undesirable practice. > No David, your example is very very very flawed and one of the reasons why the discussion lingers on. Eric and I read into your example two completely different backgrounds, and the real one was a third still. Without some basic background information, every example is flawed. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Dec 25 09:45:28 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 10:45:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <3FEAAD76.3050100@hdw.be> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031222085304.00a139f0@pop.starpower.net> <3FE7005C.3070200@hdw.be> <3FE7FAB5.6050803@hdw.be> <3FE85A8E.7070105@hdw.be> <3FE9494E.60909@hdw.be> <3FEAAD76.3050100@hdw.be> Message-ID: <3FEAB1B8.1060105@hdw.be> Sorry for the quadruple post. My message came back three times, so I thought it had not gone. Herman De Wael wrote: [I won't bother you a fifth time] > Hello David, > > yes, interesting story. > > David Stevenson wrote: > >> Herman De Wael wrote >> >>> Sorry David, to have misunderstood you, but I really did not see >>> shere you were heading: >> >> >> >> Maybe, but if you want a discussion, why not just answer the >> question posed rather than a different one entirely? >> > > Maybe because I did not believe the original question had any interest. > I now see that it does. > >>> David Stevenson wrote: >>> >>>>>> We have had an example recently. Many people play DOPI and >>>>>> ROPI which became common many years ago. Playing RKCB with a >>>>>> partner with whom my agreement was to play DOPI and ROPI with no >>>>>> further discussion I had a sequence that agreed hearts, followed by >>>>>> 4NT Dbl 5C >>>>>> What was I mean to tell my opponents as to the meaning of 5C? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> OK, I'll try again: 2 aces. >>> WTP? >> >> >> >> The problem is that that is not our agreement, and I would be lying >> if I said it was. This is what I dislike *intensely* about your methods. >> >> In fact I play it as three aces - should I have said that? >> > > No, it does not matter to our discussion. > You see, every story has a lot of background, and without the background > we are bound to make mistakes in conclusion. > I have never heard of a system where the first reply after double or > pass shows three aces. I was under the impression that the only system > which one could be playing, especially when discussing no further than > the two words DOPI-ROPI, would be that 5C shows 2 aces. I was wrong in > that impression, but you cannot blame me for that. > > Now do you understand that I, with my notions of bidding, would be 100% > certain that 5Cl would show 2 aces? And do you understand that I also > tell this to opponents. I believe that once I've "agreed" on DOPI, 5Cl > shows 2 aces. OK? > >> But the *agreement* I had with partner was that we play RKCB and >> ROPI, and *that* is what I should tell opponents when they ask - and >> furthermore, it is what I did tell my LHO. >> > > And he did not ask what 5Cl meant? > Now, there are two possibilities: > 1) Your opponent is of the same opinion as I am, that 5Cl can only mean > 2 aces. I, as TD, would then rule that you had misinformed your > opponent. By not stressing that in your system, 5Cl has a different > meaning than the standard implied in the word ROPI, you have mistakenly > informed your opponent that your partner has 2 aces. Don't go hiding > behind general bridge knowledge either. If your opponent, like myself, > does not know there is more than one possible meaning, then the fact > that there are more than one possibilities is not generel knowledge. I > won't rule against this opponent of yours. > > 2) or your opponent also realizes that there are two possible systems in > circulation, and he did not ask anyway. Well, this is not an interesting > case. You cannot be blamed for MI when they don't ask you any questions. > > So at the risk of being accused of answering questions that are not > posed, I'll continue our little story: > > Suppose your opponent asks you for the precise meaning, within the > already mentioned RKCB and ROPI, of 5Cl? What would you have answered? > >> It transpired that my partner played it as two aces, no queen, I >> played it as three aces, our opponents were told our exact agreement >> perfectly correctly, and everyone was informed correctly. I still see >> *no* requirement under the Laws of bridge, the ethics of the game, or >> commonsense to do anything but tell the truth. We bid a bad slam >> which deservedly went off and Tony Forrester got 13 imps off us. >> > > So you see David, that stories in which partners are genuinely without > agreement, are hardly interesting? Through the misunderstanding, > Forrester scored 13 IMPs. > Much more interesting is the story in which both of you are on the same > track. In this story, you thought partner had 3 aces. But suppose that > he had them, and you bid and make the slam. Forrester loses 12 IMPs and > calls the director. It turns out that Tony has a subtle way of showing > that his lead would have been different with the knowledge that your > partner has 3 aces. NOW the story is interesting. > > Tell me what your reply would have been to Forrester, had he asked more > than he did. > > And if that answer is not something that includes at least "more > probably 3 aces than 2", tell me why the TD should not rule against you > and make the slam one down. > >> I still think that players who deliberately misinform their >> opponents as to their agreements whatever their motives deserve to get >> ruled against because they have deliberately failed to follow the laws >> of the game. >> > > And I still think that players who deliberately withhold information > from their opponents as to the likely meaning of calls deserve to get > ruled against because they have deliberately failed to follow the spirit > of the game. > > And yes David, I realize that your sentence is stronger than mine (your > sentence uses laws, mine only spirit). But as I said, I don't agree with > you that telling your opponents MORE than what you believe they are > entitled to (your guess rather than your agreement) is against the laws > of the game. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Dec 25 10:07:54 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 11:07:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] No agreement, what does it mean Message-ID: <3FEAB6FA.90504@hdw.be> Christmas greetings to all readers. Many of the problems in recent threads come about because we don't realize that "no agreement" can hide many different backgrounds. Let me tell you a story. Last tuesday I played with Prith. I know Prith very well, we spend on average half an hour per week at the bar discussing cricket. But we don't play often together, maybe once a year on average, although three years ago we did play a 4 session event for which we discussed system to a bit greater length. As far as common background goes, except for the fact that we play in the same club, we do have common partners. I play twice a month with the wife of his regular partner. But on tuesday, our system discussion lasted all of 2 minutes, while we were dealing the boards during round one. So an answer of "no agreement" could have been quite frequent for us, and true as well. However, I am certain David will agree with the following: If I answer "no agreement" to any of the people present on tuesday, they know a great deal of background, because they know us, and the general methods in use in our club. But if we had had a visiting Japanese pair, playing their first tournament in Western Europe, my saying "no agreement" would be vastly inadequate. I will tell you a few situations and I will translate the answer "no agreement" to the full sentence which ought to be told to the Japanese. 1) me 1NT (pass) 2He ? "no agreement" = "everybody in this club (and in the whole of western europe) plays that as transfer, so I am 100% confident that he has at least 5 spades" 2) me 1NT (pass) 2Sp ? "no agreement" = "most people, including Prith and I, play that as transfer, and when they do, it's a transfer to clubs, so I am 98% confident that he has 6 clubs or 5 clubs and a second suit that he'll introduce later" 3) me 1Sp (no interventions) 2Cl 3Cl 3He ? "no agreement" = "I don't know if he has 4 hearts or not, but he's showing something in hearts, and he expects me to bid 3NT if I have a diamond stopper" (this one actually happened) 4) he 2Di (pass) 2NT (pass) 3He ? (2Di is Multi, that was one of the few things we did agree on) "no agreement" = "2NT asks for a further description. I know that he knows that I know that most of the people in our common circle play this as showing a maximum weak two in _spades_. We played it that way 3 years ago, so I am 60% confident that he has 6 spades and around 10 points". Now I have a few questions to David: - do you agree David, that the answer "no agreement" in all these cases is incomplete when playing against a Japanese pair? - do you agree David, that in some cases (number 4 especially), the answer "no agreement" is incomplete even when playing against people from the own club? - do you agree David, that in case 4, my opponents have the right to know that my partner has spades? - do you agree David, that in case 4, my answer of "maximum weak two in spades" is far more appropriate than your "no agreement"? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From cibor@poczta.fm Thu Dec 25 13:11:03 2003 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 14:11:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] No agreement, what does it mean References: <3FEAB6FA.90504@hdw.be> Message-ID: <004c01c3cae8$ad9432e0$44284cd5@c5s5d3> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2003 11:07 AM Subject: [blml] No agreement, what does it mean > Christmas greetings to all readers. > > Many of the problems in recent threads come about because we don't > realize that "no agreement" can hide many different backgrounds. > I agree. Actually I definitely prefer to play against people who follow de Wael school. That is because; 1=B0 I don't like being told "no agreement" when I know for sure that my opponents do have common experience and practice to deduce the meaning of the call (even with some degree of uncertainty) An extreme example would be: West holds: AK Axx Axxx KQJx East opens 2C. I don't like if West tells me "no agreement about the 2C call" and then bids 7NT and guesses right that partner had a GF hand. Even if this had been a guess he must have had some clues as to the possible meanings of 2C opener and he withleld them from me. 2=B0 I don't like to be told the entire story about how my opponent came to the coclusion about the meaning of his partner's bid: "We don't have an agreement about the 1NT overcall of the 1H opener but everyone else on our team plays that it shows 4S-5+m but I also know that partner refuses to play this convention with anyone with whom he plays for the first time - in such cases his 1NT overcall shows 16-18 BAL with a heart stopper. My and my partner play on the same team but we have never played before and also we didn't discuss the meaning of the 1NT overcall. There is also a slight chance that the 1NT overcall shows a pre-empt in an unspecified suit - I have seen my partner play this convention once. Now you have all the information I have - your guess is as good as mine". I accept that the Laws make me listen to that story and to make my own guess. That's fine. My partner also has to make his own guess. Now if after 1H (1NT) 2S my partner bids 2S as a cue-bid (judging that 1NT shows probably 4S-5+m) and I take it as natural (because my guess will be that 1NT is strong and balanced) that the TD might refuse to adjust the score because we were told of all their agreements - "you had all the information that they had". If the Laws tell me I have to live with it - fine. But how can you guys possibly claim that I am at a disadvantage playing against Herman who will simply tell me "1NT shows 4S and 5+m" and if he's right then at least me and my partner will be certainly on the same wavelength (there will be no misunderstanding as to the meaning of the 2S call) and if he's wrong he will peacefully pay the price for the MI he gave - this time the TD will have no doubts that we *were* misinformed. How can I possibly be at a disadvantage? I don't know about the players in your circle but I found that everyone I have played against prefers to be given a short and concise answer "this means X" because they just can comfortably procede. Also they can be sure that if the answer was erronous they will certainly have a MI ruling go in their favor. They *like* it. Whereas whenever someone begins "3 years ago, when we were discussing this sequence in the bar..." they immediately become suspicious that their opponent is trying to wrigle out of what is his duty to explain the call. You don't have to subscribe to dWS. Just the same you don't have to impose penalties for the revokes on your opponents. But what is wrong in doing *more* for your opponents than the laws require? Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland From blml@blakjak.com Thu Dec 25 13:25:43 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 13:25:43 +0000 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <3FEAABE4.3@hdw.be> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031222085304.00a139f0@pop.starpower.net> <3FE7005C.3070200@hdw.be> <3FE7FAB5.6050803@hdw.be> <3FE85A8E.7070105@hdw.be> <3FE9494E.60909@hdw.be> <3FEAABE4.3@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >>> David Stevenson wrote: >>> >>>>>> We have had an example recently. Many people play DOPI and >>>>>>ROPI which became common many years ago. Playing RKCB with a >>>>>>partner with whom my agreement was to play DOPI and ROPI with no >>>>>>further discussion I had a sequence that agreed hearts, followed by >>>>>> 4NT Dbl 5C >>>>>> What was I mean to tell my opponents as to the meaning of 5C? >>>> >>>> >>> >>> OK, I'll try again: 2 aces. >>> WTP? >> The problem is that that is not our agreement, and I would be >>lying if I said it was. This is what I dislike *intensely* about >>your methods. >> In fact I play it as three aces - should I have said that? >No, it does not matter to our discussion. >You see, every story has a lot of background, and without the >background we are bound to make mistakes in conclusion. >I have never heard of a system where the first reply after double or >pass shows three aces. I was under the impression that the only system >which one could be playing, especially when discussing no further than >the two words DOPI-ROPI, would be that 5C shows 2 aces. I was wrong in >that impression, but you cannot blame me for that. > >Now do you understand that I, with my notions of bidding, would be 100% >certain that 5Cl would show 2 aces? And do you understand that I also >tell this to opponents. I believe that once I've "agreed" on DOPI, 5Cl >shows 2 aces. OK? But it is *not* your agreement. Your agreement is that you are playing DOPI: anything else is a bridge conclusion, and it seems that the majority have gone for an illogical one. >And he did not ask what 5Cl meant? Yes, he did, and I told him our agreement. >Now, there are two possibilities: >1) Your opponent is of the same opinion as I am, that 5Cl can only mean >2 aces. I, as TD, would then rule that you had misinformed your >opponent. By not stressing that in your system, 5Cl has a different >meaning than the standard implied in the word ROPI, you have mistakenly >informed your opponent that your partner has 2 aces. Don't go hiding >behind general bridge knowledge either. If your opponent, like myself, >does not know there is more than one possible meaning, then the fact >that there are more than one possibilities is not generel knowledge. I >won't rule against this opponent of yours. > >2) or your opponent also realizes that there are two possible systems >in circulation, and he did not ask anyway. Well, this is not an >interesting case. You cannot be blamed for MI when they don't ask you >any questions. > >So at the risk of being accused of answering questions that are not >posed, I'll continue our little story: > >Suppose your opponent asks you for the precise meaning, within the >already mentioned RKCB and ROPI, of 5Cl? What would you have answered? I did answer: I told him we were playing RKCB, and ROPI. >> It transpired that my partner played it as two aces, no queen, I >>played it as three aces, our opponents were told our exact agreement >>perfectly correctly, and everyone was informed correctly. I still see >>*no* requirement under the Laws of bridge, the ethics of the game, or >>commonsense to do anything but tell the truth. We bid a bad slam >>which deservedly went off and Tony Forrester got 13 imps off us. >So you see David, that stories in which partners are genuinely without >agreement, are hardly interesting? Through the misunderstanding, >Forrester scored 13 IMPs. >Much more interesting is the story in which both of you are on the same >track. In this story, you thought partner had 3 aces. But suppose that >he had them, and you bid and make the slam. Forrester loses 12 IMPs and >calls the director. It turns out that Tony has a subtle way of showing >that his lead would have been different with the knowledge that your >partner has 3 aces. NOW the story is interesting. > >Tell me what your reply would have been to Forrester, had he asked more >than he did. "That is the sum total of our agreements". Actually to his partner: Tony was the other side of the screen. >And if that answer is not something that includes at least "more >probably 3 aces than 2", tell me why the TD should not rule against you >and make the slam one down. Because *I* told him the full total of our agreements as required by the Laws of the game. >> I still think that players who deliberately misinform their >>opponents as to their agreements whatever their motives deserve to >>get ruled against because they have deliberately failed to follow the >>laws of the game. >And I still think that players who deliberately withhold information >from their opponents as to the likely meaning of calls deserve to get >ruled against because they have deliberately failed to follow the >spirit of the game. People who deliberately misinform their opponents as to their agreements are unethical in my view. Making agreements up that you do not have is against the Laws. -- 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 Dec 25 13:27:36 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 13:27:36 +0000 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <3FEAAD53.2080806@hdw.be> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031222085304.00a139f0@pop.starpower.net> <3FE7005C.3070200@hdw.be> <3FE7FAB5.6050803@hdw.be> <3FE85A8E.7070105@hdw.be> <3FE9494E.60909@hdw.be> <5.2.0.9.0.20031224080121.009ef730@pop.starpower.net> <6jqRkFHLph6$Ewg5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3FEAAD53.2080806@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >David Stevenson wrote: >> Eric Landau wrote >> >>> I am guessing that David's example is flawed because he got his >>>conventions crossed. Let me try to do better: >> What do you mean, it is flawed? One of the reasons this Wael >>school is a nonsense is because it requires me to ignore the Laws and >>lie in the example given. It is not flawed. It is a good example of >>why it is an undesirable practice. >No David, your example is very very very flawed and one of the reasons >why the discussion lingers on. Eric and I read into your example two >completely different backgrounds, and the real one was a third still. >Without some basic background information, every example is flawed. It was your assumption that the background was different that did not help. It is still an example where I follow the letter and spirit of the Laws, you do not, and your method is patently unfair. -- 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 Dec 25 13:30:25 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 13:30:25 +0000 Subject: [blml] No agreement, what does it mean In-Reply-To: <3FEAB6FA.90504@hdw.be> References: <3FEAB6FA.90504@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >Christmas greetings to all readers. > >Many of the problems in recent threads come about because we don't >realize that "no agreement" can hide many different backgrounds. > >Let me tell you a story. > >Last tuesday I played with Prith. I know Prith very well, we spend on >average half an hour per week at the bar discussing cricket. But we >don't play often together, maybe once a year on average, although three >years ago we did play a 4 session event for which we discussed system >to a bit greater length. >As far as common background goes, except for the fact that we play in >the same club, we do have common partners. I play twice a month with >the wife of his regular partner. > >But on tuesday, our system discussion lasted all of 2 minutes, while we >were dealing the boards during round one. > >So an answer of "no agreement" could have been quite frequent for us, >and true as well. > >However, I am certain David will agree with the following: >If I answer "no agreement" to any of the people present on tuesday, >they know a great deal of background, because they know us, and the >general methods in use in our club. >But if we had had a visiting Japanese pair, playing their first >tournament in Western Europe, my saying "no agreement" would be vastly >inadequate. > >I will tell you a few situations and I will translate the answer "no >agreement" to the full sentence which ought to be told to the Japanese. > >1) me 1NT (pass) 2He ? >"no agreement" = "everybody in this club (and in the whole of western >europe) plays that as transfer, so I am 100% confident that he has at >least 5 spades" > >2) me 1NT (pass) 2Sp ? >"no agreement" = "most people, including Prith and I, play that as >transfer, and when they do, it's a transfer to clubs, so I am 98% >confident that he has 6 clubs or 5 clubs and a second suit that he'll >introduce later" > >3) me 1Sp (no interventions) 2Cl 3Cl 3He ? >"no agreement" = "I don't know if he has 4 hearts or not, but he's >showing something in hearts, and he expects me to bid 3NT if I have a >diamond stopper" (this one actually happened) > >4) he 2Di (pass) 2NT (pass) 3He ? >(2Di is Multi, that was one of the few things we did agree on) >"no agreement" = "2NT asks for a further description. I know that he >knows that I know that most of the people in our common circle play >this as showing a maximum weak two in _spades_. We played it that way 3 >years ago, so I am 60% confident that he has 6 spades and around 10 >points". > >Now I have a few questions to David: > >- do you agree David, that the answer "no agreement" in all these cases >is incomplete when playing against a Japanese pair? >- do you agree David, that in some cases (number 4 especially), the >answer "no agreement" is incomplete even when playing against people >from the own club? >- do you agree David, that in case 4, my opponents have the right to >know that my partner has spades? >- do you agree David, that in case 4, my answer of "maximum weak two in >spades" is far more appropriate than your "no agreement"? I must say that I am getting sick of your presumptions that I play an unethical game and tell lies to the opponents. You are the one who recommends lying to the opponents, not me. Of course I never say "no agreement" when I have implicit agreements. I am not unethical as you are suggesting. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Dec 25 15:07:30 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 16:07:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031222085304.00a139f0@pop.starpower.net> <3FE7005C.3070200@hdw.be> <3FE7FAB5.6050803@hdw.be> <3FE85A8E.7070105@hdw.be> <3FE9494E.60909@hdw.be> <3FEAABE4.3@hdw.be> Message-ID: <3FEAFD32.7040607@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: >> >> Now do you understand that I, with my notions of bidding, would be >> 100% certain that 5Cl would show 2 aces? And do you understand that I >> also tell this to opponents. I believe that once I've "agreed" on >> DOPI, 5Cl shows 2 aces. OK? > > > But it is *not* your agreement. Your agreement is that you are > playing DOPI: anything else is a bridge conclusion, and it seems that > the majority have gone for an illogical one. > Sorry, David, but IMHO, the convention called ROPI includes the following bids: Redouble, showing zero aces, Pass, showing one ace, 5Cl, showing two aces, and 5Di, showing 3. If that is my agreement, then I shall explain this to him. Now the convention you call ROPI apparently does not include a meaning for 5Cl. Well, that's your problem. If I'm the Director, and your partner bids 5Cl with 2 aces, and later tells me that he intended this as showing 2 aces, then I'm going to rule misinformation against you if you have failed to disclose this. >> And he did not ask what 5Cl meant? > > > Yes, he did, and I told him our agreement. > Not the complete version. You did not say what 5Cl showed. That's MI. > > I did answer: I told him we were playing RKCB, and ROPI. > And you did not correct him when he assumed (probably) as I did, that 5Cl showed 2 aces. >> >> Tell me what your reply would have been to Forrester, had he asked >> more than he did. > > "That is the sum total of our agreements". Actually to his partner: > Tony was the other side of the screen. > Tell me David, about the background. Are these multiple versions of ROPI well known at that tournament? How would your opponent have understood your sentence: - as "5Cl = 2 aces", or - as "either 2 or 3 aces, we forgot to discuss this" If the former, then I am maintaining that you have MI them. If the latter, then I can agree with you. >> And if that answer is not something that includes at least "more >> probably 3 aces than 2", tell me why the TD should not rule against >> you and make the slam one down. > > > Because *I* told him the full total of our agreements as required by > the Laws of the game. > No you did not. If you had been playing in some other tournament, where the opponents don't know what is meant by the word ROPI, you would have certainly said more. You would have said something like "he did not redouble or pass, which would show zero or one key-card respectively." You would have left the opponents to figure it out for themselves. If they had asked how many aces he has, you would have added "I don't know if he has 2 aces or more because we forgot to agree on that". You would almost certainly have added that second sentence even without an extra question. But at this table, you did not say these full 2 sentences. You said "ROPI". Now I accept that this is acceptable, and not MI, if your opponents from that one word know the two sentences. Which is why I ask what "ROPI" means in your circles. If it means the full 2 sentences, then you have not misinformed. But if it equates to the first sentence only, and implies 5Cl as meaning 2 key-cards without the trump queen, then you have Misinformed!!!! >>> I still think that players who deliberately misinform their >>> opponents as to their agreements whatever their motives deserve to >>> get ruled against because they have deliberately failed to follow >>> the laws of the game. > > >> And I still think that players who deliberately withhold information >> from their opponents as to the likely meaning of calls deserve to get >> ruled against because they have deliberately failed to follow the >> spirit of the game. > > > People who deliberately misinform their opponents as to their > agreements are unethical in my view. Making agreements up that you do > not have is against the Laws. > But telling the opponents what partner has showed is not. Important: in a private message, David has complained that I accused him of cheating. I don't believe that I did any such thing. If any reader has misinterpreted my utterings into believing that I think David would cheat, please accept my apologies for that misinterpretation. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Dec 25 15:11:43 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 16:11:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031222085304.00a139f0@pop.starpower.net> <3FE7005C.3070200@hdw.be> <3FE7FAB5.6050803@hdw.be> <3FE85A8E.7070105@hdw.be> <3FE9494E.60909@hdw.be> <5.2.0.9.0.20031224080121.009ef730@pop.starpower.net> <6jqRkFHLph6$Ewg5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3FEAAD53.2080806@hdw.be> Message-ID: <3FEAFE2F.6050307@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: > > It was your assumption that the background was different that did not > help. It is still an example where I follow the letter and spirit of > the Laws, you do not, and your method is patently unfair. > letter? maybe. spirit? sorry David, certainly not. Your partner makes a call which according to him shows 2 aces. According to you it also shows 2 aces (just suppose for one moment). Yet you say "no agreement" and believe this is the spirit of the laws. While I say "2 aces" and you tell me I'm lying? Sorry David. If that is the way you believe the spirit of the laws is, you have lost a lot of credit in my book. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Dec 25 15:15:43 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 16:15:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] No agreement, what does it mean In-Reply-To: References: <3FEAB6FA.90504@hdw.be> Message-ID: <3FEAFF1F.30503@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: > > I must say that I am getting sick of your presumptions that I play an > unethical game and tell lies to the opponents. > > You are the one who recommends lying to the opponents, not me. Of > course I never say "no agreement" when I have implicit agreements. I am > not unethical as you are suggesting. > Notice that David did not answer any of the questions I asked of him. Rather he continues in his paranoic thoughts that I am suggesting he is being unethical. I am through with DWS. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From blml@blakjak.com Thu Dec 25 17:32:01 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 17:32:01 +0000 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <3FEAFD32.7040607@hdw.be> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031222085304.00a139f0@pop.starpower.net> <3FE7005C.3070200@hdw.be> <3FE7FAB5.6050803@hdw.be> <3FE85A8E.7070105@hdw.be> <3FE9494E.60909@hdw.be> <3FEAABE4.3@hdw.be> <3FEAFD32.7040607@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >David Stevenson wrote: > >>> >>> Now do you understand that I, with my notions of bidding, would be >>>100% certain that 5Cl would show 2 aces? And do you understand that I >>>also tell this to opponents. I believe that once I've "agreed" on >>>DOPI, 5Cl shows 2 aces. OK? >> But it is *not* your agreement. Your agreement is that you are >>playing DOPI: anything else is a bridge conclusion, and it seems that >>the majority have gone for an illogical one. >> > >Sorry, David, but IMHO, the convention called ROPI includes the >following bids: Redouble, showing zero aces, Pass, showing one ace, >5Cl, showing two aces, and 5Di, showing 3. >If that is my agreement, then I shall explain this to him. If it were I would have said this. But ROPI means redouble is zero, pass is one. That is why it is called ROPI. >Now the convention you call ROPI apparently does not include a meaning >for 5Cl. Well, that's your problem. If I'm the Director, and your >partner bids 5Cl with 2 aces, and later tells me that he intended this >as showing 2 aces, then I'm going to rule misinformation against you if >you have failed to disclose this. So you are ruling misinformation because an agreement we do not have was not given to the opponents? > >>> And he did not ask what 5Cl meant? >> Yes, he did, and I told him our agreement. >> > >Not the complete version. You did not say what 5Cl showed. That's MI. ROPI says what redouble and pass are: it includes no meaning for 5C per se, and that is why I did not tell him an agreement we did not have. >Tell me David, about the background. Are these multiple versions of >ROPI well known at that tournament? How would your opponent have >understood your sentence: >- as "5Cl = 2 aces", or >- as "either 2 or 3 aces, we forgot to discuss this" How should I know? No-one has *ever* brought the matter up before, otherwise I would have sorted it out. Polling since has proved that the majority thinks ROPI infers 5C = 2-Q, but there is a sizeable minority who do not. --------------------- >Important: in a private message, David has complained that I accused >him of cheating. I don't believe that I did any such thing. If any >reader has misinterpreted my utterings into believing that I think >David would cheat, please accept my apologies for that >misinterpretation. It is not normal to quote private emails. But it was nothing to do with this post or this part of this thread. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Thu Dec 25 17:33:51 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 17:33:51 +0000 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <3FEAFE2F.6050307@hdw.be> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031222085304.00a139f0@pop.starpower.net> <3FE7005C.3070200@hdw.be> <3FE7FAB5.6050803@hdw.be> <3FE85A8E.7070105@hdw.be> <3FE9494E.60909@hdw.be> <5.2.0.9.0.20031224080121.009ef730@pop.starpower.net> <6jqRkFHLph6$Ewg5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3FEAAD53.2080806@hdw.be> <3FEAFE2F.6050307@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >David Stevenson wrote: > >> It was your assumption that the background was different that did >>not help. It is still an example where I follow the letter and >>spirit of the Laws, you do not, and your method is patently unfair. >> > >letter? maybe. >spirit? sorry David, certainly not. >Your partner makes a call which according to him shows 2 aces. >According to you it also shows 2 aces (just suppose for one moment). >Yet you say "no agreement" and believe this is the spirit of the laws. >While I say "2 aces" and you tell me I'm lying? It does not show two aces. Just because you keep repeating this does not make it true. >Sorry David. If that is the way you believe the spirit of the laws is, >you have lost a lot of credit in my book. You attempts to make me misinform the opponents hardly give you much credit. -- 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 Dec 25 17:36:48 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 17:36:48 +0000 Subject: [blml] No agreement, what does it mean In-Reply-To: <004c01c3cae8$ad9432e0$44284cd5@c5s5d3> References: <3FEAB6FA.90504@hdw.be> <004c01c3cae8$ad9432e0$44284cd5@c5s5d3> Message-ID: Konrad Ciborowski wrote >I agree. Actually I definitely prefer to play against people who >follow de Wael school. That is because; > >1° I don't like being told >"no agreement" when I know for sure that >my opponents do have common experience >and practice to deduce the meaning of the >call (even with some degree of uncertainty) That is nothing to do with the Wael school. You are required to tell opponents implicit agreements, and people like me who think the Wael school approach is illegal and unhelpful would never say "No agreement" when we have an implicit one. The Wael school refers to giving the opponents misinformation that you have an agreement in a situation where you have no agreement, explicit or implicit. -- 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 Dec 25 17:37:48 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 17:37:48 +0000 Subject: [blml] No agreement, what does it mean In-Reply-To: <3FEAFF1F.30503@hdw.be> References: <3FEAB6FA.90504@hdw.be> <3FEAFF1F.30503@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote >David Stevenson wrote: >> I must say that I am getting sick of your presumptions that I play >>an unethical game and tell lies to the opponents. >> You are the one who recommends lying to the opponents, not me. Of >>course I never say "no agreement" when I have implicit agreements. I >>am not unethical as you are suggesting. >Notice that David did not answer any of the questions I asked of him. >Rather he continues in his paranoic thoughts that I am suggesting he is >being unethical. I am through with DWS. Before his questions he assumed I would act unethically. The questions are not worth answering. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From john@asimere.com Thu Dec 25 19:32:06 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 19:32:06 +0000 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031222085304.00a139f0@pop.starpower.net> <3FE7005C.3070200@hdw.be> <3FE7FAB5.6050803@hdw.be> <3FE85A8E.7070105@hdw.be> <3FE9494E.60909@hdw.be> <5.2.0.9.0.20031224080121.009ef730@pop.starpower.net> <6jqRkFHLph6$Ewg5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3FEAAD53.2080806@hdw.be> <3FEAFE2F.6050307@hdw.be> Message-ID: <+urunKA2sz6$Ewg4@asimere.com> In article , David Stevenson writes >Herman De Wael wrote >>David Stevenson wrote: >> >>> It was your assumption that the background was different that did >>>not help. It is still an example where I follow the letter and >>>spirit of the Laws, you do not, and your method is patently unfair. >>> >> >>letter? maybe. >>spirit? sorry David, certainly not. >>Your partner makes a call which according to him shows 2 aces. >>According to you it also shows 2 aces (just suppose for one moment). >>Yet you say "no agreement" and believe this is the spirit of the laws. >>While I say "2 aces" and you tell me I'm lying? > > It does not show two aces. Just because you keep repeating this does >not make it true. > >>Sorry David. If that is the way you believe the spirit of the laws is, >>you have lost a lot of credit in my book. > > You attempts to make me misinform the opponents hardly give you much >credit. > Sheesh guys. "Redouble shows 0, Pass shows one, your guess is as good as mine for the meaning of 5C. We have no agreement and it can be played a number of ways" WTF can't you say what you *Know* and also say what you *Don't Know*? Such disclosure is neither contrary to the laws of Bridge, nor is it proscribed by l'ecole HdW. Of course the HdW school might say "But it shows 2" and the DWS school might say "in our school it's usually 2, but no guarantees express or implied are to be construed as offered or underwritten" if the oppo happen to be little green men. The HdW school is of course illegal in this respect because they're lying. cheers John -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From svenpran@online.no Thu Dec 25 20:44:42 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 21:44:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: <005801c3ca05$3fb09450$51f7f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <000101c3cb27$ecb12020$6900a8c0@WINXP> Please Ton: L21B1 or L21B2? What was your intention when writing Maastricht minute 6? Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of = Ton > Kooijman > Sent: 24. desember 2003 10:15 > To: blml@rtflb.org; David Stevenson > Subject: Re: [blml] Bidding Box >=20 >=20 > David: >=20 > > Since I cannot work out what you >=20 > Sven >=20 > >are saying I shall diagram what I am > > saying and you can tell me where you disagree. > > > > a] South decides to bid 2H > > b] South bids 2S by accident > > c] West believes South is bidding 2S which is misinformation > > d] West decides to pass over 2S because he has six spades > > e] South changes his 2H to 2S under L25A >=20 > that is a pity, it should be 'changes his 2S to 2H...' > I am happy you don't use the word 'substitutes', since that word is = quite > confusing for Dutch people. >=20 >=20 > > f] West realises he has been misinformed as to the call South is = making > > g] West would bid 2S over 2H > > h] L21B allows West to change his call since it was because of the > > misinformation >=20 >=20 > We are talking about L 21B1 here. I have to admit though that the = wording > is not meant for this specific irregularity. > But supported by the first sentence of L16C there can't be any doubt = that > L21B is valid in this situation. >=20 >=20 > ton >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Dec 25 21:09:04 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 16:09:04 -0500 Subject: [blml] Rulings "against" [was: Be Alert but not alarmed] In-Reply-To: <3FEAABE4.3@hdw.be> Message-ID: <9220C02A-371E-11D8-996A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> I consider the TDs who regularly post to this list as among the top directors in the field. I am told, occasionally, that one should promote the attitude that when a TD makes a ruling, he is not ruling "against" one side or the other, he is (usually) redressing damage or restoring equity. Yet here we have two top directors talking about ruling "against" each other. Is this merely sloppy terminology, or is the advice I've been given hogwash? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Dec 25 21:32:19 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 16:32:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] Questions, questions Message-ID: I suppose the "no agreement" dilemma would be easier to deal with if we could all assume that people ask questions only because they are pretty sure the answer is not to be found amongst "general bridge knowledge". But in considering alert procedures, I find basically two schools: one says to *always* ask what an alert means, one says only to ask when your hand is such that you need to know. In the former case, particularly given the de-emphasis alert procedures have placed on Law 20 ("you may ask for an explanation *of the auction*" [emphasis mine]), it seems to me a culture has arisen whereby people ask questions all the time. They don't stop to think what their "general bridge knowledge" will tell them - they expect an opponent to give them whatever they need to know. But those who know the laws know that this is not so according to the Laws, where general bridge knowledge is concerned. So again a controversy arises: is it (whatever it is) "general bridge knowledge" or not? We see a lot of examples involving unusual situations to justify "you can't 'hide behind' general bridge knowledge", but none of that answers the question - except by saying that, effectively, yes, you don't have to disclose "general bridge knowledge" but, in fact, there is no such thing. That's an easy out, but it doesn't seem right to me. Suppose we could create a culture in which (1) people examine CCs *first* when they want answers (2) they consider their own "general bridge knowledge" second (3) they ask immediate questions of specific alerted calls *only* after (1), (2), and a consideration of whether or not the answer is likely to affect their immediate action - not asking if it will not (4) in all other cases, they ask, IAW L20, for an explanation of the auction to that point (which I would envision as usually at the end of the auction). Would this help? If so, how do we create such a culture? If not, why not? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Dec 25 21:48:24 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 16:48:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] No agreement, what does it mean In-Reply-To: <004c01c3cae8$ad9432e0$44284cd5@c5s5d3> Message-ID: <10D55448-3724-11D8-996A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Dec 25, 2003, at 08:11 US/Eastern, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > How can I possibly be at a disadvantage? Doesn't Herman put *himself* at a disadvantage when he answers as he does? Isn't this caused by the fact that the current status of law and regulation has given him a difficult dilemma and this, for him, seems the best way out? Can you not see that others may not agree that it is the best way? (If it was, we wouldn't be having this conversation. :-) > I don't know about the players in your circle > but I found that everyone I have played against > prefers to be given a short and concise answer > "this means X" because they just can comfortably > procede. Of course. People don't like to be outside their "comfort zone" - and for most people (I don't exclude myself :), being required to *think* is such a place. > Also they can be sure that if the answer > was erronous they will certainly have a MI ruling > go in their favor. They *like* it. Everybody likes it when the cops slam the *other* guy up against the wall. That doesn't make it right. > Whereas whenever someone begins "3 years ago, when > we were discussing this sequence in the bar..." they immediately become > suspicious that their opponent is trying to wrigle > out of what is his duty to explain the call. Not everything in life is a conspiracy, whatever "they" think. > You don't have to subscribe to dWS. Just the same you don't > have to impose penalties for the revokes on your opponents. > But what is wrong in doing *more* for your opponents > than the laws require? Nothing, if that is your choice. But to impose that choice on others is *certainly* wrong, if the laws do not require it. And they don't. People, whether players or TDs or both, who insist that the "deWael school" if I may still call it that, should be *required* are wrong. TDs who rule according to the "deWael school" (if he didn't state a clear and concise meaning, he tried to weasel, and so I'm gonna rule MI automatically) are wrong. Now I'm sure Herman and others will immediately jump up and say "nobody is proposing that" - and maybe they aren't. But it sure *sounds* like they are. And actually, it isn't up to you whether revoke penalties are imposed on your opponents. It's up to the TD. :-) From jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr Thu Dec 25 21:55:23 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 22:55:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) References: <3FE94A7E.7000204@hdw.be> <6.0.1.1.0.20031224183209.0326c4d0@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <009d01c3cb31$cc3a3a70$529e4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> David: > Why do you call it DOPI and ROPI when it isn't? Einstein: What is in a name. Quite some people probably don't know what the acronym (or whatever the name for this type of word) means. For most it is just a name for a technique that handles interference over asking bids. Now the obvious way to do this is double=1st, pass=2nd, etc, because it is a generic solution. DOPI/ROPI was invented before RKCB came into universal use. Let alone the current 1430. Of course the DOPI/ROPI idea is fine for RKCB as well but the orignal had to be adapted also for other asking situations. We still call it DOPI/ROPI because everybody does. That is language evolution. Who cares. Inventing a new word for every minor variation of a convention is just too much. Something else. I don't exactly recommend using the name DOPI/ROPI in most circles because it is obvious that it might easily provoke misunderstandings. But that is true for a dozen other names of conventions in universal use. I know, there is a WBF guideline on the matter. The convention defintions guide or whatever. The idea is great but if I would stick to the letter I don't play Stayman, Jacoby and Blackwood anymore but I should call all of them 'relay' or 'asking'. Is that an improvement ? And then I haven't mentioned that in different places and languages identical conventions have different names, and identical names might relate to different conventions. And that WBF guide is very unbalanced. It was written by Americans I guess. Half of the names meant nothing to me (and I am not a random player), and most popular conventions in Holland, France and Scandinavia (to name a few 'minor' countries) are not mentioned. And than the bottom line. What means 5C? Obviously 2 Aces without TQ. Pass and double is tricky without agreement when playing RKCB1430 or so. But 5C is third step in any version of this convention. Or maybe I am crazy? Anyway I am smart enough not to play DOPI/ROPI because it is very silly convention. But for a complete different reason which hasn't been mentioned so far. Enjoy Christmas. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2003 12:53 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) > Walt wrote > > >At 03:10 AM 24/12/2003, Gordon Bower wrote: > > > >>If I may offer one more variation on the RKC+DOPI question: > >> > >>I think it's perfectly obvious that "DOPI" implies "Double = first step, > >>pass = second step, cheapest bid = third step, etc", and have a hard time > >>imagining 5C meaning anything other than 2 keys without the queen. > >> > >>Then I realized something odd: what do the people who play 1430 call their > >>convention over interference? THAT is quite sticky - they might play XX=1 > >>or 4 and still call it ROPI, or they might swap the names round to match > >>how the (normal) 5C and 5D bids are swapped. > >> > >>If I saw 1430 + DOPI (or 1430 + PODI) I would feel like I needed to ask a > >>question, and feel quite aggrieved if I was told "no agreement" and the > >>opps guessed right. > > > > > >Gordon > > > >I have played DOPI/ROPI in many asking bid sequences and the sequence > >was always: > > > >Double/Redouble = 1st step > >Pass = 2nd step > >Cheapest bid = 3rd step > >et cetera > > > >Does anyone play it any different? > > Obviously, me. > > Why do you call it DOPI and ROPI when it isn't? > > -- > 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 ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Dec 25 22:00:22 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 17:00:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <3FEAFD32.7040607@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Thursday, Dec 25, 2003, at 10:07 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > And you did not correct him when he assumed (probably) as I did, that > 5Cl showed 2 aces. Just addressing this particular point, how in the hell is David (or anybody else) suppose to know, without being told, what another player has assumed? From jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr Thu Dec 25 22:04:26 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 23:04:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Questions, questions References: Message-ID: <00bf01c3cb33$0f9528b0$529e4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> Ed, General bridge knowledge only has some meaning when you know your opponents. So either you know were they come from (and you know about that place) or you have played them often enough (or at the real top level you might employ spies, this is not a joke). I can tell from experience. When playing unknown opponents from un unknown culture suppose they open 3S. Now I would like to know what is maximum, minimum and average for this bid. Any answer like 'no agreement' is not excactly helpfull. It might be technically correct, where they came from. But this is exactly the lacking info. So I am bound to ask a couple of questions. And this was an unalerted natural call. Now for the more advanced stuff ....... Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2003 10:32 PM Subject: [blml] Questions, questions > I suppose the "no agreement" dilemma would be easier to deal with if we > could all assume that people ask questions only because they are pretty > sure the answer is not to be found amongst "general bridge knowledge". > But in considering alert procedures, I find basically two schools: one > says to *always* ask what an alert means, one says only to ask when > your hand is such that you need to know. In the former case, > particularly given the de-emphasis alert procedures have placed on Law > 20 ("you may ask for an explanation *of the auction*" [emphasis mine]), > it seems to me a culture has arisen whereby people ask questions all > the time. They don't stop to think what their "general bridge > knowledge" will tell them - they expect an opponent to give them > whatever they need to know. But those who know the laws know that this > is not so according to the Laws, where general bridge knowledge is > concerned. So again a controversy arises: is it (whatever it is) > "general bridge knowledge" or not? We see a lot of examples involving > unusual situations to justify "you can't 'hide behind' general bridge > knowledge", but none of that answers the question - except by saying > that, effectively, yes, you don't have to disclose "general bridge > knowledge" but, in fact, there is no such thing. That's an easy out, > but it doesn't seem right to me. > > Suppose we could create a culture in which > > (1) people examine CCs *first* when they want answers > (2) they consider their own "general bridge knowledge" second > (3) they ask immediate questions of specific alerted calls *only* after > (1), (2), and a consideration of whether or not the answer is likely to > affect their immediate action - not asking if it will not > (4) in all other cases, they ask, IAW L20, for an explanation of the > auction to that point (which I would envision as usually at the end of > the auction). > > Would this help? If so, how do we create such a culture? If not, why > not? > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr Thu Dec 25 22:07:51 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 23:07:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? References: <012701c3c947$dae4e200$38e17f50@vaio> <000d01c3c989$d1f2d200$204fe150@endicott> Message-ID: <00db01c3cb33$8a4675f0$529e4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> Grattan: <<< I wonder whether Rodwell, Helgemo, Balicki, > were asked what they would have played with > Hearts K x x in East? I wonder what the tempo was, > how quickly was the lead to the second trick made, > how much time did players have to consider the > hand as a whole at trick one? > Do we know anything about the class of > player involved? > It is not that I want to disagree with what > others say. I would just like to know the basis > on which I should agree. Did anyone discuss the > demerits of allowing contract made for EW and > light for NS?>>> Kxx ? If declarer plays small from dummy it is rather sure he hasn't got the Q. So it is an almost automatic duck. But if you are Zia1 playing Zia2 you might as well take the K from Kxx because Zia1 will not expect Zia2 to take K from Kxx, but Zia2...... This is akin to QJ9 opposite Axxxx, if the Q is covered do you play for the drop? It is against the odds but a good defender won't cover Kx unless he thinks declarer is good enough to ....... So wheter or not you take the K from whatever holding declarer has a second/third round guess (depending on his goal in the suit, available communication, etc.). The only real technical problem is as the cards are. East has KQx and the DK. So he wants partner on lead to swich diamonds. So he thinks about the risks of ducking vs the risks of taking (something Lauria might well deduce) . A good defender will never really think about Kxx (besides it often doesn't matter what you do) but he might get caught with Kx. Still most world class defenders will play small in tempo with that kind of holding because that is the right thing to do in most cases. Anyway a defender who thinks before playing the K has either KQx(x) or Kx. Why should declarer have the right to know wich one? Class of player? Good enough to think about taking/ducking with a critical holding. Your/my mother would have taken K without thinking from both critical holdings Kx and KQx(x). But Jacobs-Polowan was mentioned who are a quite good American pair with extensive international experience. EW down NS made? Why. East had a problem. He had a bridge reason to think. I see no infraction (apart from this law the AC invented on the spot) so why punish him. Because of that AC ruling which seems quite illegal to me. It has no basis in the laws whatsoever. Although I understand why they come up with this kind of rulings. Still I disagree. Jaap. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 8:19 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? > > Grattan Endicott (also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > and gesta@tiscali.co.uk) > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "Let the great world spin forever down the > ringing grooves of change." > ['Locksley Hall'] > ================================== > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jaap van der Neut" > To: "blml" ; > Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 11:03 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? > > > > Nice, two conflicting rulings. > > > > I don't like the 1995 decision. > > > -------------- \x/ --------------- > > > > Anyway, I do think the 1995 ruling is 'wrong' and I do > > think the American AC ruling was 'right'. But that is > > just an opinion. > > > > Jaap > > > +=+ I do not seem to have progressed in the last > three days from the point when I wrote: > <<< I wonder whether Rodwell, Helgemo, Balicki, > were asked what they would have played with > Hearts K x x in East? I wonder what the tempo was, > how quickly was the lead to the second trick made, > how much time did players have to consider the > hand as a whole at trick one? > Do we know anything about the class of > player involved? > It is not that I want to disagree with what > others say. I would just like to know the basis > on which I should agree. Did anyone discuss the > demerits of allowing contract made for EW and > light for NS?>>> > But never mind, the spirit of Christmas > Goodwill may still be around when I get some > answers to the question I have put to senior > colleagues on the WBF AC. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr Thu Dec 25 22:09:16 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 23:09:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? References: Message-ID: <00e101c3cb33$bcdb11b0$529e4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> Richard. > Since the AC membership included the Polish World > Champion Marian Frenkiel, and also the top-class Danish > player Steen Moller, the CoP recommendation of a quota > of strong players appears to have been fulfilled. You are right; the AC was not that bad. Still it had IMO too many members who were not chosen for their bridge skills. And 'politicians' like Wolff and Damiani and Auken and ..... cannot help having a double agenda. This is not to criticize them; this is to criticize an organisation that allows lawmakers on the judge seat. I have often mentioned Wolff. He has made crazy rulings. But I don't blame him. It was intentional, he really thought it was for the best of bridge, and backed by enough people to make this travesty possible. The organisation is sick. As long as the lawmakers also act as judges there is no pressure to make good laws. Richard James Hills: > Whether or not the AC recommendation is to be regarded > as a private opinion will be revealed shortly. I wish to > congratulate Grattan for him immediately (as soon as > Grattan became aware) forwarding this EBL AC decision to > the WBF AC, for the WBF AC to determine whether this > recommendation becomes official WBF jurisprudence. You sound like a bureaucrat. How can you congratulate someone for discovering something 5 years too late. OK I also admire the person Grattan for doing what he does, which comes close to doing the dishes. But the EBL/WBF communication is hopeless. And why use the word recommendation. Who recommended something? As it is, it is just a forgotten ruling from long ago. Richard: > The Turku ruling is a false analogy. After a Turku AC > incorrectly ruled that a Lightner Double was alertable, > the AC decision was promptly reversed by the relevant > National Authority acting under Law 93C. No such > reversal has yet occurred in this case. The Turku ruling was an EBL EC ruling (same standing as this 'forgotten' ruling we are discussing) so it couldn't be reversed by a National Authority. As I remember it was reversed 1 or 2 years later at the next EBL event which is not 'promptly'. But even before it was officially reversed it was considered as a crazy ruling rather than a 'recommendation'. I just wanted to say that there have been dozens or even hunderds of stupid top level AC rulings. Now this is normal because often there is time pressure. I have made my fair share of silly mistakes. So the concept that a random ruling should be taken serious until reversed is silly IMO. Before a random ruling becomes a recommendation or even jurisprudence there should be some positive action. Like confirmation by the WBFLC. Or even better, some form of general consensus. Lacking some form of consensus another AC will make another ruling whether or not the WBFLC has decided somthing. If only because almost nobody knows what they are doing. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 11:40 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? Jaap van der Neut: >Nice, two conflicting rulings. > >I don't like the 1995 decision. > >First most members of that AC didn't have the level of >the players (E.C. teams ?) which is always dubious with >this kind of rulings. WBF Code of Practice: >>The view is taken that an appeal committee will >>incorporate a quota of strong players together with >>other members considered to be of broad bridge >>experience and to have a balanced objective approach >>to the decision making process. Richard James Hills: Since the AC membership included the Polish World Champion Marian Frenkiel, and also the top-class Danish player Steen Moller, the CoP recommendation of a quota of strong players appears to have been fulfilled. Jaap van der Neut: [snip] >Fourth, that defender has to play Q from that holding >after a pause (given he has a bridge reason to think) is >nowhere in the rules and it might be qualified as a >private opinion of the majority of the members of that >AC. We all remember Bobby Wolff who as member/chair of >AC's also imposed private opinions. Do we? Richard James Hills: Whether or not the AC recommendation is to be regarded as a private opinion will be revealed shortly. I wish to congratulate Grattan for him immediately (as soon as Grattan became aware) forwarding this EBL AC decision to the WBF AC, for the WBF AC to determine whether this recommendation becomes official WBF jurisprudence. Jaap van der Neut: >Fifth, don't put too much in a single AC ruling. We all >remember the infamous Turku Lightner ruling among a >dozen others. Do we? IMO we need more than a single AC >ruling, whatever the AC level, before there is a >'recommendation'. [snip] Richard James Hills: The Turku ruling is a false analogy. After a Turku AC incorrectly ruled that a Lightner Double was alertable, the AC decision was promptly reversed by the relevant National Authority acting under Law 93C. No such reversal has yet occurred in this case. Season's greetings, RJH ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA). DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Dec 25 22:15:13 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 17:15:13 -0500 Subject: [blml] Questions, questions In-Reply-To: <00bf01c3cb33$0f9528b0$529e4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> Message-ID: On Thursday, Dec 25, 2003, at 17:04 US/Eastern, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > General bridge knowledge only has some meaning when you know your > opponents. Granted. [snip] > I can tell from experience. When playing unknown opponents from un > unknown > culture suppose they open 3S. Now I would like to know what is maximum, > minimum and average for this bid. Any answer like 'no agreement' is not > excactly helpfull. It might be technically correct, where they came > from. > But this is exactly the lacking info. So I am bound to ask a couple of > questions. As I understand it, here in the ACBL the recommended form of such a question is "please tell me about your style". Of course, the couple of times I've asked this question, the immediate reaction has been "huh?" Perhaps the problem is that most players, at least at my level, don't have a clue how they're supposed to either ask or answer questions. Education would seem to be in order - assuming of course that teachers have sorted out the proper methods. From blml@blakjak.com Fri Dec 26 00:08:26 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 00:08:26 +0000 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <+urunKA2sz6$Ewg4@asimere.com> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031222085304.00a139f0@pop.starpower.net> <3FE7005C.3070200@hdw.be> <3FE7FAB5.6050803@hdw.be> <3FE85A8E.7070105@hdw.be> <3FE9494E.60909@hdw.be> <5.2.0.9.0.20031224080121.009ef730@pop.starpower.net> <6jqRkFHLph6$Ewg5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3FEAAD53.2080806@hdw.be> <3FEAFE2F.6050307@hdw.be> <+urunKA2sz6$Ewg4@asimere.com> Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst wrote >Sheesh guys. "Redouble shows 0, Pass shows one, your guess is as good >as mine for the meaning of 5C. We have no agreement and it can be played >a number of ways" WTF can't you say what you *Know* and also say what >you *Don't Know*? > >Such disclosure is neither contrary to the laws of Bridge, nor is it >proscribed by l'ecole HdW. Of course the HdW school might say "But it >shows 2" and the DWS school might say "in our school it's usually 2, but >no guarantees express or implied are to be construed as offered or >underwritten" if the oppo happen to be little green men. The HdW school >is of course illegal in this respect because they're lying. The problem with this answer, apart from anything else, is that I was the one who deduced it showed *three* key cards and bid accordingly. I realised the problem before I bid and did not mislead my opponent by telling him it showed three. ------------------------------------ I have found that I have been so exacerbated by this thread that I am now going to abandon it and any spin-off threads. I shall leave you with my views generally. With the exception of people who *really* annoy me [who are in my killfile anyway] feel free to send me emails on this subject if you wish but I shall not read them in BLML. The requirements of the Laws include: L75A: Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be fully and freely available to the opponents. L75C: When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to an opponent's inquiry, a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience; but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience. CoP: 'Special' In the laws, regulations, and this Code of Practice, 'special' means 'additional to what is normal and general'. EBU WB 04 #75.2: 'No agreement' To say that one's partnership has no agreement, whilst true in some cases, is frequently inadequate. In such cases every effort should be made to provide opponents with as much guidance as possible, eg as to general principles in similar circumstances. EBU WB 04 #75.7: Law 75 [Partnership agreements] [WBFLC] Players should describe their agreements as fully as possible, including any comparable situations. [WBFLC minutes 2000-01-20#7] NB: This is the EBU interpretation of the cited minute. EBU OB 98 3.1.1: All agreements, including implicit understandings and practices of your partnership, must be fully disclosed to your opponents. EBU OB 98 3.2.3: If you are asked for an explanation of a call on which you and your partner have no agreement, either explicit or implicit, you should say so, but bear in mind that the longer a partnership has played together the more implicit agreements it is likely to have. EBU OB 98 3.4.3: 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. So where are we? Clearly we have to explain agreements with our partners: clearly we do not have to explain if we have no agreement. But how do we look at the grey areas? We have two extremes. At one end we have people who are unwilling to explain what they know. Their reasons may be good, or may be bad. Some of them claim to do so because their agreements are 'general' rather than special. Some of them claim to do so because they may give UI to partner with their answers. Some of them claim to do so because they have not discussed the actual sequence. Some of them claim too many questions is harassment. Some of them try to win at the game by leaving their opponents in the dark. None of these arguments has much going for it. A 'special' agreement is one for the partnership rather than general bridge knowledge. An example of a 'special' bridge agreement is that 2C over 1NT is Stayman with this partner. It may be general knowledge that it is Stayman with most partners, but I know of three partnerships who do not play it: they play 2C as Keri, Gladiator and Transfer to hearts, respectively. So it is a 'special' agreement that you play Stayman with *this* partner. Suppose you have not discussed it. When you sit down with a strange partner and say "Acol, RKCB, double for takeout over pre-empts, transfers and Sputnik" there are a lot of agreements that you are making without saying so explicitly. You would not say Transfers and not mention anything else if you were not playing Stayman. Once you have said this and partner agreed you have an implicit agreement that you are playing Stayman. As for the UI argument, you must play to the Laws of the game. L75A makes your agreements fully and freely available to opponents: if this gives UI to partner that is tough. Nothing in the laws makes it an infraction to give UI to partner. The harassment argument has something going for it, and the TD will protect a player if necessary. But harassment comes when the question has been answered fully and the questioning continues. Players that do not answer fully must expect questioning to continue. How about the other extreme? How far should you explain? The answer is that you should explain your agreements fully and freely. This includes implicit agreements based on experience of the partnership, similar sources for the partnership, comparable sequences, and so on. But there it ends. The proposal that you should invent some sort of agreement is illegal. It has been suggested that it might be helpful to the opponents. That may or may not be true, but it is a matter for the law-makers, not individual TDs or players who are not prepared to follow the Laws. An explanation that provides something that is not an explicit or implicit agreement is illegal under Law 75 and should be dealt with accordingly. Specifically we should consider the answer "No agreement". If there is none of course this is the right answer, but great care should be taken to make sure there is no relevant partnership experience or implicit understanding that is relevant. Despite the fact that some people have good motives - not everyone, by any means - players who will not answer questions about partnership understandings freely and fully have broken the Law, and should be dealt with: this applies whether they have provided insufficient answers, or too much by inventing agreements that do not apply to this partnership. -- 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 Fri Dec 26 00:19:51 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 00:19:51 +0000 Subject: [blml] No agreement, what does it mean In-Reply-To: <10D55448-3724-11D8-996A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <004c01c3cae8$ad9432e0$44284cd5@c5s5d3> <10D55448-3724-11D8-996A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote >Everybody likes it when the cops slam the *other* guy up against the >wall. That doesn't make it right. Not entirely true. Against most opponents I try to avoid the TD appearing at my table even when I expect him to rule in my favour because I think the game is more enjoyable without his presence. In other words, I prefer no-one to be slammed against the wall. I also believe that my approach is the most popular one amongst the better British players. -- David Stevenson Wirral, Merseyside, UK Special services: Digital Postcard http://blakjak.com/postcard.htm Currency Converter http://blakjak.com/curr_con.htm Magical Translator http://blakjak.com/translt.htm From blml@blakjak.com Fri Dec 26 03:46:22 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 03:46:22 +0000 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031222085304.00a139f0@pop.starpower.net> <3FE7005C.3070200@hdw.be> <3FE7FAB5.6050803@hdw.be> <3FE85A8E.7070105@hdw.be> <3FE9494E.60909@hdw.be> <5.2.0.9.0.20031224080121.009ef730@pop.starpower.net> <6jqRkFHLph6$Ewg5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3FEAAD53.2080806@hdw.be> <3FEAFE2F.6050307@hdw.be> <+urunKA2sz6$Ewg4@asimere.com> Message-ID: David Stevenson wrote > I have found that I have been so exacerbated by this thread that I am >now going to abandon it and any spin-off threads. I shall leave you >with my views generally. With the exception of people who *really* >annoy me [who are in my killfile anyway] feel free to send me emails on >this subject if you wish but I shall not read them in BLML. This particular article has now been posted at http://blakjak.com/lws_ste14.htm By request of a reader from RGB I have now added a chronological list of articles starting this month so everyone can see which articles have been added when to my site. The new list is at http://blakjak.com/articles.htm -- David Stevenson Wirral, Merseyside, UK Special services: Digital Postcard http://blakjak.com/postcard.htm Currency Converter http://blakjak.com/curr_con.htm Magical Translator http://blakjak.com/translt.htm From web@hotmail.com Fri Dec 26 07:11:37 2003 From: web@hotmail.com (web@hotmail.com) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 15:11:37 +0800 Subject: [blml] Email marketing Message-ID:
Email Marketing Email more than 2,500,000+ TARGETED prospects EVERYDAY! That's over 75,000,000+ prospects per month (and growing!). Our Optin email safelists are 100% Optin and 100% legal to use. Your ad will reach only those prospects who have requested to be included in Optin safelists for people interested in new business opportunities, products and services.
 

Products

 World Email Lists   sample download
Country or area total emails total price half email/half price sample order
America  (details)  175 Million Email Address $220 US $100 US free download Buy Now
Europe  (details)  156 Million Email Address $250 US $150 US free download Buy Now
Asia   (details)  168 Million Email Address $150 US $ 80 US free download Buy Now
China(PRC)  80 Million Email Address $200 US $100 US free download Buy Now
HongKong  (details) 3.25 Million Email Address $200 US $100 US free download Buy Now
TaiWan  (details) 2.25 Million Email Address $200 US $100 US free download Buy Now
Japan 27 Million Email Address $200 US $100 US free download Buy Now
Australia  (details) 6 Million Email Address $150 US $ 80 US free download Buy Now
Canda  (details) 10 Million Email Address $150 US $100 US free download Buy Now
Russia 38 Million Email Address $120 US $100 US free download Buy Now
England 3.2 Million Email Address $200 US $100 US free download Buy Now
German 20 Million Email Address $200 US $120 US free download Buy Now
France 38 Million Email Address $150 US $ 80 US free download Buy Now
India 12 Million Email Address $120 US $ 60 US free download Buy Now
CENTRAL & SOUTH AMERICAN AREA (details) 40 Million Email Address $220 US $100 US Buy Now
MIDDLE EAST & AFRICA  (details) 45 million Email Address $220 US $100 US Buy Now
SOUTH EAST AREA (details) 32 million Email Address $220 US $100 US Buy Now
Category Name total emails total price half email/half price order
Apparel, Fashion, Textiles and Leather 4,654,565 $150 $100 US Buy Now
Automobile & Transportation 6,547,845
Business Services 6,366,344
Chemicals 3,445,565
Computer & Telecommunications 654,655
Construction & Real Estate 3,443,544
Consumer Electronics 1,333,443
Energy, Minerals & Metals 6,765,683
Environment 656,533
Food & Agriculture 1,235,354
Gems & Jewellery 565,438
Health & Beauty 804,654
Home Supplies 323,232
Industrial Supplies 415,668
Office Supplies 1,559,892
Packaging & Paper 5,675,648
Printing & Publishing 6,563,445
Security & Protection 5,653,494
Sports & Entertainment 3,488,455
Toys, Gifts and Handicrafts 2,135,654
All 136 nations , 40 trades email lists total price   $500 US        Buy Now



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


the silver star internet information Company

copyright@2003-2005   all reserved  

From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Dec 26 08:39:18 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 09:39:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Cheating In-Reply-To: <0TPS4IJdEy6$Ewzl@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <3FEAF8B2.9060405@hdw.be> <0TPS4IJdEy6$Ewzl@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <3FEBF3B6.5040102@hdw.be> David, David Stevenson wrote: > > > You said I would say "no agreement" when I had one, and now you have > continued the argument. > No David, you said you would say no more than "RKCB and ROPI", and you believe that that is all the agreements you had. I have asked you -politely, I believe- to explain to me just how much of extra agreements you really have, and you have refused to answer. If you cannot take a question as anything else than a suggestion of cheating, then you are severely paranoid. If you cannot take a question from a director, and a ruling according to the laws, then I don't know how you can continue to play bridge. > That is it. I have lived for a couple of years by ignoring your > illegal methods in information cases and I see no need to go further. > Have you read Konrad's contribution? There must be far more than he. You have always said my methods are illegal. You have failed to convince any large number of people, least of all myself. > Goodbye. > If you believe that staying out of the discussion is better for blml, then hurrah. I'm not saying "good riddance", because I loved the discussion. I still do. I still maintain that there is something I can teach you. But you need to stay open to discussion. You're the one who has stopped listening. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Fri Dec 26 08:50:05 2003 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 08:50:05 -0000 Subject: [blml] No agreement, what does it mean References: <10D55448-3724-11D8-996A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <003a01c3cb8d$5e6af140$20182850@multivisionoem> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2003 9:48 PM Subject: Re: [blml] No agreement, what does it mean > > Doesn't Herman put *himself* at a disadvantage when > he answers as he does? Isn't this caused by the fact > that the current status of law and regulation has given > him a difficult dilemma and this, for him, seems the best > way out? Can you not see that others may not agree > that it is the best way? (If it was, we wouldn't be > having this conversation. :-) > +=+ As for Herman, I think he often speaks for the Devil's Advocate, and has his tongue firmly in his cheek when he does so. But there are contributions from subscribers whose minds are so narrowly blinkered on one subject or many, that their contribution is tainted with their bigotry and rendered valueless for that reason. Discounting those, I was reading with interest a parallel post from Ed, saying ++Suppose we could create a culture in which (1) people examine CCs *first* when they want answers (2) they consider their own "general bridge knowledge" second (3) they ask immediate questions of specific alerted calls *only* after (1), (2), and a consideration of whether or not the answer is likely to affect their immediate action - not asking if it will not (4) in all other cases, they ask, IAW L20, for an explanation of the auction to that point (which I would envision as usually at the end of the auction). Would this help? If so, how do we create such a culture? If not, why not?"++ It will not surprise many to learn that I am responsive to the question posed by Ed. For one thing, I believe 'general bridge knowledge' is a smaller corpus of knowledge than some believe - it excludes any item where a partnership may select from alternative possible expectations of a call or play. When we select among alternatives we create a partnership understanding.. General knowledge and experience is knowledge and experience shared with other bridge players at large; in Law 75C a key word is 'inference': the law is referring to an expectation that is inferred from knowledge and experience of matters that are known generally to bridge players. In Law 75C such an 'inference' is contrasted with 'information' that the player has, drawn upon his sure knowledge of his partnership methods, understandings. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Dec 26 08:58:40 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 09:58:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031222085304.00a139f0@pop.starpower.net> <3FE7005C.3070200@hdw.be> <3FE7FAB5.6050803@hdw.be> <3FE85A8E.7070105@hdw.be> <3FE9494E.60909@hdw.be> <3FEAABE4.3@hdw.be> <3FEAFD32.7040607@hdw.be> Message-ID: <3FEBF840.8090709@hdw.be> OK David, thanks for continueing the discussion. Once we get to the bottom of all the background, we can start giving sensible rulings. David Stevenson wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote > > >>David Stevenson wrote: >> >> >>>>Now do you understand that I, with my notions of bidding, would be >>>>100% certain that 5Cl would show 2 aces? And do you understand that I >>>>also tell this to opponents. I believe that once I've "agreed" on >>>>DOPI, 5Cl shows 2 aces. OK? >>> >>> But it is *not* your agreement. Your agreement is that you are >>>playing DOPI: anything else is a bridge conclusion, and it seems that >>>the majority have gone for an illogical one. >>> >> >>Sorry, David, but IMHO, the convention called ROPI includes the >>following bids: Redouble, showing zero aces, Pass, showing one ace, >>5Cl, showing two aces, and 5Di, showing 3. >>If that is my agreement, then I shall explain this to him. > > > If it were I would have said this. But ROPI means redouble is zero, > pass is one. That is why it is called ROPI. > OK David, if that is what you believe, then such is your good right. But don't you agree that many people _will_ have more full agreements, and they will describe them also simply as ROPI? Can you not imagine that a director, at your table, will hear all the evidence and rule that, since your partner has possibly intended 5Cl to show 2 aces without the queen, such is in fact part of your system? > >>Now the convention you call ROPI apparently does not include a meaning >>for 5Cl. Well, that's your problem. If I'm the Director, and your >>partner bids 5Cl with 2 aces, and later tells me that he intended this >>as showing 2 aces, then I'm going to rule misinformation against you if >>you have failed to disclose this. > > > So you are ruling misinformation because an agreement we do not have > was not given to the opponents? > Yes, I might imagine I do. And if you are the good director you say you are, you have done the same in the past. You see one partner doing something which looks like a convention, another partner acting as if it were a convention, and two people saying they did not agree on that convention. If it quacks like a convention... >>>>And he did not ask what 5Cl meant? >>> >>> Yes, he did, and I told him our agreement. >>> >> >>Not the complete version. You did not say what 5Cl showed. That's MI. > > > ROPI says what redouble and pass are: it includes no meaning for 5C > per se, and that is why I did not tell him an agreement we did not have. > > >>Tell me David, about the background. Are these multiple versions of >>ROPI well known at that tournament? How would your opponent have >>understood your sentence: >>- as "5Cl = 2 aces", or >>- as "either 2 or 3 aces, we forgot to discuss this" > > > How should I know? No-one has *ever* brought the matter up before, > otherwise I would have sorted it out. Polling since has proved that the > majority thinks ROPI infers 5C = 2-Q, but there is a sizeable minority > who do not. > Well, any convention that says what to do with 0,1 and 4 aces, but not with 2 or 3 seems like a silly thing to me. I don't believe you when you say your system has no answers for those possibilities. I might believe you when you tell me you forgot to agree on one answering scheme or the other, but I won't accept that you have deliberately omitted anything here. Now if this were a case of two concurrent systems both being in common use (like my example of 2Di Multi - 2NT - 3He which to some people shows hearts, to some spades), then I might, as director, allow you to say "we have not agreed on the answering scheme, it can be either". But in this case, sorry David, but I don't believe anyone in his right mind would play ROPI such that 5Cl shows 3 aces. There's simply no reason for switching the steps. So sorry David, but from all the evidence you have provided me so far, I rule that 5Cl systematically shows 2 key-cards without the trump queen, and I rule MI. Which is not the same as calling you a liar or a cheat. It is a ruling such as one you must have given yourself on a number of occasions. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Dec 26 09:22:10 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 10:22:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3FEBFDC2.9010505@hdw.be> Good question Ed, and I believe I have an equally good answer. Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Thursday, Dec 25, 2003, at 10:07 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> And you did not correct him when he assumed (probably) as I did, that >> 5Cl showed 2 aces. > > > Just addressing this particular point, how in the hell is David (or > anybody else) suppose to know, without being told, what another player > has assumed? > > Your turning the case on its head. David does not have to know what his opponents assume. He can simply tell them what he assumes. David is the one who relied on his opponents having the same general bridge knowledge that he possesses. So David is the one who assumes his opponent knows something. If David had been a member of the dWs, David would have volunteered some piece of information that David believes to be non-disclosable. A David from the dWs would have told his opponents that 5Cl, in his opinion, showed 3 aces. And even if David is correct in believing that there is no general consensus as to the meaning of 5Cl in ROPI, he could still have said so. As it is, David has assumed that this is general bridge knowledge and David has been wrong. You don't have to know what your opponents know, but if you rely on general bridge knowledge, you'd better be really sure that they know it. Because if they don't, it's not general bridge knowledge and you have turned up short in your obligation of full disclosure. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Dec 26 09:26:16 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 10:26:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <+urunKA2sz6$Ewg4@asimere.com> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031222085304.00a139f0@pop.starpower.net> <3FE7005C.3070200@hdw.be> <3FE7FAB5.6050803@hdw.be> <3FE85A8E.7070105@hdw.be> <3FE9494E.60909@hdw.be> <5.2.0.9.0.20031224080121.009ef730@pop.starpower.net> <6jqRkFHLph6$Ewg5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3FEAAD53.2080806@hdw.be> <3FEAFE2F.6050307@hdw.be> <+urunKA2sz6$Ewg4@asimere.com> Message-ID: <3FEBFEB8.2020803@hdw.be> Thank you for the support, John. John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > Sheesh guys. "Redouble shows 0, Pass shows one, your guess is as good > as mine for the meaning of 5C. We have no agreement and it can be played > a number of ways" WTF can't you say what you *Know* and also say what > you *Don't Know*? > Exactly. > Such disclosure is neither contrary to the laws of Bridge, nor is it > proscribed by l'ecole HdW. Of course the HdW school might say "But it > shows 2" and the DWS school might say "in our school it's usually 2, but > no guarantees express or implied are to be construed as offered or > underwritten" if the oppo happen to be little green men. And both would have told the opponents what they wanted to know. > The HdW school is of course illegal in this respect because they're lying. If the real "agreement" is as David suggests "it can be either" then HdW would not say "it is 2". If the real "agreement" is "2, but I'm not certain" then HdW would say "2". If you believe that this is a-lying b-contrary to the laws of bridge then such is your opinion. > > cheers John -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Dec 26 09:34:33 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 10:34:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] No agreement, what does it mean In-Reply-To: References: <3FEAB6FA.90504@hdw.be> <004c01c3cae8$ad9432e0$44284cd5@c5s5d3> Message-ID: <3FEC00A9.4010704@hdw.be> No David, absolutely not. David Stevenson wrote: > Konrad Ciborowski wrote >=20 >> I agree. Actually I definitely prefer to play against people who >> follow de Wael school. That is because; >> >> 1=B0 I don't like being told >> "no agreement" when I know for sure that >> my opponents do have common experience >> and practice to deduce the meaning of the >> call (even with some degree of uncertainty) >=20 >=20 > That is nothing to do with the Wael school. You are required to tell= =20 > opponents implicit agreements, and people like me who think the Wael=20 > school approach is illegal and unhelpful would never say "No agreement"= =20 > when we have an implicit one. >=20 I know that. > The Wael school refers to giving the opponents misinformation that yo= u=20 > have an agreement in a situation where you have no agreement, explicit=20 > or implicit. >=20 That is simply not true. Our difference solely stems from you telling opponents "we have not=20 agreed, but it should mean Z, because XX means X and YY means Y",=20 whereas I would say "it is Z". --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr Fri Dec 26 09:30:18 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 10:30:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Cheating References: <3FEAF8B2.9060405@hdw.be> <0TPS4IJdEy6$Ewzl@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3FEBF3B6.5040102@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000201c3cbad$3ec00c20$529e4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> Herman, This discussion has turned sour for 'personal' reasons one might think. About one thing you are right. Only DWS introduces cheating into the discussion as he has done with another recent thread as well. IMO cheating has nothing do with anything. If you want to cheat, you cheat. It is just too easy. We are discussion about rules,laws,regulation that improve the game assuming people want to play the game. Given the nature of bridge there is some element which feels like cheating to some people (hiding info, fielding psyches, falsecarding etc IS bridge, actually is the best part of bridge at the top level). So maybe it is just semantics. Your ideas are not crazy at all. The only thing I don't like is that in the extreme every bid will be asked about, you will be forced to 'guess', and when you guess wrong that is MI. On the other hand the current laws are also badly flawed. Yes Konrad's mail is a very good illustration. So maybe your ideas are an avenue to research. One big advantage is that the game remains playable for opponents. If you have to give a clear answer, and opponents are protected against wrong answers, they don't get this silly 'is it real or a cuebid' problems. But the penalties against mistakes have to be far less draconic than the way current MI infractions get handled. And it is hard to see how to avoid such an appoach provoking everybody to ask about every bid. Without screens this seems pretty much unsolvable (putting one cat in the bag gets two others jumping out of it). And so far you only mentioned the 'meaning' of the bid. Nothing yet about the style issue, far more important when it comes to preempts and overcalls (how to get adequate information about the real range). I guess that your approach is best when it comes to 'hard' conventions (all bids which by agreement show something unrelated to the bid suit like transfers, twosuited overcalls, etc.). Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 9:39 AM Subject: [blml] Re: Cheating > David, > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > > You said I would say "no agreement" when I had one, and now you have > > continued the argument. > > > > No David, you said you would say no more than "RKCB and ROPI", and you > believe that that is all the agreements you had. > I have asked you -politely, I believe- to explain to me just how much > of extra agreements you really have, and you have refused to answer. > > If you cannot take a question as anything else than a suggestion of > cheating, then you are severely paranoid. > If you cannot take a question from a director, and a ruling according > to the laws, then I don't know how you can continue to play bridge. > > > That is it. I have lived for a couple of years by ignoring your > > illegal methods in information cases and I see no need to go further. > > > > Have you read Konrad's contribution? There must be far more than he. > You have always said my methods are illegal. You have failed to > convince any large number of people, least of all myself. > > > Goodbye. > > > > If you believe that staying out of the discussion is better for blml, > then hurrah. > I'm not saying "good riddance", because I loved the discussion. I > still do. I still maintain that there is something I can teach you. > But you need to stay open to discussion. You're the one who has > stopped listening. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr Fri Dec 26 12:48:13 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 13:48:13 +0100 Subject: Net behaviour : [blml] (was Be alert but not alarmed) References: <3FE94A7E.7000204@hdw.be> <3TySojHoth6$EwiQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <003301c3cbae$8901a400$529e4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> Brian: > I've deliberately quoted my entire posting in order to reply to > this. Will you please show me *exactly* where I said that you're > crazy? You've complained on quite a number of occasions about > people (including me, on occasion) claiming that you said things > that you didn't, so I now expect an answer or a retraction. And > no, I don't accept that my saying that I think something is > illogical is the same as saying that you're crazy for holding > that view. Probably DWS has put you in his 'killfile' by now (which probably means your messages don't reach him). Half a year ago I had some 'serious discussion' with DWS which resulted in him leaving BLML for some time (something which has happened before, ask any brit about it they know him way better than I do). The funny thing is that he is/was whining all the time about others having bad manners, being impolite, misquoting him, etc. He even proposed a new list for well behaved people only. If DWS behaviour is the standard for behaving well I guess this new list will have exactly 1 member. Having said so, it is a shame. I like his view's, I don't really mind his personal quirck's, but I have the feeling he has a problem handling himself (when you attack his views he tends to think you attack his person). And I think it is unacceptable to be active on a list like BLML while having your killfile throwing out part of the list. Suppose we all did that. Would be great fun, you would never know who has read which post and which one not. It is just the end of public discussion. By the way, I would like to know the opinion of our moderator Henk on this one. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Meadows" To: Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2003 5:50 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) > On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 03:52:32 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > > Sorry for the excessive quoting, folks, but the reason will > become clear.... > > >Brian Meadows wrote > > > >>On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 23:04:08 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > >> > >> > >>> If it were perfectly obvious then why is it called something > >>>different? DOPI means double = zero aces. It does *not* mean that > >>>double = first step. > >>> > >>> Since this accident I have gone round and one thing is perfectly > >>>obvious: people do not have an agreement what DOPI means with RKCB. > >>> > >>> It is very reasonable to play double = first step, pass = second and > >>>so on, but calling it DOPI is completely wrong. I have now agreed to > >>>play DFPS and RFPS with partners who want to play this. > >>> > >> > >>and > >> > >>> Maybe they won't guess right anyway. It seems crazy to me that DOPI > >>>stands for double is not zero aces necessarily, pass is not one ace > >>>necessarily. > >> > >>David, I understand what you're saying about the strict meaning > >>of D0P1 and R0P1, and yes, I guess people who keep the same RKCB > >>response structure should strictly write D0or3P1or4 and > >>R0or3P1or4, or your suggested DFPS and RFPS, but is it really > >>that crazy to think otherwise? > >> > >>If you interpret D0P1 as meaning that double is the response that > >>shows zero aces, and pass the response that shows one ace, why > >>should folks who play RKCB change the response structure simply > >>because opponents intervene? Surely it's at least as logical to > >>expect 0 or 3 aces to continue to be combined into one response, > >>and 1 or 4 to be combined into another? > >> > >>Let me change the question a little. If someone had standard > >>Blackwood on their card, and also D0P1 and R0P1, and if their > >>opponents intervened over the 4NT bid, would you expect the > >>responder to 4NT to now use separate bids to show 0 and 4 aces? I > >>certainly wouldn't, and I can't see that it's that illogical to > >>expect someone playing RKCB not to follow the same principle. > > > > I always have, and I think it perfectly reasonable that others do. > >When I played DOPI with standard Blackwood a three step response showed > >four aces. > > > > You surprise me. Yes, some (or even most) of the times it won't > matter, but there's obviously a percentage of them, depending on > your suit and the intervention, where splitting 0 and 4 will cost > you the room for a King ask. > > >>Please note, I'm not disputing your findings that the people you > >>asked have no agreement what D0P1 means with RKCB, only that it's > >>"crazy" to think that double shows 0 or 3, and pass 1 or 4, when > >>a pair is playing RKCB. If anything, it's splitting them out that > >>seems illogical to me, as it can far too easily consume more > >>bidding space than you can afford. > > > > So I am crazy. Thankyou. > > I've deliberately quoted my entire posting in order to reply to > this. Will you please show me *exactly* where I said that you're > crazy? You've complained on quite a number of occasions about > people (including me, on occasion) claiming that you said things > that you didn't, so I now expect an answer or a retraction. And > no, I don't accept that my saying that I think something is > illogical is the same as saying that you're crazy for holding > that view. > > >I think it crazy to say you are playing > >DOPI when you are not. > > I think there are arguments for both views. You said that when > you asked around, people did not have an agreement. Presumably > that means that you didn't get unanimous agreement with your > views. Does that make everyone who disagreed with you crazy? > > > Brian. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john@asimere.com Fri Dec 26 13:24:03 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 13:24:03 +0000 Subject: [blml] Re: Cheating In-Reply-To: <000201c3cbad$3ec00c20$529e4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> References: <3FEAF8B2.9060405@hdw.be> <0TPS4IJdEy6$Ewzl@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3FEBF3B6.5040102@hdw.be> <000201c3cbad$3ec00c20$529e4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> Message-ID: In article <000201c3cbad$3ec00c20$529e4151@yourhpbmye9tmb>, Jaap van der Neut writes >Herman, > >This discussion has turned sour for 'personal' reasons one might think. > >About one thing you are right. Only DWS introduces cheating into the >discussion as he has done with another recent thread as well. IMO cheating >has nothing do with anything. If you want to cheat, you cheat. There is a problem with the c-word and EBU TDs. When discussing privately amongst ourselves we use it as a shorthand for "used UI to advantage". So I'd say to DWS when consulting "Look this pair cheated their way to 4S, what 12C3 would you give?". Sometimes this usage spills over into blml. cheers john snip -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From blml@blakjak.com Fri Dec 26 13:34:37 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 13:34:37 +0000 Subject: [blml] No agreement, what does it mean In-Reply-To: <003a01c3cb8d$5e6af140$20182850@multivisionoem> References: <10D55448-3724-11D8-996A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <003a01c3cb8d$5e6af140$20182850@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <6gihkvDtjD7$EwIy@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Grattan Endicott wrote >+=+ As for Herman, I think he often speaks for the >Devil's Advocate, and has his tongue firmly in his cheek >when he does so. But there are contributions from >subscribers whose minds are so narrowly blinkered >on one subject or many, that their contribution is >tainted with their bigotry and rendered valueless for >that reason. Discounting those, I was reading with >interest a parallel post from Ed, saying > >++Suppose we could create a culture in which >(1) people examine CCs *first* when they want >answers >(2) they consider their own "general bridge >knowledge" second >(3) they ask immediate questions of specific alerted >calls *only* after >(1), (2), and a consideration of whether or not the >answer is likely to >affect their immediate action - not asking if it will not >(4) in all other cases, they ask, IAW L20, for an >explanation of the auction to that point (which I >would envision as usually at the end of the auction). >Would this help? If so, how do we create such a >culture? If not, why not?"++ > >It will not surprise many to learn that I am responsive >to the question posed by Ed. For one thing, I believe >'general bridge knowledge' is a smaller corpus of >knowledge than some believe - it excludes any item >where a partnership may select from alternative >possible expectations of a call or play. When we >select among alternatives we create a partnership >understanding.. General knowledge and experience >is knowledge and experience shared with other bridge >players at large; in Law 75C a key word is 'inference': >the law is referring to an expectation that is inferred >from knowledge and experience of matters that are >known generally to bridge players. In Law 75C such >an 'inference' is contrasted with 'information' that the >player has, drawn upon his sure knowledge of his >partnership methods, understandings. The trouble with the whole approach put forward by Ed is *detail*. Players know details of their agreements which are not known to opponents through general knowledge nor put on CCs. Take the example I have given from my unfortunate experience in New Orleans: 2D P 3D Apart from the fact that not one ACBL member in 100 would dream of putting this on his CC, let us suppose we are dealing with the minority who do: what would they put? "NF?" The basic answer to Ed is that it is an unfortunate culture that has grown up in North America that since people assume that if they play it, the rest of the world plays it, they do not ask questions. Of course, since style is different from one player to the next they often do not know what they are doing. In matters where detail is required, the following approach is best: For one side: ask questions to elicit what you want to know. For the other side: answer the questions without histrionics. -- David Stevenson Wirral, Merseyside, UK Special services: Digital Postcard http://blakjak.com/postcard.htm Currency Converter http://blakjak.com/curr_con.htm Magical Translator http://blakjak.com/translt.htm From blml@blakjak.com Fri Dec 26 14:20:17 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 14:20:17 +0000 Subject: [blml] Re: Cheating In-Reply-To: References: <3FEAF8B2.9060405@hdw.be> <0TPS4IJdEy6$Ewzl@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3FEBF3B6.5040102@hdw.be> <000201c3cbad$3ec00c20$529e4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> Message-ID: <+mhAVLFhOE7$EwYN@blakjak.demon.co.uk> John (MadDog) Probst wrote >In article <000201c3cbad$3ec00c20$529e4151@yourhpbmye9tmb>, Jaap van der >Neut writes >>Herman, >> >>This discussion has turned sour for 'personal' reasons one might think. >> >>About one thing you are right. Only DWS introduces cheating into the >>discussion as he has done with another recent thread as well. IMO cheating >>has nothing do with anything. If you want to cheat, you cheat. > >There is a problem with the c-word and EBU TDs. When discussing >privately amongst ourselves we use it as a shorthand for "used UI to >advantage". So I'd say to DWS when consulting "Look this pair cheated >their way to 4S, what 12C3 would you give?". Sometimes this usage spills >over into blml. cheers john The problem is that I tend not to use this usage. Specifically, when someone tells me that I would use the term "no agreement" when I know I have an implicit agreement, then they have accused me of something. I leave BLML readers to decide what I have been accused of and whether I would do it. -- David Stevenson Wirral, Merseyside, UK Special services: Digital Postcard http://blakjak.com/postcard.htm Currency Converter http://blakjak.com/curr_con.htm Magical Translator http://blakjak.com/translt.htm From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Dec 26 15:16:37 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 10:16:37 -0500 Subject: [blml] No agreement, what does it mean In-Reply-To: <3FEC00A9.4010704@hdw.be> Message-ID: <80155F3F-37B6-11D8-BFEC-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Dec 26, 2003, at 04:34 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > Our difference solely stems from you telling opponents "we have not > agreed, but it should mean Z, because XX means X and YY means Y", > whereas I would say "it is Z". You say "it is Z". I hear "We have an agreement that it is Z". David says "we have not agreed, but it should mean Z, because XX means X and YY means Y". I hear "We have no agreement, but I infer from other agreements we do have that it is probably Z". We're assuming, for the sake of argument, that there is no *explicit* agreement that it is Z. What's the difference? I think it depends on what you mean by "agreement". If agreement means "explicit agreement", as seems implicit in David's argument, then David is correct, and Herman's statement, as Jerry Pournelle is fond of putting it, turns out not to be the case. If agreement means "agreement, explicit or implicit", then Herman's statement is accurate, albeit it seems to me misleading (because when I hear the world "agreement" I don't tend to think of implicit agreements as included) and David's, um, turns out not to be the case - quite. Or rather, the first clause does. The second, however, reveals the implicit agreement. And it *is* an implicit agreement, if David's chain of inference is valid. So... 1. Herman states the (implicit) agreement in a manner that implies (to some, anyway) that it is an explicit one. 2. David states the (implicit) agreement in a manner which makes clear that it *is* an implicit agreement, and also the possibility (via "probably" in the statement) that he may have got it wrong. The laws only require that one reveal *agreements*, both implicit and explicit. Whether the agreement is implicit or explicit need not be revealed. While I agree with David that Herman's method *feels* like untruth, then, it actually isn't. And while I can see Herman's point that David's method is perhaps overly complex, it simply adds additional information which may (or may not) be useful to opponents. When ruling on whether the explanation (either one) is misinformation, a TD need only, it seems to me, consider "it is Z" as evidence that (a) there is an agreement, implicit or explicit and (b) that agreement is "it is Z". Both Herman and David have, then, given the same evidence as to the basic question. So in both cases the ruling should be the same - which I think obviates Herman's reason for answering as he does. No, Herman, I have not come around to your way - it still *feels* like lying. I'll have to think about it some more. But this is where I am now. From jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr Fri Dec 26 15:26:55 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 16:26:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Cheating References: <3FEAF8B2.9060405@hdw.be> <0TPS4IJdEy6$Ewzl@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3FEBF3B6.5040102@hdw.be> <000201c3cbad$3ec00c20$529e4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> Message-ID: <001b01c3cbc4$b6eab710$529e4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> I see, John: > When discussing > privately amongst ourselves we use it as a shorthand for "used UI to > advantage". I don't think I like this. Using UI can be done involuntary (and non top players might well not grasp our abstract logic about UI) and when people hear this is referred to as cheating by top ranking TD's they will not be amused. But tell me whenever you Brits want to use the c-word in the 'normal' meaning, what word do you use. Kind of language update I guess. DWS: > The problem is that I tend not to use this usage. 1. The way DWS puts this means cheating is a very frequent word in British bridge, with all kind of different shades of meaning of course, which might easiliy explain why we get so many strange arguments from England about related subjects. Remember that thread about Gawrys psyching 50 imp down or so. Most of you Brits seem to have a hangup about creative tactics. But then you seem also to have these EBU only rules about them. 2. If DWS really meant cheating as cheating in recent mails somthing is really wrong with his internal wiring. John's mail actually made a lot of sense. Anyway a simple advice from a non native speaker. Stop using the word cheating when you don't mean cheating. In vain of course, local culture will always persist. Because in the end you Brits decide what the word cheating means. In England that is. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "John (MadDog) Probst" To: Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 2:24 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Cheating > In article <000201c3cbad$3ec00c20$529e4151@yourhpbmye9tmb>, Jaap van der > Neut writes > >Herman, > > > >This discussion has turned sour for 'personal' reasons one might think. > > > >About one thing you are right. Only DWS introduces cheating into the > >discussion as he has done with another recent thread as well. IMO cheating > >has nothing do with anything. If you want to cheat, you cheat. > > There is a problem with the c-word and EBU TDs. When discussing > privately amongst ourselves we use it as a shorthand for "used UI to > advantage". So I'd say to DWS when consulting "Look this pair cheated > their way to 4S, what 12C3 would you give?". Sometimes this usage spills > over into blml. cheers john > > > > snip > -- > John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 > 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou > London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com > +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Dec 26 15:30:22 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 10:30:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <3FEBF840.8090709@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6B4534DF-37B8-11D8-BFEC-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Dec 26, 2003, at 03:58 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > So sorry David, but from all the evidence you have provided me so far, > I rule that 5Cl systematically shows 2 key-cards without the trump > queen, and I rule MI. > > Which is not the same as calling you a liar or a cheat. It is a ruling > such as one you must have given yourself on a number of occasions. I think care is needed here. The TD has a dilemma: he has evidence (bidder's holding) that *may* indicate that the "agreement" is 2 keycards; he has conflicting evidence (David's statement) that the agreement is 3 keycards. The law does not require a ruling on what the system actually *is* - and I would resent a TD telling me what my system is, especially if he's wrong - it requires the TD to rule "misinformation rather than misbid, in the absence of evidence to the contrary". However, in this case, the requirement is void, because there *is* evidence to the contrary - David's statement. Nonetheless, the TD must make a decision, and the form of the requirement tends to lead one to discount, rightly or wrong, evidence of misbid in favor of evidence of misinformation. IOW, Herman, rule MI if you believe that the preponderance of evidence indicates MI. Don't "rule" what their agreement is. Yes, one could argue that ruling MI *says* what their agreement is, but mentioning it is counterproductive and unnecessary, so why do it? Oh, and don't forget to inform both sides of their right to appeal. :-) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Dec 26 15:35:19 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 10:35:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <3FEBFDC2.9010505@hdw.be> Message-ID: <1CBC8390-37B9-11D8-BFEC-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Dec 26, 2003, at 04:22 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > Your turning the case on its head. Maybe so. If I am, well, sometimes that's a useful technique. > David does not have to know what his opponents assume. He can simply > tell them what he assumes. You're asking him to explain what he considers to be "general bridge knowledge". "I don't think so, Tim." :-) > You don't have to know what your opponents know, but if you rely on > general bridge knowledge, you'd better be really sure that they know > it. Because if they don't, it's not general bridge knowledge and you > have turned up short in your obligation of full disclosure. Um, I would tend to agree, were it not for the existence of Mrs. Guggenheim. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Dec 26 15:41:44 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 10:41:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: Cheating In-Reply-To: <001b01c3cbc4$b6eab710$529e4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> Message-ID: <023A5A5E-37BA-11D8-BFEC-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Dec 26, 2003, at 10:26 US/Eastern, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > I don't think I like this. Using UI can be done involuntary (and non > top > players might well not grasp our abstract logic about UI) A late entry, but I think Jaap's parenthetical expression is a good candidate for the Understatement of the Year award. From Anne Jones" <3FEAF8B2.9060405@hdw.be> <0TPS4IJdEy6$Ewzl@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3FEBF3B6.5040102@hdw.be> <000201c3cbad$3ec00c20$529e4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> Message-ID: <003101c3cbc9$04561040$e7546e51@annespc> *Some* English TD's maybe, certainly not all, and even if only a few, that makes me glad to be Welsh :-) Must admit, I have heard one, not your good self John. I wasn't impressed then either. Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "John (MadDog) Probst" To: Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 1:24 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: Cheating > In article <000201c3cbad$3ec00c20$529e4151@yourhpbmye9tmb>, Jaap van der > Neut writes > >Herman, > > > >This discussion has turned sour for 'personal' reasons one might think. > > > >About one thing you are right. Only DWS introduces cheating into the > >discussion as he has done with another recent thread as well. IMO cheating > >has nothing do with anything. If you want to cheat, you cheat. > > There is a problem with the c-word and EBU TDs. When discussing > privately amongst ourselves we use it as a shorthand for "used UI to > advantage". So I'd say to DWS when consulting "Look this pair cheated > their way to 4S, what 12C3 would you give?". Sometimes this usage spills > over into blml. cheers john > > > > snip > -- > John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 > 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou > London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com > +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Dec 26 17:20:50 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 18:20:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] No agreement, what does it mean In-Reply-To: <80155F3F-37B6-11D8-BFEC-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <80155F3F-37B6-11D8-BFEC-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <3FEC6DF2.3040808@hdw.be> Thank you Ed, for this well reasoned out post. Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Friday, Dec 26, 2003, at 04:34 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Our difference solely stems from you telling opponents "we have not >> agreed, but it should mean Z, because XX means X and YY means Y", >> whereas I would say "it is Z". > > > You say "it is Z". I hear "We have an agreement that it is Z". > > David says "we have not agreed, but it should mean Z, because XX means X > and YY means Y". I hear "We have no agreement, but I infer from other > agreements we do have that it is probably Z". > > We're assuming, for the sake of argument, that there is no *explicit* > agreement that it is Z. > > What's the difference? I think it depends on what you mean by > "agreement". If agreement means "explicit agreement", as seems implicit > in David's argument, then David is correct, and Herman's statement, as > Jerry Pournelle is fond of putting it, turns out not to be the case. If > agreement means "agreement, explicit or implicit", then Herman's > statement is accurate, albeit it seems to me misleading (because when I > hear the world "agreement" I don't tend to think of implicit agreements > as included) and David's, um, turns out not to be the case - quite. Or > rather, the first clause does. The second, however, reveals the implicit > agreement. And it *is* an implicit agreement, if David's chain of > inference is valid. > > So... > > 1. Herman states the (implicit) agreement in a manner that implies (to > some, anyway) that it is an explicit one. > 2. David states the (implicit) agreement in a manner which makes clear > that it *is* an implicit agreement, and also the possibility (via > "probably" in the statement) that he may have got it wrong. > > The laws only require that one reveal *agreements*, both implicit and > explicit. Whether the agreement is implicit or explicit need not be > revealed. > > While I agree with David that Herman's method *feels* like untruth, > then, it actually isn't. And while I can see Herman's point that David's > method is perhaps overly complex, it simply adds additional information > which may (or may not) be useful to opponents. > > When ruling on whether the explanation (either one) is misinformation, a > TD need only, it seems to me, consider "it is Z" as evidence that (a) > there is an agreement, implicit or explicit and (b) that agreement is > "it is Z". Both Herman and David have, then, given the same evidence as > to the basic question. So in both cases the ruling should be the same - > which I think obviates Herman's reason for answering as he does. > > No, Herman, I have not come around to your way - it still *feels* like > lying. I'll have to think about it some more. But this is where I am now. > The conclusion then is, that both David and I can do as we please. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From john@asimere.com Fri Dec 26 17:40:11 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 17:40:11 +0000 Subject: [blml] Re: Cheating In-Reply-To: <023A5A5E-37BA-11D8-BFEC-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <001b01c3cbc4$b6eab710$529e4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> <023A5A5E-37BA-11D8-BFEC-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: In article <023A5A5E-37BA-11D8-BFEC-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com>, Ed Reppert writes > >On Friday, Dec 26, 2003, at 10:26 US/Eastern, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > >> I don't think I like this. Using UI can be done involuntary (and non >> top >> players might well not grasp our abstract logic about UI) Use of the c-word in shorthand. It's only done between EBU TD's as TD-speak. I'd (we'd) never use it in front of a customer (not unless I was about to throw him out and make a case for a 10-year suspension.) > >A late entry, but I think Jaap's parenthetical expression is a good >candidate for the Understatement of the Year award. up with certain Grattanesque comments. certainly :) > > >_______________________________________________ >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 fvieira@fe.up.pt Fri Dec 26 17:56:32 2003 From: fvieira@fe.up.pt (Fernando Vieira) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 17:56:32 +0000 Subject: [blml] Questions, questions References: Message-ID: <3FEC7650.7040602@fe.up.pt> Ed Reppert wrote: > I suppose the "no agreement" dilemma would be easier to deal with if > we could all assume that people ask questions only because they are > pretty sure the answer is not to be found amongst "general bridge > knowledge". But in considering alert procedures, I find basically two > schools: one says to *always* ask what an alert means, one says only > to ask when your hand is such that you need to know. In the former > case, particularly given the de-emphasis alert procedures have placed > on Law 20 ("you may ask for an explanation *of the auction*" [emphasis > mine]), it seems to me a culture has arisen whereby people ask > questions all the time. They don't stop to think what their "general > bridge knowledge" will tell them - they expect an opponent to give > them whatever they need to know. But those who know the laws know that > this is not so according to the Laws, where general bridge knowledge > is concerned. So again a controversy arises: is it (whatever it is) > "general bridge knowledge" or not? We see a lot of examples involving > unusual situations to justify "you can't 'hide behind' general bridge > knowledge", but none of that answers the question - except by saying > that, effectively, yes, you don't have to disclose "general bridge > knowledge" but, in fact, there is no such thing. That's an easy out, > but it doesn't seem right to me. > > Suppose we could create a culture in which > > (1) people examine CCs *first* when they want answers > (2) they consider their own "general bridge knowledge" second > (3) they ask immediate questions of specific alerted calls *only* > after (1), (2), and a consideration of whether or not the answer is > likely to affect their immediate action - not asking if it will not Wouldn't this aproach create a distinction between a pass with/without asking questions? > > (4) in all other cases, they ask, IAW L20, for an explanation of the > auction to that point (which I would envision as usually at the end of > the auction). > > Would this help? If so, how do we create such a culture? If not, why not? Fernando From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Dec 26 20:22:16 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 20:22:16 -0000 Subject: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? References: <012701c3c947$dae4e200$38e17f50@vaio> <000d01c3c989$d1f2d200$204fe150@endicott> <00db01c3cb33$8a4675f0$529e4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> Message-ID: <005101c3cbee$07f4e210$1228e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Grattan Endicott" ; "blml" Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2003 10:07 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? > Grattan: > <<< I wonder whether Rodwell, Helgemo, Balicki, > > were asked what they would have played with > > Hearts K x x in East? I wonder what the tempo was, > > how quickly was the lead to the second trick made, > > how much time did players have to consider the > > hand as a whole at trick one? > > Do we know anything about the class of > > player involved? > > It is not that I want to disagree with what > > others say. I would just like to know the basis > > on which I should agree. Did anyone discuss the > > demerits of allowing contract made for EW and > > light for NS?>>> > > Kxx ? If declarer plays small from dummy it is > rather sure he hasn't got the Q. So it is an almost > automatic duck. > +=+ Yes, Jaap, you have picked up my message instantaneously. So when he plays K I do not read him for K x x. In an average player, not a better one, it could be K x, but otherwise I read him almost surely for both K and Q. (From K x, Jaap, even I play x, as past partners will confirm from experience). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From mfrench1@san.rr.com Fri Dec 26 21:13:43 2003 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 13:13:43 -0800 Subject: [blml] No agreement, what does it mean References: <10D55448-3724-11D8-996A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <003801c3cbf5$2c7691e0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> All this fuss continues to amaze me. As often happens, I am jumping into a thread without wading thru it all, so please forgive any ignorant statements. Assuming FTF bridge, there are two situations in which partner makes a call whose meaning, to your knowledge, has not been established by special partnership agreement: 1. You are not going to do anything based on the call, as you are out of the auction whatever it means. Then you say, "I don't know what itl means," followed by the disclosure of any partnership experience or conversation that might explain the call. This is UI to partner, but that is unlikely to matter. 2. You are going to take an action based on what you hope the call means . Then you must state that meaning in answer to an inquiry, with no waffling. If your guess is correct, then you and partner have a *de facto* agreement and there is no harm, no foul. If your guess is wrong, then that is MI (plus UI) and the opponents will get redress for any damage. WTP? We often hear a player say, "I don't know what it means for sure, we haven't discussed it, but I am going to take it for...." >From time immemorial this reply has been deemed unacceptable, at least in ACBL-land. It gets the player off the hook, no matter what the call means. Whether the guess is right or wrong, the player's side cannot be penalized, even though the opponents may go astray when the guess is wrong. That answer also creates horrendous UI that may be difficult to adjudicate later. Just imagine, you could give that reply to inquiries regarding many calls, giving your side protection if either you or partner has slipped a cog, while making sure that partner knows what gear you are in: "I am fairly sure it means...., but don't hold me to that." Bah! Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Dec 26 22:09:44 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 17:09:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <6jqRkFHLph6$Ewg5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031224080121.009ef730@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20031222085304.00a139f0@pop.starpower.net> <3FE7005C.3070200@hdw.be> <3FE7FAB5.6050803@hdw.be> <3FE85A8E.7070105@hdw.be> <3FE9494E.60909@hdw.be> <5.2.0.9.0.20031224080121.009ef730@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031226170122.009f1850@pop.starpower.net> At 05:59 PM 12/24/03, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote > >>I am guessing that David's example is flawed because he got his >>conventions crossed. Let me try to do better: > > What do you mean, it is flawed? One of the reasons this Wael > school is a nonsense is because it requires me to ignore the Laws and > lie in the example given. It is not flawed. It is a good example of > why it is an undesirable practice. The example you gave was 4NT-X-5C playing DOPI/ROPI, but that is quite well-defined as showing two key cards, so I would have expected a clear consensus that one would simply reply to an inquiry by saying so. I don't see Herman's "school" as being applicable, as there would be no uncertainty as to the agreed meaning. I thought the example would be more applicable with the agreement being DEPO/REPO, in which 5C is not defined (or, at least, is likely to be an "impossible" call on most auctions) and would serve as a more transparent "no agreement" position. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Dec 26 22:39:07 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 17:39:07 -0500 Subject: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031224171241.02679cb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031226171421.009f1420@pop.starpower.net> At 07:21 PM 12/24/03, Gordon wrote: >On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, Eric Landau wrote: > > > Falsecards are "special" because they are inherently deceptive; they > > have no effect unless declarer is deceived. The deception may be one > > in which declarer is deceived into thinking that one may, or may not, > > have a "genuine bridge problem", i.e. one where your play matters to > > the outcome without regard to any potential deception. > >With respect to the question of whether deciding to falsecard can be a >genuine bridge problem... > >Do you distinguish between situations that analysis reveals to be >"mandatory falsecards" (really non-intuitive but technically correct >plays); situations that analysis reveals to genuinely require a mixed >strategy (as in some choosing-between-equals situations); and situations >where you deliberately choose to make the technically incorrect play? > >It seems that the first two of these three ARE legitimate bridge problems, >though I am not sure that I could convince a committee of randomly >selected BLMLers to believe it. (In the actual case, there was an actual >problem choosing between honour and small, but it was admitted he was only >thinking about which honour to play, if I recall.) I was not even thinking about this; the distinction I was trying to draw was between situations not as seen from the "defender's" (i.e. potential falsecarder's) viewpoint but rather from the declarer's. Between, for example, considering a falsecard from three small when declarer is fishing for a missing queen (where he is likely to be deceived into thinking you hold it), and considering a falsecard from three small when trying to convince declarer that the suit isn't breaking and he should take an alternate line (where his only problem will be whether or not to believe your carding). Some of the classic mandatory falsecards, however, make excellent examples of what I was trying to get at in what followed in the original post, as they are plays that cannot be legitimately effective unless they are made without apparent thought. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From blml@blakjak.com Fri Dec 26 22:55:58 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 22:55:58 +0000 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031226170122.009f1850@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031224080121.009ef730@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20031222085304.00a139f0@pop.starpower.net> <3FE7005C.3070200@hdw.be> <3FE7FAB5.6050803@hdw.be> <3FE85A8E.7070105@hdw.be> <3FE9494E.60909@hdw.be> <5.2.0.9.0.20031224080121.009ef730@pop.starpower.net> <6jqRkFHLph6$Ewg5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20031226170122.009f1850@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote >At 05:59 PM 12/24/03, David wrote: > >>Eric Landau wrote >> >>>I am guessing that David's example is flawed because he got his >>>conventions crossed. Let me try to do better: >> >> What do you mean, it is flawed? One of the reasons this Wael >>school is a nonsense is because it requires me to ignore the Laws and >>lie in the example given. It is not flawed. It is a good example of >>why it is an undesirable practice. > >The example you gave was 4NT-X-5C playing DOPI/ROPI, but that is quite >well-defined as showing two key cards, so I would have expected a clear >consensus that one would simply reply to an inquiry by saying so. I >don't see Herman's "school" as being applicable, as there would be no >uncertainty as to the agreed meaning. I thought the example would be >more applicable with the agreement being DEPO/REPO, in which 5C is not >defined (or, at least, is likely to be an "impossible" call on most >auctions) and would serve as a more transparent "no agreement" position. What do you mean by 'well-defined' and 'a clear consensus'? First, I do not play it as two aces - and I was one of the players at the table. Second, because of the problem, I have since polled people IRL and on RGB, and it has emerged that there is no consensus. What there is is a majority who thinks it shows 2-Q, and a minority who do not. You really cannot base rulings on what Eric and friends play, and say this is a "consensus". The pair concerned [Smith-Stevenson] had *no agreement* to play the sequence as 2-Q, and to assume they did because of a non-consensus of other people is wrong. You do not like it because it does not follow your own ideas of how the game is played? But that is one of the major problems in the game today, and I expected BLML to be above that. Players do not agree. Your consensus is very similar to the idea that Stayman shows a 4-card major: every day people get upset because their opponents bid Stayman without one. They think there is a 'consensus' that Stayman shows a 4-card major: they are wrong. Any ruling assuming that Smith-Stevenson played a convention they did not play because you erroneously believe there is a consensus would be wrong. Unfortunately, I am logical in thought: apparently that makes me in a minority. If you play [Re-]Double=second step, Pass=first step, next bid=third step, it is idiotic to call it [re-]double=one, pass=zero, so it never occurred to me that people were that stupid. OK, now I know differently. but please do not assume that everyone follows this illogical trail. -- David Stevenson Wirral, Merseyside, UK Special services: Digital Postcard http://blakjak.com/postcard.htm Currency Converter http://blakjak.com/curr_con.htm Magical Translator http://blakjak.com/translt.htm From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Fri Dec 26 23:32:07 2003 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 17:32:07 -0600 Subject: [blml] Rulings "against" [was: Be Alert but not alarmed] Message-ID: Ed Reppert: "I am told, occasionally, that one should promote the attitude that when a TD makes a ruling, he is not ruling "against" one side or the other, he is (usually) redressing damage or restoring equity. Yet here we have two top directors talking about ruling "against" each other. Is this merely sloppy terminology, or is the advice I've been given hogwash?" James Hudson: It's one thing to "promote an attitude," quite another to tell the unvarnished truth. When a TC or an AC has to make a ruling and there are only two realistic possibilities, the first more favorable to NS, the second less favorable, then the first ruling would be "against EW" and the second would be "against NS." The actual ruling may "redress damage" (if there was any), and "restore equity"; but in any case it will inevitably be "against" somebody. (But sometimes it might be better not to say so.) If there are more than two plausible rulings, one of them may be dead neutral, not "against" either side (I haven't tried to specify how to judge this). That doesn't make it the correct ruling. From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Fri Dec 26 23:38:56 2003 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 17:38:56 -0600 Subject: [blml] Asking about opponents' skill level (was: Be alert but not alarmed) Message-ID: Konrad Ciborowski: "So then the next time I'll be playing against, say, Balicki - Zmudzinski and will have a difficult opening lead problem I will show dummy my hand and ask "What would your partner lead from this hand?" - chances are that B-Z's choice will work better than mine. And the dummy will be obliged to answer my question. Sorry - that is the consequence of making a question about your opponents' skill level a legitimate inquiry." James Hudson: Not really, but I won't take the trouble to articulate why Konrad's question would be illegitimate. My point was simply that you (probably) know whether you partner is an expert, a novice, or something in between, and you use that information in interpreting his bids and plays. Therefore that is information to which your opponents are entitled. From jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr Sat Dec 27 08:09:41 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 09:09:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031224080121.009ef730@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20031222085304.00a139f0@pop.starpower.net> <3FE7005C.3070200@hdw.be> <3FE7FAB5.6050803@hdw.be> <3FE85A8E.7070105@hdw.be> <3FE9494E.60909@hdw.be> <5.2.0.9.0.20031224080121.009ef730@pop.starpower.net> <6jqRkFHLph6$Ewg5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20031226170122.009f1850@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <002501c3cc50$ca5405e0$529e4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> DWS: > Unfortunately, I am logical in thought: apparently that makes me in a > minority. If you play [Re-]Double=second step, Pass=first step, next > bid=third step, it is idiotic to call it [re-]double=one, pass=zero, so > it never occurred to me that people were that stupid. OK, now I know > differently. but please do not assume that everyone follows this > illogical trail. Now please stop whining. Nobody said or implied that you are crazy, stupid, logical or illogical. It is only you who twists others words like that. Dear David as I said DOPIROPI was invented for original Blackwood where 1step=0ace and 2step=1ace. In those days the name made sense. But then Blackwood evolved to RKCB and 1430. Not many saw the need for a new interference handler (not that common a problem) and so DOPIROPI stayed around but now step based so the original name became a little bit odd (although still a great name to remember the completely random ordering of the first two steps, maybe for this reason only the name is still alive). Language is not mathematics. If you always apply math logic to language you will have a very difficult life. But still I miss something. In all versions of DOPIROPI the first bid (here 5C) shows the third step, 2A in simple Blackwood and 2A-noQ in RKCB versions. How come you play this different (or you seem to have no idea what it means). Might it just be possible that Smith-Stevenson play a convention without really understanding it, or without reading/studying the original version. And I miss something else. What is really the problem. You are not very likely to cause damage with this type of mix-up's. In Holland it is nowadays great fun with half of the guys playing 1430 and the other half classical RKBC. Lucky you having two aces. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 11:55 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) > Eric Landau wrote > > >At 05:59 PM 12/24/03, David wrote: > > > >>Eric Landau wrote > >> > >>>I am guessing that David's example is flawed because he got his > >>>conventions crossed. Let me try to do better: > >> > >> What do you mean, it is flawed? One of the reasons this Wael > >>school is a nonsense is because it requires me to ignore the Laws and > >>lie in the example given. It is not flawed. It is a good example of > >>why it is an undesirable practice. > > > >The example you gave was 4NT-X-5C playing DOPI/ROPI, but that is quite > >well-defined as showing two key cards, so I would have expected a clear > >consensus that one would simply reply to an inquiry by saying so. I > >don't see Herman's "school" as being applicable, as there would be no > >uncertainty as to the agreed meaning. I thought the example would be > >more applicable with the agreement being DEPO/REPO, in which 5C is not > >defined (or, at least, is likely to be an "impossible" call on most > >auctions) and would serve as a more transparent "no agreement" position. > > What do you mean by 'well-defined' and 'a clear consensus'? First, I > do not play it as two aces - and I was one of the players at the table. > Second, because of the problem, I have since polled people IRL and on > RGB, and it has emerged that there is no consensus. What there is is a > majority who thinks it shows 2-Q, and a minority who do not. > > You really cannot base rulings on what Eric and friends play, and say > this is a "consensus". The pair concerned [Smith-Stevenson] had *no > agreement* to play the sequence as 2-Q, and to assume they did because > of a non-consensus of other people is wrong. > > You do not like it because it does not follow your own ideas of how > the game is played? But that is one of the major problems in the game > today, and I expected BLML to be above that. Players do not agree. Your > consensus is very similar to the idea that Stayman shows a 4-card major: > every day people get upset because their opponents bid Stayman without > one. They think there is a 'consensus' that Stayman shows a 4-card > major: they are wrong. > > Any ruling assuming that Smith-Stevenson played a convention they did > not play because you erroneously believe there is a consensus would be > wrong. > > Unfortunately, I am logical in thought: apparently that makes me in a > minority. If you play [Re-]Double=second step, Pass=first step, next > bid=third step, it is idiotic to call it [re-]double=one, pass=zero, so > it never occurred to me that people were that stupid. OK, now I know > differently. but please do not assume that everyone follows this > illogical trail. > > -- > David Stevenson Wirral, Merseyside, UK > Special services: Digital Postcard http://blakjak.com/postcard.htm > Currency Converter http://blakjak.com/curr_con.htm > Magical Translator http://blakjak.com/translt.htm > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw@hdw.be Sat Dec 27 08:39:00 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 09:39:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] No agreement, what does it mean In-Reply-To: <003801c3cbf5$2c7691e0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <10D55448-3724-11D8-996A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <003801c3cbf5$2c7691e0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <3FED4524.5000409@hdw.be> Hello Marv, Marvin French wrote: > All this fuss continues to amaze me. As often happens, > I am jumping into a thread without wading thru it all, so > please forgive any ignorant statements. > No ingnorant statements below, rest assured. > Assuming FTF bridge, there are two situations in which > partner makes a call whose meaning, to your knowledge, > has not been established by special partnership agreement: > > 1. You are not going to do anything based on the call, as > you are out of the auction whatever it means. > > Then you say, "I don't know what itl means," followed by > the disclosure of any partnership experience or conversation > that might explain the call. This is UI to partner, but that is > unlikely to matter. > And indeed hardly any MI. Partner will correct your explanation very soon anyway. > 2. You are going to take an action based on what you hope > the call means . > > Then you must state that meaning in answer to an inquiry, > with no waffling. > Indeed, Marv. > If your guess is correct, then you and partner have a > *de facto* agreement and there is no harm, no foul. > Exactly. > If your guess is wrong, then that is MI (plus UI) and the > opponents will get redress for any damage. > Exactly. > WTP? > > We often hear a player say, "I don't know what it means > for sure, we haven't discussed it, but I am going to take it > for...." > >>From time immemorial this reply has been deemed > unacceptable, at least in ACBL-land. It gets the player off the > hook, no matter what the call means. Whether the guess is > right or wrong, the player's side cannot be penalized, even > though the opponents may go astray when the guess is wrong. > That answer also creates horrendous UI that may be difficult > to adjudicate later. > Exactly. Although I am not of the opinion that the player is off the hook. When someone tells his opponent, "Z, but I'm not sure", I am going to rule (as TD) the same as if he said "Z". With MI if it turns out his partner meant Z2. > Just imagine, you could give that reply to inquiries regarding > many calls, giving your side protection if either you or partner > has slipped a cog, while making sure that partner knows what > gear you are in: > > "I am fairly sure it means...., but don't hold me to that." > > Bah! > Exactly. Bah. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From cyaxares@lineone.net Sat Dec 27 08:30:05 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 08:30:05 -0000 Subject: [blml] No agreement, what does it mean References: <10D55448-3724-11D8-996A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <003801c3cbf5$2c7691e0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000d01c3cc54$cf5fff40$ac44e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 9:13 PM Subject: Re: [blml] No agreement, what does it mean > All this fuss continues to amaze me < +=+ Oh, come off it, Marv. You are an experienced blml subscriber. :-) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Sat Dec 27 08:36:43 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 08:36:43 -0000 Subject: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031224171241.02679cb0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20031226171421.009f1420@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000e01c3cc54$d0237650$ac44e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 10:39 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? > > Some of the classic mandatory falsecards, > however, make excellent examples of what > I was trying to get at in what followed in the > original post, as they are plays that cannot > be legitimately effective unless they are made > without apparent thought. > +=+ Take that a little further - the novel false card needs to be played smoothly and without thought. Flash recognition and a trustworthy gut feeling are the advantages one needs to possess. Otherwise forget it. And as Jaap and I have commented, by inference, Bocchi was being disingenuous in complaining about a 'false card' that was eminently readable if he stopped to think what holdings opponent would not have. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cibor@poczta.fm Sat Dec 27 15:44:04 2003 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 16:44:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Asking about opponents' skill level (was: Be alertbut not alarmed) References: Message-ID: <003b01c3cc90$6986ba60$76284cd5@c5s5d3> ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Hudson" To: Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2003 12:38 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Asking about opponents' skill level (was: Be alertbut not alarmed) > Konrad Ciborowski: > > "So then the next time I'll be playing > against, say, Balicki - Zmudzinski and will have a difficult > opening lead problem I will show dummy my hand and ask > "What would your partner lead from this hand?" - chances are that > B-Z's choice will work better than mine. And the dummy > will be obliged to answer my question. > Sorry - that is the consequence of making a question > about your opponents' skill level a legitimate inquiry." > > James Hudson: > > Not really, but I won't take the trouble to articulate why Konrad's > question would be illegitimate. Please do. At the moment I can't see any difference between asking the above question and a question "how good a player is your partner?". This is the same kind of question as "Is your partner an over- or an underbidder?". I think that I am entitled to refuse to anwser to each of them. I would be happy to listen to your arguments. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Dec 28 01:11:49 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 11:11:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] Re: Cheating Message-ID: David Stevenson wrote: [snip] >Specifically, when someone tells me that I would >use the term "no agreement" when I know I have an >implicit agreement, then they have accused me of >something. I leave BLML readers to decide what I >have been accused of and whether I would do it. Richard James Hills replied: I wholeheartedly support David Stevenson's honour. The facts -> There are three possible *partnership* statuses for a call, (a) a directly discussed explicit agreement, (b) an indirectly discussed implicit agreement, and (c) an undiscussed non-agreement. "Have you stopped beating your wife?" has been transformed (for rhetorical purposes) to bolster the logical fallacies of the Ozymandias School into the question, "Have you stopped describing an implicit agreement as a non-agreement?" Until Ozymandias apologises to David Stevenson for implying that David Stevenson describes a category (b) agreement as category (c), I will not refer to Ozymandias on blml by his preferred cognomen. Happy new year, RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From wayne@ebridgenz.com Sun Dec 28 06:20:05 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:20:05 +1300 Subject: [blml] No agreement, what does it mean In-Reply-To: <3FEAB6FA.90504@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c3cd0a$a675f060$389737d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: Herman De Wael [mailto:hermandw@hdw.be] > Sent: Thursday, 25 December 2003 10:08 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: [blml] No agreement, what does it mean > > > Christmas greetings to all readers. > > Many of the problems in recent threads come about because we don't > realize that "no agreement" can hide many different backgrounds. > > Let me tell you a story. > > Last tuesday I played with Prith. I know Prith very well, we spend on > average half an hour per week at the bar discussing cricket. But we > don't play often together, maybe once a year on average, although > three years ago we did play a 4 session event for which we discussed > system to a bit greater length. > As far as common background goes, except for the fact that we play in > the same club, we do have common partners. I play twice a month with > the wife of his regular partner. > > But on tuesday, our system discussion lasted all of 2 minutes, while > we were dealing the boards during round one. > > So an answer of "no agreement" could have been quite frequent for us, > and true as well. > > However, I am certain David will agree with the following: > If I answer "no agreement" to any of the people present on tuesday, > they know a great deal of background, because they know us, and the > general methods in use in our club. > But if we had had a visiting Japanese pair, playing their first > tournament in Western Europe, my saying "no agreement" would > be vastly > inadequate. > > I will tell you a few situations and I will translate the answer "no > agreement" to the full sentence which ought to be told to the > Japanese. > > 1) me 1NT (pass) 2He ? > "no agreement" = "everybody in this club (and in the whole of western > europe) plays that as transfer, so I am 100% confident that he has at > least 5 spades" > > 2) me 1NT (pass) 2Sp ? > "no agreement" = "most people, including Prith and I, play that as > transfer, and when they do, it's a transfer to clubs, so I am 98% > confident that he has 6 clubs or 5 clubs and a second suit that he'll > introduce later" > > 3) me 1Sp (no interventions) 2Cl 3Cl 3He ? > "no agreement" = "I don't know if he has 4 hearts or not, but he's > showing something in hearts, and he expects me to bid 3NT if I have a > diamond stopper" (this one actually happened) > > 4) he 2Di (pass) 2NT (pass) 3He ? > (2Di is Multi, that was one of the few things we did agree on) > "no agreement" = "2NT asks for a further description. I know that he > knows that I know that most of the people in our common circle play > this as showing a maximum weak two in _spades_. We played it that way > 3 years ago, so I am 60% confident that he has 6 spades and around 10 > points". > > Now I have a few questions to David: > > - do you agree David, that the answer "no agreement" in all these > cases is incomplete when playing against a Japanese pair? > - do you agree David, that in some cases (number 4 especially), the > answer "no agreement" is incomplete even when playing against people > from the own club? > - do you agree David, that in case 4, my opponents have the right to > know that my partner has spades? > - do you agree David, that in case 4, my answer of "maximum weak two > in spades" is far more appropriate than your "no agreement"? I would say that "you have no explicit agreement" would be a better description. This does not relinquish your obligation to explain your implicit agreements. Wayne From jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr Sun Dec 28 07:05:17 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 08:05:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] No agreement, what does it mean References: <000001c3cd0a$a675f060$389737d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <001f01c3cd11$242f17b0$529e4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> Wayne: > I would say that "you have no explicit agreement" would be a better > description. This does not relinquish your obligation to explain your > implicit agreements. I start to understand some of the difficulties in this discusion. In my own language the normally used word for 'agreement' (in this sense) pretty much excludes implicit as an adjective because that word is a tad stronger than agreement. So we often use two different words for explicit agreements and implicit agreements. This might well be the case in other languages as well. Anyway common sense dictates that even in English 'no agreement' is used as 'no explicit agreement' at least 99% of the time. What about 'partnership understanding' or 'partnership habits' when you want to refer to 'agreements that have not been agreed upon'. Keep in mind that most bridge players don't have advanced legal training. Anyway to keep the game playable I think it is completely normal that a first inquiry about the meaning of a call is (implicitly) an inquiry about an explicit agreement. Most of the time you just want to know whether it is 'natural' or 'transfer' or ...... without wanting a legally correct response which takes 2 minutes. If you want to know more you can pose a follow up question. Maybe someone (WBFLC !?) could write a practical protocol for this communication problem, probably much more usefull than endless discussion about some comnma's in seldom used laws. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "'blml'" Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2003 7:20 AM Subject: RE: [blml] No agreement, what does it mean > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Herman De Wael [mailto:hermandw@hdw.be] > > Sent: Thursday, 25 December 2003 10:08 p.m. > > To: blml > > Subject: [blml] No agreement, what does it mean > > > > > > Christmas greetings to all readers. > > > > Many of the problems in recent threads come about because we don't > > realize that "no agreement" can hide many different backgrounds. > > > > Let me tell you a story. > > > > Last tuesday I played with Prith. I know Prith very well, we spend on > > average half an hour per week at the bar discussing cricket. But we > > don't play often together, maybe once a year on average, although > > three years ago we did play a 4 session event for which we discussed > > system to a bit greater length. > > As far as common background goes, except for the fact that we play in > > the same club, we do have common partners. I play twice a month with > > the wife of his regular partner. > > > > But on tuesday, our system discussion lasted all of 2 minutes, while > > we were dealing the boards during round one. > > > > So an answer of "no agreement" could have been quite frequent for us, > > and true as well. > > > > However, I am certain David will agree with the following: > > If I answer "no agreement" to any of the people present on tuesday, > > they know a great deal of background, because they know us, and the > > general methods in use in our club. > > But if we had had a visiting Japanese pair, playing their first > > tournament in Western Europe, my saying "no agreement" would > > be vastly > > inadequate. > > > > I will tell you a few situations and I will translate the answer "no > > agreement" to the full sentence which ought to be told to the > > Japanese. > > > > 1) me 1NT (pass) 2He ? > > "no agreement" = "everybody in this club (and in the whole of western > > europe) plays that as transfer, so I am 100% confident that he has at > > least 5 spades" > > > > 2) me 1NT (pass) 2Sp ? > > "no agreement" = "most people, including Prith and I, play that as > > transfer, and when they do, it's a transfer to clubs, so I am 98% > > confident that he has 6 clubs or 5 clubs and a second suit that he'll > > introduce later" > > > > 3) me 1Sp (no interventions) 2Cl 3Cl 3He ? > > "no agreement" = "I don't know if he has 4 hearts or not, but he's > > showing something in hearts, and he expects me to bid 3NT if I have a > > diamond stopper" (this one actually happened) > > > > > 4) he 2Di (pass) 2NT (pass) 3He ? > > (2Di is Multi, that was one of the few things we did agree on) > > "no agreement" = "2NT asks for a further description. I know that he > > knows that I know that most of the people in our common circle play > > this as showing a maximum weak two in _spades_. We played it that way > > 3 years ago, so I am 60% confident that he has 6 spades and around 10 > > points". > > > > Now I have a few questions to David: > > > > - do you agree David, that the answer "no agreement" in all these > > cases is incomplete when playing against a Japanese pair? > > - do you agree David, that in some cases (number 4 especially), the > > answer "no agreement" is incomplete even when playing against people > > from the own club? > > - do you agree David, that in case 4, my opponents have the right to > > know that my partner has spades? > > - do you agree David, that in case 4, my answer of "maximum weak two > > in spades" is far more appropriate than your "no agreement"? > > I would say that "you have no explicit agreement" would be a better > description. This does not relinquish your obligation to explain your > implicit agreements. > > Wayne > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Sun Dec 28 18:02:50 2003 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 12:02:50 -0600 Subject: [blml] Asking about opponents' skill level (was: Be alert but not alarmed) Message-ID: > Konrad Ciborowski: > > "So then the next time I'll be playing > against, say, Balicki - Zmudzinski and will have a difficult > opening lead problem I will show dummy my hand and ask > "What would your partner lead from this hand?" - chances are that > B-Z's choice will work better than mine. And the dummy > will be obliged to answer my question. > Sorry - that is the consequence of making a question > about your opponents' skill level a legitimate inquiry." . . . . >This is the same kind of question as >"Is your partner an over- or an underbidder?". >I think that I am entitled to refuse to anwser to each of them. >I would be happy to listen to your arguments. I have been taking it for granted that a player is entitled to any pieces of information that an opponent is using to interpret the actions of his partner--that these count as "partnership agreements," implicit if not explicit. Of course one is not entitled to demand advice from an opponent about what opening lead to make from his hand; that is an altogether different matter. A question is legitimate only if the answer bears on the asker's interpretation of a bid or play by his opponent. Perhaps "How good is your partner?" is too unspecific a question. But Zia could have asked, "How likely is your partner to falsecard the 9 from J9xx?" and he is entitled to an answer. Again, "Is your partner an overbidder?" may be too broad. But "How likely is your partner to open 1NT with 14 HCP?" (on a deal where he has opened 1NT and the CC is marked "15-17"), or "How likely is your partner to make a one-level overcall with only 7 HCP?' (on a deal where he has made a one-level overcall and the CC is marked "8-17"), is a perfectly legitimate question, which must be answered. Konrad seems to think otherwise; I don't see why. Saying just this does not resolve all possible issues about the obligation to disclose partnership "agreements"; the notion of "implicit agreement" is rather obscure. In particular, there seems to be a general principle that in replying to an inquiry one does not have to do the asker's thinking for him--one need not point out all the inferences that might be drawn from one's answer. This principle makes sense so long as we are dealing with explicit agreements; I don't think it does for implicit ones. So I don't claim to have all the answers about one's duty to disclose implicit agreements. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Dec 28 20:44:19 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 15:44:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] No agreement, what does it mean In-Reply-To: <3FEC6DF2.3040808@hdw.be> Message-ID: <9C060E26-3976-11D8-9F4E-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Dec 26, 2003, at 12:20 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > The conclusion then is, that both David and I can do as we please. It would seem so. :-) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Dec 28 20:47:48 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 15:47:48 -0500 Subject: [blml] Questions, questions In-Reply-To: <3FEC7650.7040602@fe.up.pt> Message-ID: <18E8FD3E-3977-11D8-9F4E-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Dec 26, 2003, at 12:56 US/Eastern, Fernando Vieira wrote: > Wouldn't this aproach create a distinction between a pass with/without > asking questions? It seems so. But given that we have an alert procedure, I don't see how we can avoid the distinction altogether. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Dec 28 22:04:55 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 08:04:55 +1000 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) Message-ID: Tim West-Meads wrote: >>As I recall (but it may be a different story). The >>auction was a standard Acol: 2C-2D-3D-4H (which >>shows a one loser H suit in an otherwise worthless >>hand*). The Abbot's choice was between the galling >>(but truthful) admission that he had forgotten the >>system and arguing that his choice of bid was correct >>since they were not playing this way and suffering an >>MI ruling. He chose to be truthful, despite having >>to admit to a misbid. >> >>* His partner did say that the sequence didn't come >>up very often and explained the standard Acol meaning >>rather than stating it as an agreement. 2nd last >>hand of "Cardinal Sins". In "Cardinal Sins", David Bird wrote: >"Four hearts," said the Abbot. >Brother Xavier paused for a while. "No bid," he said >finally. >For a second or two the Abbot looked as if someone had >stabbed him in the back. What in the name of the >saints was Xavier thinking of? A jump from three >diamonds to four hearts must be a cue bid. What else >could it be? >"My lead?" enquired Mr Ayling. "Now, tell me, what >did this four-heart bid mean?" >"Well, it doesn't come up very often," replied Brother >Xavier, "but in Acol a negative response followed by a >jump shows a one-loser suit." [snip] >The Abbot won the club lead in dummy. As feared, six >diamonds was absolutely cold. He sent one of his >blackest looks across the table. Semi-solid suit? He >had never heard such nonsense. [snip] >The facts of the matter were laid before Ambrose >Witherspoon, one of the EBU's more antiquated >directors. He reached for the South curtain card. >"Oh dear, ace-jack to four hearts," he said. "That's >not normally regarded as a one-loser suit." He turned >towards the Abbot. "Do you count that as a one-loser >suit in your system?" >"Of course not," replied the Abbot. "I intended my >four-heart call as a cue bid agreeing diamonds." >"Ah well," continued the director, "in that case I >have to establish whether the explanation was wrong, >in which case there may be an adjusted score, or >whether it was the bid that was in error." >The Abbot steeled himself. "My four-heart bid was a >momentary aberration," he said. "The jump after a >negative shows a one-loser suit; it's absolutely >standard in Acol. My mistake, partner." [snip] Richard James Hills comments: Tim rules that what the Abbot said to the TD was accurate. But is this so? What, fundamentally, is a *partnership* agreement. For the sake of argument, let us assume that the Abbot and Brother Xavier have this explicit partnership agreement: "If we have not specifically agreed otherwise, we play Acol according to the textbook." Therefore, Brother Xavier (and Tim) *assumed* that the table explanation given by Brother Xavier was an accurate description of the Abbot-Xavier partnership agreement. However, the Abbot thought ".....a cue bid. What else could it be?" and "Semi-solid suit.....never heard such nonsense." Therefore, it is obvious that the Abbot had never deigned to read the relevant chapter of the Acol textbook. As a result, in my opinion, the correct explanation of the Abbot's 4H call was "No agreement." As TD, I would rule that Brother Xavier gave inadvertent MI. I would also rule that the Abbot gave deliberate MI to avoid an adjusted score, and I would invite the Abbot to attend a meeting of the St Titus Law & Ethics Committee. Happy new year, RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Dec 28 21:08:32 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 16:08:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] Asking about opponents' skill level (was: Be alert but not alarmed) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sunday, Dec 28, 2003, at 13:02 US/Eastern, James Hudson wrote: > Perhaps "How good is your partner?" is too unspecific a question. But > Zia could have asked, "How likely is your partner to falsecard the 9 > from J9xx?" and he is entitled to an answer. Again, "Is your partner > an > overbidder?" may be too broad. But "How likely is your partner to open > 1NT with 14 HCP?" (on a deal where he has opened 1NT and the CC is > marked "15-17"), or "How likely is your partner to make a one-level > overcall with only 7 HCP?' (on a deal where he has made a one-level > overcall and the CC is marked "8-17"), is a perfectly legitimate > question, which must be answered. Konrad seems to think otherwise; I > don't see why. The answer to "how likely is your partner to do (or hold) X" is "Y% likely". TDs now have a problem. The steps to a score adjustment if one is appropriate, start with "was there misinformation?" There is misinformation here only if the likelihood that partner will do (or hold) X is something other than Y%. I can't see any reasonable way for the TD to determine whether this is the case. So I can't see any reasonable way for the TD to make a ruling. For that reason, I think the question itself is probably inappropriate. From cibor@poczta.fm Mon Dec 29 00:25:27 2003 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:25:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Asking about opponents' skill level (was: Be alert but not alarmed) References: Message-ID: <003501c3cda2$45ad7ee0$5d274cd5@c5s5d3> ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Hudson" >A player is entitled to any bits of > information that an opponent is using to interpret the actions of his > partner; I disagree. The Law says that the opponents are entitled to know only our agreements (implicit or explicit) but not "every piece of information". The fact that my partner's declaring skill are low/high obviously is relevant if I have to make a decision whether I should bid a tight game or stay in a partscore but I don't think I am obliged to reveal this information to the opponents. I see no law that forces me to do that >these amount to "partnership agreements," implicit if not > explicit. >One is not entitled to get advice from an opponent about what > would be the best opening lead from his hand. If you think it is legitimate to ask a question about somebody's skill that it is also legitimate to ask what your partner would lead from hand X after auction Y. See below. > > Perhaps "How good is your partner?" is too unspecific a question. But > Zia could have asked, "How likely is your partner to falsecard the 9 > from J9xx?" This *exactly* the same question. You ask "how likely is your partner to play the club nine from such-and-such hand at trick 8 after this auction and with these cards in dummy." I ask "how likely is your partner to play the spade four at trick one from such-and-such hand after this auction ". My view is that I am allowed to answer to both questions "Whenever he thinks it is right". >and he is entitled to an answer. Again, "Is your partner an > overbidder?" may be too broad. But "How likely is your partner to open > 1NT with 14 HCP?" (on a deal where he has opened 1NT and the CC is > marked "15-17"), or "How likely is your partner to make a one-level > overcall with only 7 HCP?' (on a deal where he has made a one-level > overcall and the CC is marked "8-17"), That is a different question - this is a question about our implcit *agreements*. The habit of opening 1NT on 14HCP has nothing to do with skills - just the same as the frequency of partnership psyches. If we agree to play a 15+ - 18- 1NT then I am obliged to disclose a) that we play 1NT from good 15 to bad 18 b) how frequently does my partner to open 1NT on 14 HCP (or to deviate from this agreement) These are agreements. But I am *not* obliged to reveal the quality of my partner's judgement as to what 15 HCP are good and what bad. A palooka might call this hand QJx QJx QJx AQxx a good 15HCP (so many sequences, partner!) and open 1NT with it while he might open 1C with Axx KQ10 xx AQ1098 (weak diamonds, partner). But this is a matter of skill - not agreements. But if I am playing with a palooka I know that his judgement cannot be trusted but the same applies to every other aspect of his game. If I am playing with a good partner I know I can rely on his bids and plays. But then again - I don't see a law that would enforce me to reveal how good a player my present partner is. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland From roger-eymard@wanadoo.fr Mon Dec 29 00:41:28 2003 From: roger-eymard@wanadoo.fr (Roger Eymard) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:41:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Asking about opponents' skill level (was: Be alert but not alarmed) References: Message-ID: <000701c3cda4$7f469a90$6400a8c0@supersuperbe> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2003 10:08 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Asking about opponents' skill level (was: Be alert but not alarmed) > > On Sunday, Dec 28, 2003, at 13:02 US/Eastern, James Hudson wrote: > > > Perhaps "How good is your partner?" is too unspecific a question. But > > Zia could have asked, "How likely is your partner to falsecard the 9 > > from J9xx?" and he is entitled to an answer. Again, "Is your partner > > an > > overbidder?" may be too broad. But "How likely is your partner to open > > 1NT with 14 HCP?" (on a deal where he has opened 1NT and the CC is > > marked "15-17"), or "How likely is your partner to make a one-level > > overcall with only 7 HCP?' (on a deal where he has made a one-level > > overcall and the CC is marked "8-17"), is a perfectly legitimate > > question, which must be answered. Konrad seems to think otherwise; I > > don't see why. > > The answer to "how likely is your partner to do (or hold) X" is "Y% > likely". TDs now have a problem. The steps to a score adjustment if one > is appropriate, start with "was there misinformation?" There is > misinformation here only if the likelihood that partner will do (or > hold) X is something other than Y%. I can't see any reasonable way for > the TD to determine whether this is the case. So I can't see any > reasonable way for the TD to make a ruling. For that reason, I think > the question itself is probably inappropriate. Happy New Year to all blml TD's, in a world where all the players will only act in order to make rulings easy ! Seems a new approach for rewriting TFLB...:-) The problem here is the word "likelihood". A numerical value, such as Y% can be the answer only if it is the result of a statistics, established on a number of past similar cases. Of course, such a statistics would be by itself an agreement, which would have to be disclosed. Furthermore, if that statistics gives some clue about the reason why your partner do (or hold) X in these Y% of the cases, that reason must be disclosed on the CC as a specific agreement. If you have no statistics, but only know that your parner is an occasional overbidder, the only true answer is to say so. Any percentage would be groundless, and MI. If you don't know whether your partner sticks to the CC or not, the only true answer is the CC itself. Regards Roger Eymard _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 29 02:57:48 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:57:48 -0500 Subject: [blml] Asking about opponents' skill level (was: Be alert but not alarmed) In-Reply-To: <000701c3cda4$7f469a90$6400a8c0@supersuperbe> Message-ID: On Sunday, Dec 28, 2003, at 19:41 US/Eastern, Roger Eymard wrote: > The problem here is the word "likelihood". A numerical value, such as > Y% can > be the answer only if it is the result of a statistics, established on > a > number of past similar cases. One is not allowed to estimate? > Of course, such a statistics would be by itself an agreement, which > would have > to be disclosed. I fail to see how this is so. > Furthermore, if that statistics gives some clue about the reason why > your partner do (or hold) X > in these Y% of the cases, that reason must be disclosed on the CC as a > specific agreement. Or this. > If you have no statistics, but only know that your parner is an > occasional > overbidder, the only true answer is to say so. Any percentage would be > groundless, and MI. If one has memories that say that in 3 of the last ten times the situation came up, partner did X, then the answer is 30%, even if one did not follow the rules of science and record each and every event and all pertinent data thereto. > If you don't know whether your partner sticks to the CC or not, the > only > true answer is the CC itself. No, the only true answer is "I don't know". From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Dec 29 09:01:52 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 10:01:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3FEFED80.1020205@hdw.be> Richard touches on a very important subject within the discussion of "no agreement". What will the TD rule when there is no agreement? (independent of the actual explanation at the table) richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > In "Cardinal Sins", David Bird wrote: > > >>"Four hearts," said the Abbot. >>Brother Xavier paused for a while. "No bid," he said >>finally. >>For a second or two the Abbot looked as if someone had >>stabbed him in the back. What in the name of the >>saints was Xavier thinking of? A jump from three >>diamonds to four hearts must be a cue bid. What else >>could it be? >>"My lead?" enquired Mr Ayling. "Now, tell me, what >>did this four-heart bid mean?" >>"Well, it doesn't come up very often," replied Brother >>Xavier, "but in Acol a negative response followed by a >>jump shows a one-loser suit." > > > [snip] > > >>The Abbot won the club lead in dummy. As feared, six >>diamonds was absolutely cold. He sent one of his >>blackest looks across the table. Semi-solid suit? He >>had never heard such nonsense. > > > [snip] > > >>The facts of the matter were laid before Ambrose >>Witherspoon, one of the EBU's more antiquated >>directors. He reached for the South curtain card. >>"Oh dear, ace-jack to four hearts," he said. "That's >>not normally regarded as a one-loser suit." He turned >>towards the Abbot. "Do you count that as a one-loser >>suit in your system?" >>"Of course not," replied the Abbot. "I intended my >>four-heart call as a cue bid agreeing diamonds." >>"Ah well," continued the director, "in that case I >>have to establish whether the explanation was wrong, >>in which case there may be an adjusted score, or >>whether it was the bid that was in error." >>The Abbot steeled himself. "My four-heart bid was a >>momentary aberration," he said. "The jump after a >>negative shows a one-loser suit; it's absolutely >>standard in Acol. My mistake, partner." > > > [snip] > > Richard James Hills comments: > > Tim rules that what the Abbot said to the TD was > accurate. But is this so? What, fundamentally, is a > *partnership* agreement. > Good question. > For the sake of argument, let us assume that the Abbot > and Brother Xavier have this explicit partnership > agreement: > > "If we have not specifically agreed otherwise, we play > Acol according to the textbook." > A valid assumption, but one which Richard puts in doubt later on! > Therefore, Brother Xavier (and Tim) *assumed* that the > table explanation given by Brother Xavier was an > accurate description of the Abbot-Xavier partnership > agreement. > I'll take their word for that being indeed the textbook system, hence apparently the monks' system. > However, the Abbot thought ".....a cue bid. What else > could it be?" and "Semi-solid suit.....never heard > such nonsense." Therefore, it is obvious that the > Abbot had never deigned to read the relevant chapter > of the Acol textbook. > So how could he have an agreement with his partner? > As a result, in my opinion, the correct explanation of > the Abbot's 4H call was "No agreement." I'll come back here later, let me first finish Richard's post: > As TD, I > would rule that Brother Xavier gave inadvertent MI. I I'll get back to that. > would also rule that the Abbot gave deliberate MI to > avoid an adjusted score, and I would invite the Abbot > to attend a meeting of the St Titus Law & Ethics > Committee. > Certainly. The Abbot lied to the Director, which is far worse than tell an untruth to the table. Brother Xavier told the table what he genuinely believed, and he cannot be blamed for it being untrue. Now back to the ruling. Brother Xavier gave MI. He told the table that the Abbot showed a solid heart suit, when the Abbot intended it as diamond fit showing. We have discarded the evidence that the Abbot made a misbid, so we are faced with a ruling of misinformation. Now I won't go into the details of the ruling itself, but there is one important decision to make: -What would the correct explanation have been? a) "In Standard Acol, this would be ..., but the Abbot never plays Acol to the book. I cannot tell you for certain what he has." b) "In the Abbot's eyes, this is a diamond fit with a secondary suit." You must be aware that this decision influences our ruling as to the likely outcomes of the hand. Now I am certain about my answer, but I will first deal with the answer many of you will be giving: a) After all, that corresponds to the "truth". Brother Xavier does not know if, when and how the Abbot will deviate from standard Acol, so how could he explain such to the table? But that ruling is dependent on us believing Brother Xavier !!! Just as much as the original ruling was faulty because it depended on believing the Abbot, so this second ruling would be faulty because it depends on believing Brother Xavier. After all we have no (or little) evidence for the agreement _not_ being as the Abbot indicates it is (by bidding it). Then why don't we simply rule that the correct information would be like that? Does that mean that we should never believe any players any more? No it doesn't. I don't think the original ruling was wrong. I think the original ruling was right, because it trusted the Abbot on his word, a word which did not contradict some piece of material evidence. We must be able to trust the players, as long as they make statements not at odds with material evidence. And sometimes the players are liars and cheats. And sometimes the cheats get away with it. Which is after all why we are so harsh on them if we catch them at it. > Happy new year, > May 2004 be even better for you than 2003, regardless of how good 2003 was! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Dec 29 09:09:54 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 10:09:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Asking about opponents' skill level (was: Be alert but not alarmed) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3FEFEF62.1060600@hdw.be> I don't entirely agree with Ed: Ed Reppert wrote: > > > The answer to "how likely is your partner to do (or hold) X" is "Y% > likely". TDs now have a problem. The steps to a score adjustment if one > is appropriate, start with "was there misinformation?" There is > misinformation here only if the likelihood that partner will do (or > hold) X is something other than Y%. I can't see any reasonable way for > the TD to determine whether this is the case. So I can't see any > reasonable way for the TD to make a ruling. For that reason, I think the > question itself is probably inappropriate. > > Ed is right in the first instance. The answer should be "Y% likely". The table answer will have been something like "Z% likely", with Z more often than not being 0%. Now if something really is 0% likely, then from the table evidence Zia could deduce there to be a 0% chance that this particular declarer has a particular card, then a particular line is appropriate. But if that same thing is even 5% likely, then the chance of it being the actual case (from other evidence, and, after all, Zia asked the question), jumps up to 70 or 80%. More than enough for the alternative line to be the one Zia would have chosen. So I believe that Ed is wrong: the question is appropriate and should be answered. Of course Zia should know that the chance of someone opening on 14 points when playing 15-17 is never 0%, but always 5%. He expects and answer somewhere in the order of 20%. But the cut-off point might lie around 10%. If he does not get the correct answer, he may well be damaged. > _______________________________________________ -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From H.W.Pieters@gasunie.nl Mon Dec 29 09:09:47 2003 From: H.W.Pieters@gasunie.nl (Pieters H.W.) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 10:09:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) Message-ID: Playing RKC I prefer not to play DOPI but DOPE/ROPE or DEPO/REPO (even/od= d) -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]Namens David Stevenson Verzonden: donderdag 25 december 2003 00:04 Aan: blml@rtflb.org Onderwerp: Re: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) Gordon Bower wrote >If I may offer one more variation on the RKC+DOPI question: > >I think it's perfectly obvious that "DOPI" implies "Double =3D first ste= p, >pass =3D second step, cheapest bid =3D third step, etc", and have a hard= time >imagining 5C meaning anything other than 2 keys without the queen. If it were perfectly obvious then why is it called something=20 different? DOPI means double =3D zero aces. It does *not* mean that=20 double =3D first step. Since this accident I have gone round and one thing is perfectly=20 obvious: people do not have an agreement what DOPI means with RKCB. It is very reasonable to play double =3D first step, pass =3D second a= nd=20 so on, but calling it DOPI is completely wrong. I have now agreed to=20 play DFPS and RFPS with partners who want to play this. >Then I realized something odd: what do the people who play 1430 call the= ir >convention over interference? THAT is quite sticky - they might play XX=3D= 1 >or 4 and still call it ROPI, or they might swap the names round to match >how the (normal) 5C and 5D bids are swapped. > >If I saw 1430 + DOPI (or 1430 + PODI) I would feel like I needed to ask = a >question, and feel quite aggrieved if I was told "no agreement" and the >opps guessed right. Maybe they won't guess right anyway. It seems crazy to me that DOPI=20 stands for double is not zero aces necessarily, pass is not one ace=20 necessarily. --=20 David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =3D( + )=3D Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _________________________________________________________________________= ___ 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 jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr Mon Dec 29 09:28:19 2003 From: jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 10:28:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) References: <3FEFED80.1020205@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001101c3cdee$8df04470$529e4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> Herman, This discussion works better without using words like liers and cheats. First DWS and now you. Bridge players just try to cope with laws they don't understand (and cannot understand IMO). If top TD's and top AC members consider the players at large as a bunch of crooks we will never get anywhere. What you and RJH write is although interesting totally incomprehensible for 99.9% of all bridge players. So before calling or considering people cheats and liars please first make simple laws. This means for starters clear definitions of 'agreement' and probably some related concepts. And my gut feeling says we cannot sustain the current black and white difference between misbid and MI. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 10:01 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) > Richard touches on a very important subject within the discussion of > "no agreement". What will the TD rule when there is no agreement? > (independent of the actual explanation at the table) > > richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > > > In "Cardinal Sins", David Bird wrote: > > > > > >>"Four hearts," said the Abbot. > >>Brother Xavier paused for a while. "No bid," he said > >>finally. > >>For a second or two the Abbot looked as if someone had > >>stabbed him in the back. What in the name of the > >>saints was Xavier thinking of? A jump from three > >>diamonds to four hearts must be a cue bid. What else > >>could it be? > >>"My lead?" enquired Mr Ayling. "Now, tell me, what > >>did this four-heart bid mean?" > >>"Well, it doesn't come up very often," replied Brother > >>Xavier, "but in Acol a negative response followed by a > >>jump shows a one-loser suit." > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > >>The Abbot won the club lead in dummy. As feared, six > >>diamonds was absolutely cold. He sent one of his > >>blackest looks across the table. Semi-solid suit? He > >>had never heard such nonsense. > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > >>The facts of the matter were laid before Ambrose > >>Witherspoon, one of the EBU's more antiquated > >>directors. He reached for the South curtain card. > >>"Oh dear, ace-jack to four hearts," he said. "That's > >>not normally regarded as a one-loser suit." He turned > >>towards the Abbot. "Do you count that as a one-loser > >>suit in your system?" > >>"Of course not," replied the Abbot. "I intended my > >>four-heart call as a cue bid agreeing diamonds." > >>"Ah well," continued the director, "in that case I > >>have to establish whether the explanation was wrong, > >>in which case there may be an adjusted score, or > >>whether it was the bid that was in error." > >>The Abbot steeled himself. "My four-heart bid was a > >>momentary aberration," he said. "The jump after a > >>negative shows a one-loser suit; it's absolutely > >>standard in Acol. My mistake, partner." > > > > > > [snip] > > > > Richard James Hills comments: > > > > Tim rules that what the Abbot said to the TD was > > accurate. But is this so? What, fundamentally, is a > > *partnership* agreement. > > > > Good question. > > > For the sake of argument, let us assume that the Abbot > > and Brother Xavier have this explicit partnership > > agreement: > > > > "If we have not specifically agreed otherwise, we play > > Acol according to the textbook." > > > > A valid assumption, but one which Richard puts in doubt later on! > > > Therefore, Brother Xavier (and Tim) *assumed* that the > > table explanation given by Brother Xavier was an > > accurate description of the Abbot-Xavier partnership > > agreement. > > > > I'll take their word for that being indeed the textbook system, hence > apparently the monks' system. > > > However, the Abbot thought ".....a cue bid. What else > > could it be?" and "Semi-solid suit.....never heard > > such nonsense." Therefore, it is obvious that the > > Abbot had never deigned to read the relevant chapter > > of the Acol textbook. > > > > So how could he have an agreement with his partner? > > > As a result, in my opinion, the correct explanation of > > the Abbot's 4H call was "No agreement." > > I'll come back here later, let me first finish Richard's post: > > > As TD, I > > would rule that Brother Xavier gave inadvertent MI. I > > I'll get back to that. > > > would also rule that the Abbot gave deliberate MI to > > avoid an adjusted score, and I would invite the Abbot > > to attend a meeting of the St Titus Law & Ethics > > Committee. > > > > Certainly. The Abbot lied to the Director, which is far worse than > tell an untruth to the table. Brother Xavier told the table what he > genuinely believed, and he cannot be blamed for it being untrue. > > Now back to the ruling. > > Brother Xavier gave MI. He told the table that the Abbot showed a > solid heart suit, when the Abbot intended it as diamond fit showing. > We have discarded the evidence that the Abbot made a misbid, so we are > faced with a ruling of misinformation. Now I won't go into the details > of the ruling itself, but there is one important decision to make: > -What would the correct explanation have been? > a) "In Standard Acol, this would be ..., but the Abbot never plays > Acol to the book. I cannot tell you for certain what he has." > b) "In the Abbot's eyes, this is a diamond fit with a secondary suit." > > You must be aware that this decision influences our ruling as to the > likely outcomes of the hand. > > Now I am certain about my answer, but I will first deal with the > answer many of you will be giving: a) > After all, that corresponds to the "truth". Brother Xavier does not > know if, when and how the Abbot will deviate from standard Acol, so > how could he explain such to the table? > But that ruling is dependent on us believing Brother Xavier !!! > Just as much as the original ruling was faulty because it depended on > believing the Abbot, so this second ruling would be faulty because it > depends on believing Brother Xavier. > > After all we have no (or little) evidence for the agreement _not_ > being as the Abbot indicates it is (by bidding it). Then why don't we > simply rule that the correct information would be like that? > > Does that mean that we should never believe any players any more? No > it doesn't. I don't think the original ruling was wrong. I think the > original ruling was right, because it trusted the Abbot on his word, a > word which did not contradict some piece of material evidence. We must > be able to trust the players, as long as they make statements not at > odds with material evidence. And sometimes the players are liars and > cheats. And sometimes the cheats get away with it. Which is after all > why we are so harsh on them if we catch them at it. > > > Happy new year, > > > > May 2004 be even better for you than 2003, regardless of how good 2003 > was! > > > -- > 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 roger-eymard@wanadoo.fr Mon Dec 29 09:42:15 2003 From: roger-eymard@wanadoo.fr (Roger Eymard) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 10:42:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Asking about opponents' skill level (was: Be alert but not alarmed) References: Message-ID: <000d01c3cdf0$0b0e2f70$6400a8c0@supersuperbe> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 3:57 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Asking about opponents' skill level (was: Be alert but not alarmed) > > On Sunday, Dec 28, 2003, at 19:41 US/Eastern, Roger Eymard wrote: > > > The problem here is the word "likelihood". A numerical value, such as > > Y% can > > be the answer only if it is the result of a statistics, established on > > a > > number of past similar cases. > > One is not allowed to estimate? It is always allowed to estimate, but an answer by a percentage "sounds" as grounded on accurate measurements, while an answer like "from time to time", "occasionally" or "rarely" does not. Perhaps only a matter of language habits, different from one country to another? > > Of course, such a statistics would be by itself an agreement, which > > would have > > to be disclosed. > > I fail to see how this is so. Sorry, my English is here at fault. I wanted to say that establishing such a statistics is a mean to acquire a knowledge of partner pertaining to Law 75 C. > > Furthermore, if that statistics gives some clue about the reason why > > your partner do (or hold) X > > in these Y% of the cases, that reason must be disclosed on the CC as a > > specific agreement. > > Or this. Law 75 again > > If you have no statistics, but only know that your parner is an > > occasional > > overbidder, the only true answer is to say so. Any percentage would be > > groundless, and MI. > > If one has memories that say that in 3 of the last ten times the > situation came up, partner did X, then the answer is 30%, even if one > did not follow the rules of science and record each and every event and > all pertinent data thereto. Assuming one only remember these last ten times, why not say "she did so 3 times in the last ten times I remember the situation occurred" ? That is the truth, while 30% may be MI, especially if partner remembers the last twelve times, where she did so 5 times... > > If you don't know whether your partner sticks to the CC or not, the > > only > > true answer is the CC itself. > > No, the only true answer is "I don't know". Right. I wanted to say "I don't know more than our CC" From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Dec 29 10:25:31 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 11:25:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <001101c3cdee$8df04470$529e4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> References: <3FEFED80.1020205@hdw.be> <001101c3cdee$8df04470$529e4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> Message-ID: <3FF0011B.8080101@hdw.be> Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Herman, > > This discussion works better without using words like liers and cheats. This time I was talking about the Abbot who, in the context of that story, was a liar and in that case certainly also a cheat. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Dec 29 10:29:16 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 11:29:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <001101c3cdee$8df04470$529e4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> References: <3FEFED80.1020205@hdw.be> <001101c3cdee$8df04470$529e4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> Message-ID: <3FF001FC.6030305@hdw.be> Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Herman, > > > What you and RJH write is although interesting totally incomprehensible for > 99.9% of all bridge players. So before calling or considering people cheats > and liars please first make simple laws. > > This means for starters clear definitions of 'agreement' and probably some > related concepts. And my gut feeling says we cannot sustain the current > black and white difference between misbid and MI. > Jaap, In one and the same post you ask for simpler laws _AND_ advocate a gray area between misbid and MI? I believe that what I am suggesting leads to simpler laws: If the Abbot bids 4He on a 4-card with diamond support, then that is his system, and brother Xavier's explanation is MI. (and I do realize there are exceptions to that rule, but they must be very clearly proven) > Jaap > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From blml@wellsborocomputing.com Mon Dec 29 11:04:30 2003 From: blml@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 06:04:30 -0500 Subject: [blml] Asking about opponents' skill level (was: Be alert but not alarmed) In-Reply-To: <3FEFEF62.1060600@hdw.be> References: <3FEFEF62.1060600@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 10:09:54 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > >Ed is right in the first instance. The answer should be "Y% likely". >The table answer will have been something like "Z% likely", with Z >more often than not being 0%. Now if something really is 0% likely, >then from the table evidence Zia could deduce there to be a 0% chance >that this particular declarer has a particular card, then a particular >line is appropriate. But if that same thing is even 5% likely, then >the chance of it being the actual case (from other evidence, and, >after all, Zia asked the question), jumps up to 70 or 80%. More than >enough for the alternative line to be the one Zia would have chosen. > This sort of thing worries me. I'm cursed with an *awful* short term memory. I have to work hard to remember the cards played during the current hand, and as regards what happened a hand or two ago, unless it was some especially memorable hand, then there's no chance. I wouldn't recognise the hand if you gave it me later in the session. Those people who can discuss every hand they played, in detail, after a session are beyond my comprehension. Once I've seen the next hand, with rare exceptions, I can barely remember my own hand, let alone partner's hand. If someone starts quizzing me about partner's regular habits, then obviously I can try to answer - but in the majority of cases, the answer will simply be that in the absence of specific agreement, I genuinely don't know. If asking this type of question becomes common (which is what concerns me), then how the hell do I convince a suspicious TD (this is not meant to refer *specifically* to Herman) that I genuinely don't know the answer, rather than I'm trying to hide what I know about our agreements? Our *agreed* system isn't a problem, if I get something I can sit down and read through then I can remember it just fine, but as regards (for example) what percentage of 11 HCP hands my partner will open a 12-14 NT on, I haven't got the slightest idea. She opens 1NT on an 11 count when she thinks her 11 count is really worth a 12 count. How do you prove that you have a god-awful short term memory? :-( Brian. From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Dec 29 12:25:57 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 13:25:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Asking about opponents' skill level (was: Be alert but not alarmed) In-Reply-To: References: <3FEFEF62.1060600@hdw.be> Message-ID: <3FF01D55.6000006@hdw.be> Brian voices a genuine concern, and as with all matters, he is completely right. There are two sides to every story, and one of the more difficult tasks of the TD and AC is to balance the two. Brian Meadows wrote: > > This sort of thing worries me. I'm cursed with an *awful* short > term memory. I have to work hard to remember the cards played > during the current hand, and as regards what happened a hand or > two ago, unless it was some especially memorable hand, then > there's no chance. I wouldn't recognise the hand if you gave it > me later in the session. Those people who can discuss every hand > they played, in detail, after a session are beyond my > comprehension. Once I've seen the next hand, with rare > exceptions, I can barely remember my own hand, let alone > partner's hand. > Not truely relevant to the discussion at hand, but granted. > If someone starts quizzing me about partner's regular habits, > then obviously I can try to answer - but in the majority of > cases, the answer will simply be that in the absence of specific > agreement, I genuinely don't know. > Now we all know that "I don't know" is not a good enough reason for not ruling MI. If our system includes convention "Alzheimer" then "I forgot" may well be true, but it is still MI. The question then is: what part of the answer to the question that is asked is information to which the asker is entitled, even when the responder truely "does not know"? > If asking this type of question becomes common (which is what > concerns me), then how the hell do I convince a suspicious TD > (this is not meant to refer *specifically* to Herman) that I I realize that. I hope my colleagues are even more suspicious than I sometimes am. > genuinely don't know the answer, rather than I'm trying to hide > what I know about our agreements? Our *agreed* system isn't a > problem, if I get something I can sit down and read through then > I can remember it just fine, but as regards (for example) what > percentage of 11 HCP hands my partner will open a 12-14 NT on, I > haven't got the slightest idea. She opens 1NT on an 11 count when > she thinks her 11 count is really worth a 12 count. > OK, but that is already an answer. And a true one. You do recall other partners of yours who would never open an 11 count. And others who do it far too often. That is the answer Zia was looking for. He can then remember the missing cards and see if it can be a good 11 or simply a "I don't care 11". The Y% in Ed's (?) post and mine were shorthand. I don't expect anyone to answer "in the past 2 years, 13% of his 1NT openers had only 14 points." > How do you prove that you have a god-awful short term memory? :-( > I forgot. ;-) > Brian. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From cibor@poczta.fm Mon Dec 29 13:03:39 2003 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:03:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Asking about opponents' skill level (was: Be alert but not alarmed) References: <3FEFEF62.1060600@hdw.be> Message-ID: <005001c3ce0c$4e46d460$f52a4cd5@c5s5d3> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" > So I believe that Ed is wrong: the question is appropriate and should > be answered. > This, in my view, misses the point entirely. As I wrote in my previous post the mere fact that some piece of information is relevant to the decision that I make doesn't automatically make this piece of information disclosable. Please provide me with the law number that forces me to reveal the sill level of my partner. When my expert partner leads a trump from Qxx and blows a trick then chances are that he had unatractive holdings in every other suit and I can base my actions on this assumption. If a palooka makes such a lead I can draw no conlcusions about his holdings in all the other suits - but so what? If asking about your opponents's skill level is legitimate then a) it is also legimate to ask dummy "what would your partner lead from this hand" and show him your hand b) it is also legitimate to ask dummy (e.g. behind screens) "Is your partner capable of exectuing a double squeeze? I need to know this because if he can then I can safely assume that he holds the hand X because with the habd Y he wouldn't have finessed the SJ at trick 5 but would have played for the squeeze instead". Konrad Ciborowski Krak=F3w, Poland From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Dec 29 14:02:22 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:02:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] No agreement, what does it mean In-Reply-To: <10D55448-3724-11D8-996A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <004c01c3cae8$ad9432e0$44284cd5@c5s5d3> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031229084618.00a06d50@pop.starpower.net> At 04:48 PM 12/25/03, Ed wrote: >On Thursday, Dec 25, 2003, at 08:11 US/Eastern, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > >> Also they can be sure that if the answer >>was erronous they will certainly have a MI ruling >>go in their favor. They *like* it. > >Everybody likes it when the cops slam the *other* guy up against the >wall. That doesn't make it right. Not everybody. There are those who wish to give as little information as possible within a strict reading of the Laws. When the director is called, they will argue that they have committed no legal infraction and should not be ruled against. They want to win the legal battle. There are those, like Herman, who wish to make their disclosure as simple and easy for their opponents as they can. To that end, they deliberately risk giving MI, while insuring that when the director is called their opponents will receive protection if they have done so. They are willing to lose the legal battle, and accept an adverse ruling with grace and civility. Then there are those who simply try to be as forthcoming as possible with the truth. Their objective is neither to "win" the director call nor to insure that their opponents do not "lose" it unfairly, but rather to avoid it in the first place. They do not want the MI ruling to go in their favor. They would prefer to see no MI ruling needed at all. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Dec 29 14:15:42 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:15:42 -0500 Subject: [blml] Questions, questions In-Reply-To: References: <00bf01c3cb33$0f9528b0$529e4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031229091050.00a028a0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:15 PM 12/25/03, Ed wrote: >On Thursday, Dec 25, 2003, at 17:04 US/Eastern, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > >>General bridge knowledge only has some meaning when you know your >>opponents. > >Granted. I think this is what has taken this discussion off the rails. To say that you need to "know your opponents" is to say that you expect the "knowledge" in question to be held by some opponents but not by others. Knowledge which a reasonable person expects will be held by some but not by others is, by definition, *not* "general". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Mon Dec 29 14:45:13 2003 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:45:13 -0500 Subject: [blml] So evident UI Message-ID: Hi BLMLrs, Last week in a local club: N E S W 1C P 1H X P ... East had a P in hand when West said something like: "He...I doubled.." !DIRECTOR According to ACBL bid-box regulations, a call is made when a bidding card is on table or near touching the table. So, technically, the P was not yet effective. But UI is so evident. What is the correct ruling: 1) Let auction go on, after telling E that he cannot use UI, and adjust the score (according to Law 16) if (and only if) the TD deems that UI damaged non-offenders. Who knows ? The N-S score could be better than 1HX. 2) Stop the auction to 1HX. According to what Law ? Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Dec 29 14:54:18 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:54:18 -0500 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031226170122.009f1850@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20031224080121.009ef730@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20031222085304.00a139f0@pop.starpower.net> <3FE7005C.3070200@hdw.be> <3FE7FAB5.6050803@hdw.be> <3FE85A8E.7070105@hdw.be> <3FE9494E.60909@hdw.be> <5.2.0.9.0.20031224080121.009ef730@pop.starpower.net> <6jqRkFHLph6$Ewg5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20031226170122.009f1850@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031229093740.00a03d90@pop.starpower.net> At 05:55 PM 12/26/03, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote > >>At 05:59 PM 12/24/03, David wrote: >> >>>Eric Landau wrote >> >>The example you gave was 4NT-X-5C playing DOPI/ROPI, but that is >>quite well-defined as showing two key cards, so I would have expected >>a clear consensus that one would simply reply to an inquiry by saying >>so. I don't see Herman's "school" as being applicable, as there >>would be no uncertainty as to the agreed meaning. I thought the >>example would be more applicable with the agreement being DEPO/REPO, >>in which 5C is not defined (or, at least, is likely to be an >>"impossible" call on most auctions) and would serve as a more >>transparent "no agreement" position. > > What do you mean by 'well-defined' and 'a clear consensus'? First, > I do not play it as two aces - and I was one of the players at the > table. Second, because of the problem, I have since polled people IRL > and on RGB, and it has emerged that there is no consensus. What > there is is a majority who thinks it shows 2-Q, and a minority who do not. > > You really cannot base rulings on what Eric and friends play, and > say this is a "consensus". The pair concerned [Smith-Stevenson] had > *no agreement* to play the sequence as 2-Q, and to assume they did > because of a non-consensus of other people is wrong. > > You do not like it because it does not follow your own ideas of how > the game is played? But that is one of the major problems in the > game today, and I expected BLML to be above that. Players do not > agree. Your consensus is very similar to the idea that Stayman shows > a 4-card major: every day people get upset because their opponents > bid Stayman without one. They think there is a 'consensus' that > Stayman shows a 4-card major: they are wrong. > > Any ruling assuming that Smith-Stevenson played a convention they > did not play because you erroneously believe there is a consensus > would be wrong. > > Unfortunately, I am logical in thought: apparently that makes me in > a minority. If you play [Re-]Double=second step, Pass=first step, > next bid=third step, it is idiotic to call it [re-]double=one, > pass=zero, so it never occurred to me that people were that > stupid. OK, now I know differently. but please do not assume that > everyone follows this illogical trail. It appears I wrote in ignorance. I am in total agreement with David's last paragraph. "ROPI" is an acronym for "redouble zero, pass one", and I would readily rule against anyone who described as "ROPI" an agreement in which redouble showed anything other than no aces/KCs or pass showed anything other than one. But I never imagined a method in which redouble showed none, pass showed one, and 5C showed anything other than two. {If you play 5C to show three, how do you show two?) I suggested that David's example was flawed, though, precisely because it introduced this issue, which I see as a red herring in the original discussion that could have been avoided by citing "REPO" rather than "ROPI". I trust that we all agree that a 5C response playing REPO has no agreed meaning, and the question on the table pertains to situations where we can stipulate (without getting sidetracked by discussions of who is "lying" and who is "cheating") that "no agreed meaning" is the literal truth. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Dec 29 15:11:41 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 16:11:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] No agreement, what does it mean In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031229084618.00a06d50@pop.starpower.net> References: <004c01c3cae8$ad9432e0$44284cd5@c5s5d3> <5.2.0.9.0.20031229084618.00a06d50@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <3FF0442D.8000009@hdw.be> A very helpful post, Eric, maybe useful in calming the tension somewhat. And perhaps for that particular reason I should not reply to it. But I can't resist. Eric Landau wrote: > At 04:48 PM 12/25/03, Ed wrote: > >> On Thursday, Dec 25, 2003, at 08:11 US/Eastern, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >> >>> Also they can be sure that if the answer >>> was erronous they will certainly have a MI ruling >>> go in their favor. They *like* it. >> >> >> Everybody likes it when the cops slam the *other* guy up against the >> wall. That doesn't make it right. > > > Not everybody. > > There are those who wish to give as little information as possible > within a strict reading of the Laws. When the director is called, they > will argue that they have committed no legal infraction and should not > be ruled against. They want to win the legal battle. > > There are those, like Herman, who wish to make their disclosure as > simple and easy for their opponents as they can. To that end, they > deliberately risk giving MI, while insuring that when the director is > called their opponents will receive protection if they have done so. > They are willing to lose the legal battle, and accept an adverse ruling > with grace and civility. > > Then there are those who simply try to be as forthcoming as possible > with the truth. Their objective is neither to "win" the director call > nor to insure that their opponents do not "lose" it unfairly, but rather > to avoid it in the first place. They do not want the MI ruling to go in > their favor. They would prefer to see no MI ruling needed at all. > > I accept that maybe I want to go too far in helping the opponents. But I don't accept that this means I will lose a MI battle. After all, if tell my opponents exactly what is in my partner's hand, they are not going to call the cops, are they? And if I happen to be wrong, then I will have lost the board already, so the MI will hardly matter. While the middle ground, who wish to avoid the MI battle, may not succeed in doing so. After all, when they say "no agreement" and their partner afterwards tells the table "I intended it as ... and hoped you would understand", they will see the TD. So while Eric is right in there being a middle ground (and who is ever willing to admit he's not on the middle ground ?), he's not completely accurate in the respective motives of the three camps. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Dec 29 15:16:24 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 16:16:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] So evident UI In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3FF04548.4080108@hdw.be> Laval Dubreuil wrote: > Hi BLMLrs, > > Last week in a local club: > > N E S W > 1C P 1H X > P ... > > East had a P in hand when West said something like: > "He...I doubled.." !DIRECTOR > > According to ACBL bid-box regulations, a call is made > when a bidding card is on table or near touching the > table. So, technically, the P was not yet effective. > But UI is so evident. > > What is the correct ruling: both: > > 1) Let auction go on, after telling E that he cannot > use UI, and adjust the score (according to Law 16) > if (and only if) the TD deems that UI damaged > non-offenders. Who knows ? The N-S score could be > better than 1HX. > this is the correct ruling. > 2) Stop the auction to 1HX. > According to what Law ? no law, just a simple consequence of the rest of the laws. I would tell East "you have not yet completed your call, so I must allow you to change it. But if you do, I will have no other option but to rule that you have used UI, and I will turn the score back to what would have happened if you had passed. Please do as you wish." > > Laval Du Breuil > Quebec City > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Mon Dec 29 15:19:18 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 16:19:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] So evident UI In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3ce1f$210464f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Laval Dubreuil > Last week in a local club: > > N E S W > 1C P 1H X > P ... > > East had a P in hand when West said something like: > "He...I doubled.." !DIRECTOR > > According to ACBL bid-box regulations, a call is made > when a bidding card is on table or near touching the > table. So, technically, the P was not yet effective. > But UI is so evident. No doubt about that. > What is the correct ruling: > > 1) Let auction go on, after telling E that he cannot > use UI, and adjust the score (according to Law 16) > if (and only if) the TD deems that UI damaged > non-offenders. Who knows ? The N-S score could be > better than 1HX. Correct. And this may become a matter of judgment where NS shall enjoy the benefit of any reasonable doubt. (Note that as described Pass by East is certainly not "an alternative that could have been suggested by the UI". > 2) Stop the auction to 1HX. Absolutely not! > According to what Law ? Law 16A2 And a happy New Year to all blml'ers Sven From svenpran@online.no Mon Dec 29 15:26:05 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 16:26:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] So evident UI In-Reply-To: <3FF04548.4080108@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000101c3ce20$13a5bc90$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael > Laval Dubreuil wrote: >=20 > > Hi BLMLrs, > > > > Last week in a local club: > > > > N E S W > > 1C P 1H X > > P ... > > > > East had a P in hand when West said something like: > > "He...I doubled.." !DIRECTOR > > > > According to ACBL bid-box regulations, a call is made > > when a bidding card is on table or near touching the > > table. So, technically, the P was not yet effective. > > But UI is so evident. > > > > What is the correct ruling: >=20 > both: >=20 > > > > 1) Let auction go on, after telling E that he cannot > > use UI, and adjust the score (according to Law 16) > > if (and only if) the TD deems that UI damaged > > non-offenders. Who knows ? The N-S score could be > > better than 1HX. > > >=20 > this is the correct ruling. >=20 > > 2) Stop the auction to 1HX. > > According to what Law ? >=20 > no law, just a simple consequence of the rest of the laws. > I would tell East "you have not yet completed your call, so I must > allow you to change it. But if you do, I will have no other option but > to rule that you have used UI, and I will turn the score back to what > would have happened if you had passed. Please do as you wish." You ought to be a bit more careful, don't you think? What if East afterwards demonstrates that Pass was never any alternative = and that he absent the UI would simply have been guilty of "fumbling around" = in the bid box? (Just to mention one reason for objection to your last = ruling). Regards Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Dec 29 15:46:39 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 16:46:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] So evident UI In-Reply-To: <000101c3ce20$13a5bc90$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c3ce20$13a5bc90$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3FF04C5F.5060007@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael >>Laval Dubreuil wrote: >> >> >>>Hi BLMLrs, >>> >>>Last week in a local club: >>> >>> N E S W >>>1C P 1H X >>>P ... >>> >>>East had a P in hand when West said something like: >>>"He...I doubled.." !DIRECTOR >>> >>>According to ACBL bid-box regulations, a call is made >>>when a bidding card is on table or near touching the >>>table. So, technically, the P was not yet effective. >>>But UI is so evident. >>> >>>What is the correct ruling: >> >>both: >> >> >>>1) Let auction go on, after telling E that he cannot >>> use UI, and adjust the score (according to Law 16) >>> if (and only if) the TD deems that UI damaged >>> non-offenders. Who knows ? The N-S score could be >>> better than 1HX. >>> >> >>this is the correct ruling. >> >> >>>2) Stop the auction to 1HX. >>> According to what Law ? >> >>no law, just a simple consequence of the rest of the laws. >>I would tell East "you have not yet completed your call, so I must >>allow you to change it. But if you do, I will have no other option but >>to rule that you have used UI, and I will turn the score back to what >>would have happened if you had passed. Please do as you wish." > > > You ought to be a bit more careful, don't you think? > yes. > What if East afterwards demonstrates that Pass was never any alternative and > that he absent the UI would simply have been guilty of "fumbling around" in > the bid box? (Just to mention one reason for objection to your last ruling). > I don't think that this was the case. Laval is not one to publish trick questions. I'm getting a little tired of people criticizing rulings on the basis that the ruler might have misunderstood the original question. When you're at the table, you know if he was fumbling in his bidding box or if he had made up his mind. Anyway, a regulation which rules that a call is made at some other point than when the caller made up his mind, is a silly ruling. I don't have to rule on those where I come from (perhaps because I'm on the committee that makes the regulations and I have succeeded in getting rid of most if not all stupid regulations). > Regards Sven > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From blml@wellsborocomputing.com Mon Dec 29 15:48:03 2003 From: blml@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 10:48:03 -0500 Subject: [blml] Asking about opponents' skill level (was: Be alert but not alarmed) In-Reply-To: <3FF01D55.6000006@hdw.be> References: <3FEFEF62.1060600@hdw.be> <3FF01D55.6000006@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 13:25:57 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > >The Y% in Ed's (?) post and mine were shorthand. I don't expect anyone >to answer "in the past 2 years, 13% of his 1NT openers had only 14 >points." > Yes, Herman, I understood that. If the only information ever required is to distinguish between a partner who is a slavish HCP-counter and one who knows how to value hands, then I have no problem at all with providing that information. However, I think it's the thin end of the wedge. I hope I'm wrong. Brian. From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Dec 29 16:04:52 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:04:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Asking about opponents' skill level (was: Be alert but not alarmed) In-Reply-To: References: <3FEFEF62.1060600@hdw.be> <3FF01D55.6000006@hdw.be> Message-ID: <3FF050A4.5070603@hdw.be> OK Brian, sorry for doubting you. Brian Meadows wrote: > On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 13:25:57 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > >>The Y% in Ed's (?) post and mine were shorthand. I don't expect anyone >>to answer "in the past 2 years, 13% of his 1NT openers had only 14 >>points." >> > > > Yes, Herman, I understood that. If the only information ever > required is to distinguish between a partner who is a slavish > HCP-counter and one who knows how to value hands, then I have no > problem at all with providing that information. > > However, I think it's the thin end of the wedge. I hope I'm > wrong. > Yes Brian, it is a thin end of a wedge. Why would that be a bad thing? Has anyone suggested that the wedge be driven deeper? I don't think so. Is this new, and not previously understood as law? I don't think so. Would it be a good thing for this wedge to be taken away? I don't think so. So yes, it is a thin wedge. And yes, it introduces some sort of problem as to how far the wedge can be driven. > > Brian. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 cibor@poczta.fm Mon Dec 29 17:23:30 2003 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 18:23:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] So evident UI References: <3FF04548.4080108@hdw.be> Message-ID: <00f201c3ce30$a4877a40$f52a4cd5@c5s5d3> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" > no law, just a simple consequence of the rest of the laws. > I would tell East "you have not yet completed your call, so I must > allow you to change it. But if you do, I will have no other option but > to rule that you have used UI, and I will turn the score back to what > would have happened if you had passed. Please do as you wish." I would add that even if East passes there still may be an UI case as West has UI that his partner passed not because he had a penalty pass but because he overlooked West's double. This may be significant especially for the opening lead. Konrad Ciborowski Krak=F3w, Poland From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 29 18:50:04 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 13:50:04 -0500 Subject: [blml] Asking about opponents' skill level (was: Be alert but not alarmed) In-Reply-To: <3FEFEF62.1060600@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Monday, Dec 29, 2003, at 04:09 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > Ed is right in the first instance. The answer should be "Y% likely". > The table answer will have been something like "Z% likely", with Z > more often than not being 0%. [snip] > So I believe that Ed is wrong: the question is appropriate and should > be answered. You have taken my scenario and turned it into a completely different one. In mine, the table answer is "Y% likely". Now, do you still say I'm wrong? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 29 18:56:20 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 13:56:20 -0500 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Monday, Dec 29, 2003, at 04:09 US/Eastern, Pieters H.W. wrote: > If it were perfectly obvious then why is it called something > different? DOPI means double = zero aces. It does *not* mean that > double = first step. "It is also possible to use Roman responses with DOPI or PODI. The first step shows 0 or 3 aces, the second step shows 1 or 4, while the first bid other than pass or double shows 2. Pairs that play Roman Keycard Blackwood would be well advised to discuss whether or not the trump king counts in responding after interference." -- The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge, 5th Edition. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 29 18:59:27 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 13:59:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <001101c3cdee$8df04470$529e4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> Message-ID: <20051A92-3A31-11D8-B29F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Dec 29, 2003, at 04:28 US/Eastern, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > This means for starters clear definitions of 'agreement' and probably > some > related concepts. Hear, hear! > And my gut feeling says we cannot sustain the current > black and white difference between misbid and MI. Perhaps not. There *is* a black and white difference, but it seems the TD will often despair of distinguishing which it is. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 29 19:02:52 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:02:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] Asking about opponents' skill level (was: Be alert but not alarmed) In-Reply-To: <000d01c3cdf0$0b0e2f70$6400a8c0@supersuperbe> Message-ID: <9A276AEC-3A31-11D8-B29F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Dec 29, 2003, at 04:42 US/Eastern, Roger Eymard wrote: > It is always allowed to estimate, but an answer by a percentage > "sounds" as > grounded on accurate measurements, while an answer like "from time to > time", > "occasionally" or "rarely" does not. > Perhaps only a matter of language habits, different from one country > to > another? Perhaps. If I were giving such an estimate, I'd word it "I'd say something like 30%" or "about 30%", which, I think, makes clear it's an estimate. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 29 19:08:55 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:08:55 -0500 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <3FF001FC.6030305@hdw.be> Message-ID: <72D9AB06-3A32-11D8-B29F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Dec 29, 2003, at 05:29 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > I believe that what I am suggesting leads to simpler laws: > If the Abbot bids 4He on a 4-card with diamond support, then that is > his system, and brother Xavier's explanation is MI. > > (and I do realize there are exceptions to that rule, but they must be > very clearly proven) The laws currently require us to rule MI rather than misbid "unless there is evidence to the contrary". So there are three situations: 1. There is evidence of MI, no evidence of misbid. 2. There is evidence of misbid, no evidence of MI. 3. There is evidence of both. According to the laws, in cases 1 and 2 the ruling is clear. But all the laws say of case 3 is that you are not *required* to rule MI. Herman, you want to change the laws so that in case 2 you *are* required to rule MI, unless the evidence of misbid is overwhelming. Maybe that would be a good change, maybe not. But it is *not* what the law currently says. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 29 19:11:13 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:11:13 -0500 Subject: [blml] Asking about opponents' skill level (was: Be alert but not alarmed) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Monday, Dec 29, 2003, at 06:04 US/Eastern, Brian Meadows wrote: > How do you prove that you have a god-awful short term memory? :-( You shouldn't have to - the bridge table is not a court of law, and no one's life or livelihood (well, except for pros, perhaps) is on the line. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 29 19:23:38 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:23:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] No agreement, what does it mean In-Reply-To: <3FF0442D.8000009@hdw.be> Message-ID: <81224F3A-3A34-11D8-B29F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Dec 29, 2003, at 10:11 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > After all, when they say "no agreement" and their partner afterwards > tells the table "I intended it as ... and hoped you would understand", > they will see the TD. Maybe partner ought to keep his mouth shut. :-) However, when he does not, his statement does *not* imply they had an agreement. Quite the opposite. It implies they didn't have an explicit agreement, but that the bidder hoped that his partner could work out what he was doing (I can accept that an expert pair might reasonably do this, but it seems to me that if either member of the pair is not an expert, doing it is foolish at best). Now whether they had an explicit agreement depends on what bidder expected his partner to base his "working out". General bridge knowledge= no implicit agreement. Previous partnership experience, or other explicit agreements= implicit agreement. So the TD should ask bidder on what he expect his partner to work it out. Will he ask that question? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 29 19:27:46 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:27:46 -0500 Subject: [blml] So evident UI In-Reply-To: <00f201c3ce30$a4877a40$f52a4cd5@c5s5d3> Message-ID: <14E92A20-3A35-11D8-B29F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Dec 29, 2003, at 12:23 US/Eastern, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > I would add that even if East passes there still may be an UI case > as West has UI that his partner passed not because he > had a penalty pass but because he overlooked West's double. > This may be significant especially for the opening lead. Whence comes this UI? Surely not simply from the fact that East had a pass card in his hand when West foolishly opened his mouth. From blml@wellsborocomputing.com Mon Dec 29 19:31:49 2003 From: blml@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:31:49 -0500 Subject: [blml] Asking about opponents' skill level (was: Be alert but not alarmed) In-Reply-To: <3FF050A4.5070603@hdw.be> References: <3FEFEF62.1060600@hdw.be> <3FF01D55.6000006@hdw.be> <3FF050A4.5070603@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:04:52 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > >Yes Brian, it is a thin end of a wedge. Why would that be a bad thing? > You answer the question yourself - see below. >Has anyone suggested that the wedge be driven deeper? No. Not *yet*. >Is this new, and not previously understood as law? I don't think so. Whether it's allowed for in TFLB or not, demanding a semi-quantitative account of partner's tendencies is certainly something I've not met up with before. Yes, that's just in my experience. No-one else's is mine to talk about. >Would it be a good thing for this wedge to be taken away? I don't >think so. > Hmm. Maybe I should try to illustrate my concerns by two example questions. 1) Does your partner stick strictly to 12-14 NT openers, or has she been known to promote good 11 counts? 2) Roughly how often will your partner promote an 11 count and open with a 12-14 NT? I have no problem at all with question 1). I have every problem with question 2) if "I do not know, probably every time she thinks the hand is really worth 12 HCP" is not going to be accepted as a valid answer. >So yes, it is a thin wedge. And yes, it introduces some sort of >problem as to how far the wedge can be driven. > There's your answer to your first question. Brian. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Dec 29 23:05:43 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 09:05:43 +1000 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations Message-ID: http://www.abf.com.au/members/alertingregs.html The provisional revised ABF Alert Regulations were introduced a few months ago, and suggestions for amendments were invited from interested parties. The finalised ABF Alert regs will take effect from 1st January 2004, and are available from the URL above. (I understand that the English Bridge Union is currently revising its own Alert regs. To avoid reinventing wheels, the EBU may wish to cannibalise some EBU-relevant parts of the new ABF Alert regs.) The discussions on blml sometimes prove worthwhile. Laurie Kelso, one of Australia's CTDs and chair of the ABF Alert regs drafting committee, is also a blml member. Therefore, some of the ABF Alert regs resolve quiddities raised in blml discussion. For example: >2.1.2 It is construed that an opening bid of 1C >or 1D which may contain less than 3 cards in the >opened suit does not indicate "willingness to >play" and hence such bids are conventional. > >2.1.3 Certain calls may not convey any meaning >e.g. the enforced 3C after a Lebensohl 2NT. Such >calls are construed as conventional. Happy new year, Richard James Hills -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From ardelm@bigpond.net.au Mon Dec 29 22:42:06 2003 From: ardelm@bigpond.net.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 09:42:06 +1100 Subject: [blml] Careless claim Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031230093256.00b6b618@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> The layout of the spade suit is as follows: A J 8 Q 7 4 3 5 2 K 10 9 6 Declarer is in 3 hearts. The opening lead is the 3 of spades, won in dummy with the 8. With 4 cards remaining, declarer has the 3 remaining spades and the only trump. She shows her hand "they're all there. Over to the Jack, Ace and then back to my hand." "Hang on says West, if you're playing the Jack, I'm playing the Queen." There is no doubt that declarer knew the Queen was out, and she "knew" that West had it from the opening lead. I have allowed the claim with a caution "in future just say ..'repeating the finesse' " Any contrary opinion? Happy New Year to all, Tony (Sydney) From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Mon Dec 29 22:49:22 2003 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 16:49:22 -0600 Subject: [blml] So evident UI Message-ID: Konrad Ciborowski: > I would add that even if East passes there still may be an UI case > as West has UI that his partner passed not because he > had a penalty pass but because he overlooked West's double. > This may be significant especially for the opening lead. Ed Reppert: > Whence comes this UI? Surely not simply from the fact that East had a > pass card in his hand when West foolishly opened his mouth. James Hudson: Obviously something about East's manner as he prepared to pass led West to believe that East had not seen the double card. This will be the source of the UI to West, if there is any. (There may be none; East may have a perfectly standard penalty leave-in.) _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Dec 29 23:08:51 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 18:08:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] So evident UI In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Monday, Dec 29, 2003, at 17:49 US/Eastern, James Hudson wrote: > (There may be none; East may > have a perfectly standard penalty leave-in.) That was my point. :-) From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Dec 30 00:14:31 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 10:14:31 +1000 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote: [big snip] >Australians who see no qualms in hiding behind >"no agreement" and refuse to elaborate. Richard James Hills replies: I will charitably assume that Herman's use of the words "hiding" and "refuse" were not intended to be a derogatory criticism of the ethics of the most prolific Aussie blmler. Perhaps the cognates of those words in Flemish have a more neutral meaning. Herman De Wael continued: >The kind of example I am talking of is the one >of a player bidding 2He in a sequence like 1NT >(2Cl) 2He and his partner refusing to tell >whether this shows spades, hearts or neither. >Even if it is true, saying that you have not >agreed on anything in this situation (without >revealing what you believe the default meaning >ought to be) is a kind of bridge I don't want >to be playing. Richard James Hills replies: For the record, it is the norm in Canberra for the sequence 1NT (2C) Dbl to be a penalty double, not a Stayman substitute. Therefore, it is the norm in Canberra for 1NT (2C) 2H to be a natural bid showing hearts. So, if I were playing for the first time with an unknown Canberra partner, and if the sequence 1NT (2C) 2H occurred, and if the visiting American pair of Marv and Alice asked for an explanation, this would be my reply: "We have no explicit agreement, since we are a new partnership. However, we have an implicit agreement that 2H is natural and non-forcing, since that is the popular method in Canberra." However, suppose that Marv and Alice invite me to visit America, where 50% of the population prefer to play "system on" after 1NT (2C) -> Double =3D Stayman 2D =3D transfer to hearts 2H =3D transfer to spades In my first session at the ACBL Nationals, I am playing with an unknown partner from Des Moines against an unknown partnership from Pocatello. I have carelessly failed to discuss with my Des Moines CHO whether or not we play "system on", the sequence 1NT (2C) 2H occurs, and my Pocatello RHO asks, "What is your partnership agreement about the meaning of 2H?" I do not know whether Des Moines is a hotbed of "system on", or whether Des Moines is a hotbed of "2H is natural and non-forcing". In that case, of course I will answer, "No agreement." It would be ridiculous for me to reveal what *I* "believe the default meaning ought to be" (natural and non-forcing), when what the *partnership* agreement means is what is the answer required by Law. Happy new year, RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Dec 30 00:46:04 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 10:46:04 +1000 Subject: [blml] Sloppy terminology (was Rulings "against") Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote: >I consider the TDs who regularly post to this list >as among the top directors in the field. I am told, >occasionally, that one should promote the attitude >that when a TD makes a ruling, he is not ruling >"against" one side or the other, he is (usually) >redressing damage or restoring equity. Yet here we >have two top directors talking about ruling "against" >each other. Is this merely sloppy terminology, or is >the advice I've been given hogwash? Richard James Hills replies: Agreed. In my opinion, loose lips sink ships. It is very easy for TDs using sloppy terminology to slip into sloppy ways of thought, and also to sloppily mislead blml readers about the underlying philosophy of the Laws. A more serious and dangerous use of sloppy terminology is the loose use of the word "cheating" by a TD (and blmler) to describe "Law 16 infraction". Michael Rosenberg wrote: >>The sad truth is that every player is guilty of some >>ethical misdemeanors, i.e., those of which the player >>is unaware (when he *is* aware, it's a felony). Once >>information has been transmitted, a player's >>judgement is affected. You cannot truthfully say, "I >>was always going to make that bid anyway", because >>you cannot *know* what you would have done. This >>claim is invalid even if you made your decision prior >>to partner's huddle, for two reasons: first, you may >>be unaware of how much the onset of the huddle >>crystallized the decision for you; secondly, and more >>important, *haven't you ever changed your mind?* Richard James Hills continues: As Michael Rosenberg notes, it is easy to deceive your self into an inadvertent infraction of Law 16. As a club TD, I have been at great pains to point out to our club's expert player (who gets over-irritated at club bunnies infracting Law 16), that use of UI is merely a technical infraction of Law, *not* "cheating". In my opinion, the awful majesty of the word "cheating" should be restricted to *deliberate* infractions of Law, such as infracting Law 73B2 or Law 74C5. Happy new year, RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Mon Dec 29 23:54:49 2003 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:54:49 -0600 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations Message-ID: Thanks to Richard for alerting us to the provisional revised ABF Alert Regulations. He adds that "the English Bridge Union . . . may wish to cannibalise some EBU-relevant parts of the new ABF Alert regs." Yes, but some ABF regs are better not imitated, such as requiring alerts for Stayman 2C and the 2D response (Reg 4.1). I would put Reg 10.1 in the same category; it reads: "Pairs who frequently forget their system or conventions have a damaging effect on the tournament. The Director is empowered by these Regulations to require such a pair to play a simpler system or convention. In extreme cases he may apply a procedural penalty under Law 90A." First, how frequently is "frequently"? Everybody forgets sometimes. 10.1 is objectionably vague in giving no guidance whatever about how where the line is to be drawn between acceptable and unacceptable forgetting. And even if it drew the line precisely, how is a reg against too much forgetting to be enforced? No one is going to keep track of the frequency of forgetting of every pair in a tournament. (And at the beginning of the tournament this would be ineffective in any case. Suppose on the very first board of the tournament the Director was called because a pair had had a system mix-up. This pair would then have a record of forgetting of one out of one--100%!) Second, what is this "damaging effect"? Usually the only damage is to the score of the forgetting pair; their error is self-punishing. It is rare for their opponents to be damaged; thus Director calls are rare. When they occur, the Director simply adjusts the score in the opponents' favor. WTP? Maybe I would prefer to play against competent players who did not commit random stupidities, handing out tops to undeserving opponents. Forgetting one's agreements is such a random stupidity. But there are plently of other forms--why not just have a regulation against bad play? Besides, I count on the bad play of my opponents; otherwise I'd never win anything! Finally, let me mention that the main occasion for forgetting in my usual partnership is that we have a lot of agreements (mostly treatments rather than conventions) about cases that very seldom arise. We could cut 'way down on our forgetting if we simply canceled all these seldom-arising agreements. Then when such an occasion did arise we would reply to inquiry: "We have no agreement." But why would this be better than having an agreement that we had a fair probability of forgetting? I suggest that we forget about trying to punish forgetting. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Dec 30 01:35:43 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 11:35:43 +1000 Subject: [blml] Asking about opponents' skill level (was: Be alert but not alarmed) Message-ID: Konrad Ciborowski asked: >Please provide me with the law number >that forces me to reveal the skill level of >my partner? Richard James Hills recalls: There was a simlar issue discussed on blml some time ago. Are you required to answer the question: "What system are your team-mates playing?" While it is information that you are aware of, Edgar Kaplan ruled that it is *not* entitled information for the opponents, as this particular information about the methods of your team-mates is not required to be revealed by Law 75A. Similarly, partner's skill level is intrinsic, partner's skill level is not defined by mutual partnership agreement, and so partner's skill level need not be revealed pursuant to Law 75A. Happy new year, RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From john@asimere.com Tue Dec 30 00:40:45 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 00:40:45 +0000 Subject: [blml] So evident UI In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , Ed Reppert writes > >On Monday, Dec 29, 2003, at 17:49 US/Eastern, James Hudson wrote: > >> (There may be none; East may >> have a perfectly standard penalty leave-in.) > >That was my point. :-) sheesh, if that were the case the question wouldn't have been asked :) > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Tue Dec 30 00:41:35 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 00:41:35 +0000 Subject: [blml] Careless claim In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031230093256.00b6b618@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031230093256.00b6b618@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: In article <5.2.0.9.0.20031230093256.00b6b618@pop- server.bigpond.net.au>, Tony Musgrove writes > >The layout of the spade suit is as follows: > > A J 8 > >Q 7 4 3 5 2 > > K 10 9 6 > > >Declarer is in 3 hearts. The opening lead is >the 3 of spades, won in dummy with the 8. > >With 4 cards remaining, declarer has the >3 remaining spades and the only trump. >She shows her hand "they're all there. Over >to the Jack, Ace and then back to my hand." > >"Hang on says West, if you're playing the Jack, >I'm playing the Queen." > >There is no doubt that declarer knew the Queen >was out, and she "knew" that West had it >from the opening lead. > >I have allowed the claim with a caution "in future >just say ..'repeating the finesse' " Concur. John > >Any contrary opinion? > >Happy New Year to all, > >Tony (Sydney) > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Tue Dec 30 00:46:10 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 00:46:10 +0000 Subject: [blml] Sloppy terminology (was Rulings "against") In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > > > >Ed Reppert wrote: > >>I consider the TDs who regularly post to this list >>as among the top directors in the field. I am told, >>occasionally, that one should promote the attitude >>that when a TD makes a ruling, he is not ruling >>"against" one side or the other, he is (usually) >>redressing damage or restoring equity. Yet here we >>have two top directors talking about ruling "against" >>each other. Is this merely sloppy terminology, or is >>the advice I've been given hogwash? > >Richard James Hills replies: > >Agreed. In my opinion, loose lips sink ships. It is >very easy for TDs using sloppy terminology to slip >into sloppy ways of thought, and also to sloppily >mislead blml readers about the underlying philosophy >of the Laws. > >A more serious and dangerous use of sloppy terminology >is the loose use of the word "cheating" by a TD (and >blmler) to describe "Law 16 infraction". I *do not* use the word 'cheat' sloppily. I *do* use it as part of TD- speak with my peers when I'm trying to consult and need to bring my fellow TD up to speed as quickly as possible. Neither he nor I would consider the player in question a cheat, and we would not be using this word in the ear-shot of *any* player. If I had considered the player was a cheat, he would already be outside the playing area. cheers john > >Michael Rosenberg wrote: > >>>The sad truth is that every player is guilty of some >>>ethical misdemeanors, i.e., those of which the player >>>is unaware (when he *is* aware, it's a felony). Once >>>information has been transmitted, a player's >>>judgement is affected. You cannot truthfully say, "I >>>was always going to make that bid anyway", because >>>you cannot *know* what you would have done. This >>>claim is invalid even if you made your decision prior >>>to partner's huddle, for two reasons: first, you may >>>be unaware of how much the onset of the huddle >>>crystallized the decision for you; secondly, and more >>>important, *haven't you ever changed your mind?* > >Richard James Hills continues: > >As Michael Rosenberg notes, it is easy to deceive your >self into an inadvertent infraction of Law 16. As a >club TD, I have been at great pains to point out to our >club's expert player (who gets over-irritated at club >bunnies infracting Law 16), that use of UI is merely a >technical infraction of Law, *not* "cheating". > >In my opinion, the awful majesty of the word "cheating" >should be restricted to *deliberate* infractions of >Law, such as infracting Law 73B2 or Law 74C5. > >Happy new year, > >RJH >------------------------------------------------------------------------= -------- >------ > Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please >advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This >email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileg= ed >and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibite= d. >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 Indigeno= us >Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations unde= r the >Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). >------------------------------------------------------------------------= -------- >------ > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --=20 John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From svenpran@online.no Tue Dec 30 01:02:58 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 02:02:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Careless claim In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031230093256.00b6b618@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <000001c3ce70$ab09efc0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Tony Musgrove > The layout of the spade suit is as follows: >=20 > A J 8 >=20 > Q 7 4 3 5 2 >=20 > K 10 9 6 >=20 >=20 > Declarer is in 3 hearts. The opening lead is > the 3 of spades, won in dummy with the 8. >=20 > With 4 cards remaining, declarer has the > 3 remaining spades and the only trump. > She shows her hand "they're all there. Over > to the Jack, Ace and then back to my hand." >=20 > "Hang on says West, if you're playing the Jack, > I'm playing the Queen." >=20 > There is no doubt that declarer knew the Queen > was out, and she "knew" that West had it > from the opening lead. >=20 > I have allowed the claim with a caution "in future > just say ..'repeating the finesse' " >=20 > Any contrary opinion? This is a perfect example of where I shall rule "irrational" play (regardless of class of player) by declarer on the suggested defense. When declarer states that she plays to the Jack and then the Ace and = back to the King it is irrational not to cover the Queen if played with the Ace = and then continue with the Jack and finally back to the King. (Had she not explicitly mentioned the Jack with her initial statement I would most likely not have allowed her to "remember" the outstanding = Queen when a defender objects to the claim). Regards Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Dec 30 02:27:50 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:27:50 +1000 Subject: [blml] Sloppy terminology (was Rulings "against") Message-ID: Richard James Hills: [snip] >>>very easy for TDs using sloppy terminology to slip >>>into sloppy ways of thought [snip] John (MadDog) Probst: >>I *do not* use the word 'cheat' sloppily. I *do* use >>it as part of TD-speak with my peers when I'm trying >>to consult and need to bring my fellow TD up to speed >>as quickly as possible. Neither he nor I would consider >>the player in question a cheat, and we would not be >>using this word in the ear-shot of *any* player. >> >>If I had considered the player was a cheat, he would >>already be outside the playing area. cheers john Richard James Hills: My apologies for any unintended personal criticism. My poorly phrased posting was merely trying to raise the point that habitual use of inapposite words can affect modes of thought. For example, see attached. Happy new year, RJH * * * >In 1972 two sociologists at Drake University, >Joseph Schneider and Sally Hacker, decided to >test the hypothesis that *man* is generally >understood to embrace *woman*. Some three >hundred college students were asked to select >from magazines and newspapers a variety of >pictures that would appropriately illustrate the >different chapters of a sociology textbook being >prepared for publication. Half the students >were assigned chapter headings like "Social >Man", "Industrial Man", and "Political Man". >The other half were given different but >corresponding headings like "Society", >"Industrial Life", and "Political Behaviour". >Analysis of the pictures selected revealed that >in the minds of students of both sexes use of >the word *man* evoked, to a statistically >significant degree, images of males only - >whereas the corresponding headings without *man* >evoked images of both males and females. In >some instances the differences reached >magnitudes of 30 to 40 per cent. The authors >concluded, "This is rather convincing evidence >that when you use the word *man* generically, >people do tend to think male, and tend not to >think female." Source: Casey Miller & Kate Swift, Words and Women -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Dec 30 03:11:20 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:11:20 +1000 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations Message-ID: James Hudson: >Thanks to Richard for alerting us to the provisional >revised ABF Alert Regulations. Richard James Hills: Correction. The regs were provisional a few months ago. The regs are now final, and presumably will not be amended again before the next edition of the Laws is published. James Hudson: >He adds that "the English Bridge Union . . . may >wish to cannibalise some EBU-relevant parts of the >new ABF Alert regs." > >Yes, but some ABF regs are better not imitated, such >as requiring alerts for Stayman 2C and the 2D >response (Reg 4.1). Richard James Hills: I (and an Australian CTD) agree that alerting the almost universally used Stayman convention is silly. The basic purpose of the Alert system is to wake opponents up to the fact that something unusual is occurring, and Stayman is not unusual. However, by requiring *all* conventional calls to be either alertable or self-alertable, the Aussie Alert regs do achieve an enviable simplicity, and therefore are more easily remembered than the complex ACBL Alert regs. James Hudson: >I would put Reg 10.1 in the same category; it reads: > >"Pairs who frequently forget their system or >conventions have a damaging effect on the tournament. >The Director is empowered by these Regulations to >require such a pair to play a simpler system or >convention. In extreme cases he may apply a >procedural penalty under Law 90A." > >First, how frequently is "frequently"? Everybody >forgets sometimes. Richard James Hills: Australia has partially adopted the WBF Code of Practice, which states that: "In particular the WBF wishes to stress that a player who forgets his convention, misbids or misuses it, is not subject to automatic penalty. It is envisaged that a procedural penalty will only be applied in aggravated circumstances, as for example misuse several times repeated." Therefore, I confidently conclude that the word "frequently" does *not* mean "sometimes". James Hudson: >10.1 is objectionably vague in giving no guidance >whatever about how where the line is to be drawn >between acceptable and unacceptable forgetting. And >even if it drew the line precisely, how is a reg >against too much forgetting to be enforced? No one >is going to keep track of the frequency of forgetting >of every pair in a tournament. [big snip] Richard James Hills: The pragmatic "keeping track" objection is not valid. It is likely that forgetting will result in a TD call. If the same pair's misbids result in several TD calls, the TD will be well aware of that pair's forgetting frequency. However, my qualms about this reg 10.1 are more fundamental. In my opinion, this reg is of doubtful Lawfulness. Law 40A: "A player may make any call....." Law 75 footnote: "East-West did receive an accurate description of the North-South agreement; they have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands." There is a prima facie case that reg 10.1 is a direct infraction of Law 40A and the Law 75 footnote. But, if appropriately applied after truly "frequent" forgetfulness, in my opinion reg 10.1 may be both Lawful and desirable. Suppose that partnership A-B have an explicit agreement that convention H promises hand Y. Suppose that player B continually misbids convention H, with player B always holding hand Z instead. In my opinion, the notional explicit agreement of Y has been over-ridden by the actual implicit agreement of Z. In that case, if A explains Y, it is the infraction of MI, and the TD can Lawfully prevent any such future MI infractions by requiring the A-B partnership to drop convention H from their notional agreements. Happy new year, RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Dec 30 04:10:15 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:10:15 +1000 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) Message-ID: >>>Herman De Wael quodlibertarianated: >>------------------ ?x/ -------------------- In "A Dictionary of the English Language", London 1755, Samuel Johnson wrote: >>>>Quodlibertarian -> One who talks or disputes on any >>>>subject; [from] quodlibet, a nice point; a subtilty. (Quoted in "The Word Museum", collected by Jeffrey Kacirk) >>>Therefore, if Herman were an Aussie TD, his advice >>>to players to lie about undiscussed calls would be >>>an infraction of Law 40B and Law 81B2. >>> >>>Season's greetings, >>> >>>RJH >>+=3D+ My judgement is that Herman, bless his little >>cotton socks, is infinitely more adept with his quiet >>persistence at getting this fraternity frothing at the >>mouth than any of those blustering, choleric >>subscribers who attempt to shock us, or insult us, >>into outrage. >> A very Merry Christmas to you, Herman, and >>thank you for the entertainment. >> And warm festive greetings to all our readers. >> >> ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ >"How did you fall in, Eeyore?" asked Rabbit, as he >dried him with Piglet's handkerchief. >"I didn't," said Eeyore. >"But how--" >"I was BOUNCED," said Eeyore. >"Oo," said Roo excitedly, "did somebody push you?" >"Somebody BOUNCED me. I was just thinking by the side >of the river--thinking, if any of you know what that >means--when I received a loud BOUNCE." >"Oh, Eeyore!" said everybody. >"Are you sure you didn't slip?" asked Rabbit wisely. >"Of course I slipped. If you're standing on the >slippery bank of a river, and somebody BOUNCES you >loudly from behind, you slip. What did you think I did?" >"But who did it?" asked Roo. >Eeyore didn't answer. >"I expect it was Herman," said Piglet nervously. Happy new year to Tigger and other blmlers, Eeyore -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Dec 30 06:53:59 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:53:59 +1000 Subject: [blml] No agreement, what does it mean Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >Suppose we could create a culture in which > >(1) people examine CCs *first* when they want >answers Richard James Hills: Sometimes a question saves time, if the CC contains highly complex detail to search through (such as mine does). Caveat -> Of course, I am totally opposed to what happened to a blmler's novice partner, when a more experienced opponent of the novice harassed the novice with questions, and refused to look at the available CC instead. Indeed, at the table, I make a point of asking a minimum or sub-minimum number of questions about a novice's system, so as to avoid flustering them. Ed Reppert: >(2) they consider their own "general bridge >knowledge" second Richard James Hills: I would reword this point as, "consider your own general knowledge of the opponents second". If you are playing bridge against unknown opponents from an unknown bridge culture, then anything could be true of their style. For example -> Canberra unusually contains a number of duplicate bridge clubs which are not affiliated to the Australian Bridge Federation. The biggest of these, the Grand Slam Bridge Club, is a commercial franchised operation. As a result of the nature of the Grand Slam club, its members very rarely compete against members of ABF-affiliated clubs. The marsupial predator, the Tasmanian Devil, was able to evolve into its ecological niche due to Tasmania's isolation from the rest of the world. Similarly, the bidding systems at the Canberra Grand Slam club were able to evolve in isolation from the normal bidding systems in the rest of Australia. I played against a Grand Slam pair when they blue-moon decided to play at the Canberra Bridge Club. They informed me that they played 5-card majors with better minor. But they informed me that singleton ace of diamonds was better than four low clubs, so they would open 1D with that honour dispersion. It is my "general knowledge" that better minor is longer minor, but that would not have been a good rule of thumb to avoid a questioning of these particular opponents about *their* general knowledge. Of course, if I had been playing against a pair who had played at the Canberra Bridge Club since they took beginners' classes there, I would be much more confident in my estimation of what their general knowledge was. Ed Reppert: >(3) they ask immediate questions of specific >alerted calls *only* after (1), (2), and a >consideration of whether or not the answer is >likely to affect their immediate action - not >asking if it will not Richard James Hills: Agree that (3) is often good strategy - too many questions often give too much AI to the opposing declarer. Disagree that (3) is good future Law. I support Ton's view over Grattan's view about the desirability of permitting a player to discover the opponents' agreements at any time. Ed Reppert: >(4) in all other cases, they ask, IAW L20, for >an explanation of the auction to that point >(which I would envision as usually at the end of >the auction). Richard James Hills: I agree that the traditional query made just before the opening lead should be about *all* of the auction - asking about only a specific call is far too likely to generate specific UI for the partner of the opening leader. Ed Reppert: >Would this help? If so, how do we create such a >culture? If not, why not?" Richard James Hills: I support those parts of Ed Reppert's package which enhance the implementation of full disclosure, and the prevention of unnecessary UI. I have qualms about those parts of Ed's package which, in my opinion, may place barriers in the way of the provision of full disclosure. Happy new year, RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Dec 30 06:11:58 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 01:11:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <13228124-3A8F-11D8-B29F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Dec 29, 2003, at 22:11 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > In that case, if A explains Y, it is the infraction of > MI, and the TD can Lawfully prevent any such future MI > infractions by requiring the A-B partnership to drop > convention H from their notional agreements. Which law allows a TD to tell a pair what agreement they are or are not permitted to have (assuming their agreements are all legal IAW SO regulations)? From wayne@ebridgenz.com Tue Dec 30 08:19:38 2003 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:19:38 +1300 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c3cead$b9671330$b3ce36d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au [mailto:richard.hills@immi.gov.au] > Sent: Tuesday, 30 December 2003 3:11 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations > But, if appropriately applied after truly "frequent" > forgetfulness, in my opinion reg 10.1 may be both > Lawful and desirable. > > Suppose that partnership A-B have an explicit agreement > that convention H promises hand Y. Suppose that player > B continually misbids convention H, with player B > always holding hand Z instead. In my opinion, the > notional explicit agreement of Y has been over-ridden > by the actual implicit agreement of Z. If A still expects and insists on Y then this is an implicit disagreement not an agreement. Wayne From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Dec 30 09:36:56 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 10:36:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3FF14738.2080102@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > "My partner is showing spades" is a deception? > aaaaaaarrrhhhhhh !!!!! > > * * * > > "My partner is showing spades" is a deception if > your partner merely has spades, but is not > showing spades. > yes it is, but I meant that he was actually showing spades. If he has spades, and he intends to show them by bidding hearts, then how can "he is showing spades" be a deception? I have not said "by an agreement that we have written down, that heart bid shows spades". That might be a lie. I have said "my partner is trying to tell me he has spades". That is not a lie. And it is certainly not a deception. > Happy new year, > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Dec 30 09:49:20 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 10:49:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3FF14A20.509@hdw.be> Richard, you really should know better: richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > [big snip] > too big, because you left out: some American and > >>Australians who see no qualms in hiding behind >>"no agreement" and refuse to elaborate. > > > Richard James Hills replies: > > I will charitably assume that Herman's use of > the words "hiding" and "refuse" were not > intended to be a derogatory criticism of the > ethics of the most prolific Aussie blmler. If you are among those who wish to hide and refuse, then I have no qualms in calling that derogatory criticism. Otherwise, I have no intention of derogatoring anybody. > Perhaps the cognates of those words in Flemish > have a more neutral meaning. > No they don't. I shall not hide behind English not being my main language. > Herman De Wael continued: > > >>The kind of example I am talking of is the one >>of a player bidding 2He in a sequence like 1NT >>(2Cl) 2He and his partner refusing to tell >>whether this shows spades, hearts or neither. >>Even if it is true, saying that you have not >>agreed on anything in this situation (without >>revealing what you believe the default meaning >>ought to be) is a kind of bridge I don't want >>to be playing. > > > Richard James Hills replies: > Why do you believe you need to reply to this? Do you believe I have any other opinions about the three examples below? Have I not always maintained that it is possible for a pair to have "no agreement", but that it is far more infrequent than some people seem to believe. You say it yourself: you need a partner from half way accross the world, in an otherwise to you unknown location. > For the record, it is the norm in Canberra for > the sequence 1NT (2C) Dbl to be a penalty double, > not a Stayman substitute. Therefore, it is the > norm in Canberra for 1NT (2C) 2H to be a natural > bid showing hearts. > The mere fact that you need to explain this is a fine example as to why "no agreement" is almost always incomplete information. > So, if I were playing for the first time with an > unknown Canberra partner, and if the sequence > 1NT (2C) 2H occurred, and if the visiting > American pair of Marv and Alice asked for an > explanation, this would be my reply: > > "We have no explicit agreement, since we are a > new partnership. However, we have an implicit > agreement that 2H is natural and non-forcing, > since that is the popular method in Canberra." > Which is as it should be. I'm not going to ask what the difference is with my reply: "natural and non-forcing". Are you not almost 100% certain that your explanation is correct? Do Marv and Alice have any need for the information that you have not actually discussed this but rather rely on Canberra standard? Is your reliance on Canberra standard not part of an explicit agreement rather than an implicit one? What I mean by that last statement is, if you had said "let's play Canberra Standard", does that not make all parts of CS explicitely agreed agreements? > However, suppose that Marv and Alice invite me > to visit America, where 50% of the population > prefer to play "system on" after 1NT (2C) -> > > Double = Stayman > 2D = transfer to hearts > 2H = transfer to spades > > In my first session at the ACBL Nationals, I am > playing with an unknown partner from Des Moines > against an unknown partnership from Pocatello. > > I have carelessly failed to discuss with my > Des Moines CHO whether or not we play "system > on", the sequence 1NT (2C) 2H occurs, and my > Pocatello RHO asks, "What is your partnership > agreement about the meaning of 2H?" > > I do not know whether Des Moines is a hotbed > of "system on", or whether Des Moines is a > hotbed of "2H is natural and non-forcing". > > In that case, of course I will answer, "No > agreement." It would be ridiculous for me to > reveal what *I* "believe the default meaning > ought to be" (natural and non-forcing), when > what the *partnership* agreement means is what > is the answer required by Law. > Of course! > Happy new year, > > RJH -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Dec 30 11:29:24 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:29:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3FF16194.1080101@hdw.be> When saying I would not hide behind ignorance of the English language, I was not prepared for a barrage such as this: richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > >>>>Herman De Wael quodlibertarianated: > > >>>------------------ ?x/ -------------------- > > > In "A Dictionary of the English Language", London 1755, > Samuel Johnson wrote: > > >>>>>Quodlibertarian -> One who talks or disputes on any >>>>>subject; [from] quodlibet, a nice point; a subtilty. > > > (Quoted in "The Word Museum", collected by Jeffrey Kacirk) > Well, what is the BLML about then? Am I alone in wanting to join in every discussion? Do I join in every discussion? > >>>>Therefore, if Herman were an Aussie TD, his advice >>>>to players to lie about undiscussed calls would be >>>>an infraction of Law 40B and Law 81B2. >>>> >>>>Season's greetings, >>>> >>>>RJH > > >>>+=+ My judgement is that Herman, bless his little >>>cotton socks, is infinitely more adept with his quiet >>>persistence at getting this fraternity frothing at the >>>mouth than any of those blustering, choleric >>>subscribers who attempt to shock us, or insult us, >>>into outrage. I read that one originally and now again and the irony escapes me. What are you trying to say, Grattan? Do I irritate you with my persistence? >>> A very Merry Christmas to you, Herman, and >>>thank you for the entertainment. >>> And warm festive greetings to all our readers. >>> >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > >>"How did you fall in, Eeyore?" asked Rabbit, as he >>dried him with Piglet's handkerchief. >>"I didn't," said Eeyore. >>"But how--" >>"I was BOUNCED," said Eeyore. >>"Oo," said Roo excitedly, "did somebody push you?" >>"Somebody BOUNCED me. I was just thinking by the side >>of the river--thinking, if any of you know what that >>means--when I received a loud BOUNCE." >>"Oh, Eeyore!" said everybody. >>"Are you sure you didn't slip?" asked Rabbit wisely. >>"Of course I slipped. If you're standing on the >>slippery bank of a river, and somebody BOUNCES you >>loudly from behind, you slip. What did you think I did?" >>"But who did it?" asked Roo. >>Eeyore didn't answer. >>"I expect it was Herman," said Piglet nervously. > And here again, I must admit to a little piece of ignorence. I never read Winnie the Pooh, but it is the next one of the BBC Big Read Top-21 that I'm going to tackle. > > Happy new year to Tigger and other blmlers, > > Eeyore > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Dec 30 11:37:30 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:37:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] No agreement, what does it mean In-Reply-To: <81224F3A-3A34-11D8-B29F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <81224F3A-3A34-11D8-B29F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <3FF1637A.3090007@hdw.be> Ed, Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Monday, Dec 29, 2003, at 10:11 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> After all, when they say "no agreement" and their partner afterwards >> tells the table "I intended it as ... and hoped you would understand", >> they will see the TD. > > > Maybe partner ought to keep his mouth shut. :-) I do notice the smiley and I do believe you have not the slightest inkling of really suggesting this. > However, when he does > not, his statement does *not* imply they had an agreement. Well, that is the question, is it not? > Quite the > opposite. It implies they didn't have an explicit agreement, but that > the bidder hoped that his partner could work out what he was doing And when he does, does that not make for an agreement? > (I > can accept that an expert pair might reasonably do this, but it seems to > me that if either member of the pair is not an expert, doing it is > foolish at best). Yesterday, the bidding went : 1Di - 1NT - pass I bid 2Di. Partner converted to hearts. We had no agreements about this auction, but afterwards, the whole table smiled when I said "luckily I had hearts, I don't know what I would have done with spades". I don't care whether you call this "agreement" explicit or implicit, but there must have been something between us to realize that I could not have been bidding on diamonds. > Now whether they had an explicit agreement depends on > what bidder expected his partner to base his "working out". General > bridge knowledge= no implicit agreement. No, I'd rather say an explicit one. Not one that one needs to tell the opponent, but an agreement nevertheless ! > Previous partnership > experience, or other explicit agreements= implicit agreement. Sorry Ed, you've lost me here: an explicit agreement is an implicit agreement? > So the TD > should ask bidder on what he expect his partner to work it out. Will he > ask that question? > Yes, I will. I will try to find out on what basis both players reached the similar conclusion. If they have some common ground, and they have reached the same conclusion, then I have no qualms about calling them in "agreement". > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Dec 30 12:31:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:31 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > "If we have not specifically agreed otherwise, we play > Acol according to the textbook." I think this should be "Standard Acol unless our experience or specific agreements say otherwise". This, surely, is what we mean when we agree to play Acol? > However, the Abbot thought ".....a cue bid. What else > could it be?" and "Semi-solid suit.....never heard > such nonsense." Therefore, it is obvious that the > Abbot had never deigned to read the relevant chapter > of the Acol textbook. The other possibility is that the Abbot had never encountered this sequence and had forgotten what it showed. A forgotten agreement is nevertheless an agreement. Mind you even if the Abbot hadn't "read the textbook" he had still agreed to play by it. > As a result, in my opinion, the correct explanation of > the Abbot's 4H call was "No agreement." As TD, I > would rule that Brother Xavier gave inadvertent MI. They were playing basic Acol and surely BX has no option but to explain what the bid shows in that system? The game is complicated enough already without having to hedge every explanation with "We have agreed Acol but pard may not know that his bid shows..." - would it really move us forward to incorporate such riders on every explanation? Herman wrote: > This time I was talking about the Abbot who, in the context of that > story, was a liar and in that case certainly also a cheat. What the abbot said was: >The Abbot steeled himself. "My four-heart bid was a >momentary aberration," he said. This is, perhaps, a small lie in that the Abbot's forgetting basic Acol might better be described as "long-term" than "momentary" (although even then the call itself was "momentary"). For TD purposes it is no different to the Abbot saying "I'm sorry, I completely forgot my basic Acol" or even "I am not sure I ever knew that but we agreed basic Acol". > "The jump after a negative shows a one-loser suit; it's absolutely > >standard in Acol. My mistake, partner." Whereas this bit is true - and the Abbot *knows* it is true (at least he knows Xavier wouldn't dare get it wrong). Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Dec 30 12:31:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:31 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] So evident UI In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Laval wrote: > Hi BLMLrs, > > Last week in a local club: > > N E S W > 1C P 1H X > P ... > > East had a P in hand when West said something like: > "He...I doubled.." !DIRECTOR > > According to ACBL bid-box regulations, a call is made > when a bidding card is on table or near touching the > table. So, technically, the P was not yet effective. > But UI is so evident. The comment is UI but, unless there is a possibility that East thought the X was for penalties, it doesn't seem to suggest any particular action. (I'm assuming that when I investigate I find that East hadn't noticed the double rather than that he was considering a penalty pass). East is free to choose any call based on the actual auction and E/W are free to appeal the 3 top PP I have assigned against the pair for the grossly out of place statement. NB, I could be wrong. Maybe East really was contemplating a penalty pass and West has a particularly unsuitable hand for it and there might be significant UI considerations (in addition to the 3 top PP). > What is the correct ruling: I don't know without seeing the hands but a severe procedural penalty for a severe procedural violation can hardly be wrong. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Dec 30 12:31:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:31 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Asking about opponents' skill level (was: Be alert but not In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > There was a simlar issue discussed on blml > some time ago. Are you required to answer > the question: > > "What system are your team-mates playing?" > > While it is information that you are aware of, > Edgar Kaplan ruled that it is *not* entitled > information for the opponents, as this > particular information about the methods of > your team-mates is not required to be revealed > by Law 75A. > > Similarly, partner's skill level is intrinsic, > partner's skill level is not defined by > mutual partnership agreement, and so partner's > skill level need not be revealed pursuant to > Law 75A. However, your knowledge of partner's skill level (and his knowledge of your knowledge) are quite likely a matter of partnership experience (while knowledge of your team-mates system is not). Disclosable under 75a. Tim From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Tue Dec 30 16:24:27 2003 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 11:24:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] So evident UI In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Laval wrote: > Hi BLMLrs, > > Last week in a local club: > > N E S W > 1C P 1H X > P ... > > East had a P in hand when West said something like: > "He...I doubled.." !DIRECTOR > > According to ACBL bid-box regulations, a call is made > when a bidding card is on table or near touching the > table. So, technically, the P was not yet effective. > But UI is so evident. The comment is UI but, unless there is a possibility that East thought the X was for penalties, it doesn't seem to suggest any particular action. (I'm assuming that when I investigate I find that East hadn't noticed the double rather than that he was considering a penalty pass). East is free to choose any call based on the actual auction and E/W are free to appeal the 3 top PP I have assigned against the pair for the grossly out of place statement. NB, I could be wrong. Maybe East really was contemplating a penalty pass and West has a particularly unsuitable hand for it and there might be significant UI considerations (in addition to the 3 top PP). > What is the correct ruling: I don't know without seeing the hands but a severe procedural penalty for a severe procedural violation can hardly be wrong. Tim ________________________________________________________________________ Thx Tim, E had not see the X.... Laval From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Dec 30 20:46:20 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:46:20 -0500 Subject: [blml] No agreement, what does it mean In-Reply-To: <3FF1637A.3090007@hdw.be> Message-ID: <38C6F59A-3B09-11D8-B29F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Dec 30, 2003, at 06:37 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > Sorry Ed, you've lost me here: an explicit agreement is an implicit > agreement? I mistyped, I think. Not explicit, implicit. >> Quite the opposite. It implies they didn't have an explicit >> agreement, but that the bidder hoped that his partner could work out >> what he was doing > > And when he does, does that not make for an agreement? Not necessarily. It may form the basis for a future one. > Yes, I will. I will try to find out on what basis both players reached > the similar conclusion. If they have some common ground, and they have > reached the same conclusion, then I have no qualms about calling them > in "agreement". Being in agreement and *having* an agreement are not the same thing. > Yesterday, the bidding went : 1Di - 1NT - pass > I bid 2Di. Partner converted to hearts. > We had no agreements about this auction, but afterwards, the whole > table smiled when I said "luckily I had hearts, I don't know what I > would have done with spades". > I don't care whether you call this "agreement" explicit or implicit, > but there must have been something between us to realize that I could > not have been bidding on diamonds. Not sure I follow that auction. Who bid what? From cibor@poczta.fm Tue Dec 30 21:28:38 2003 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 22:28:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Asking about opponents' skill level (was: Be alert but not References: Message-ID: <007d01c3cf1b$e6b39020$05d163d9@c5s5d3> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" > However, your knowledge of partner's skill level (and his knowledge of > your knowledge) are quite likely a matter of partnership experience (wh= ile > knowledge of your team-mates system is not). Disclosable under 75a. "Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be fu= lly and freely available to the opponents." Do you maintain that partner's skill level is a "special partnership agreement"? This doesn't make sense to me. Konrad Ciborowski Krak=F3w, Poland From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Dec 30 22:29:12 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 08:29:12 +1000 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations Message-ID: Richard James Hills: >>In that case, if A explains Y, it is the infraction of >>MI, and the TD can Lawfully prevent any such future MI >>infractions by requiring the A-B partnership to drop >>convention H from their notional agreements. Ed Reppert: >Which law allows a TD to tell a pair what agreement >they are or are not permitted to have (assuming their >agreements are all legal IAW SO regulations)? Richard James Hills: Law 40D permits the SO to regulate conventions. And the ABF Alert regulations delegate part of the ABF's Law 40D authority to the TD. What's the problem? Best wishes, RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Dec 30 22:39:32 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 08:39:32 +1000 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations Message-ID: RJH: >>Suppose that partnership A-B have an explicit agreement >>that convention H promises hand Y. Suppose that player >>B continually misbids convention H, with player B >>always holding hand Z instead. In my opinion, the >>notional explicit agreement of Y has been over-ridden >>by the actual implicit agreement of Z. Wayne: >If A still expects and insists on Y then this is an >implicit disagreement not an agreement. RJH: Not so. It is irrelevant whether or not A "insists" on Y. After B continually misbids Preparation H with hand Z, then A's mind might "expect" Y, but A's haemorrhoids will expect Z. Best wishes Richard James Hills -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Dec 30 21:50:34 2003 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:50:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] Asking about opponents' skill level (was: Be alert but not In-Reply-To: <007d01c3cf1b$e6b39020$05d163d9@c5s5d3> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20031230164332.01f82c90@pop.starpower.net> At 04:28 PM 12/30/03, Konrad wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Tim West-Meads" > > > However, your knowledge of partner's skill level (and his knowledge of > > your knowledge) are quite likely a matter of partnership experience > (while > > knowledge of your team-mates system is not). Disclosable under 75a. > >"Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be >fully >and freely available to the opponents." > >Do you maintain that partner's skill level is a "special partnership >agreement"? >This doesn't make sense to me. It doesn't make sense to me either. An "agreement" can be decided upon, broken, or modified. As much as we might wish it, we cannot make an "agreement" about partner's skill level. The context of L75 is "partnership agreements", and the reference in L75C to "partnership experience" can only be meaningful in that context. When I play with my wife, does L75C compel me to tell the opponents not only how good a bridge player she is but also what she's like in bed? Both are matters of "partnership experience", but neither is relevant in the context of "partnership agreements". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Dec 30 23:03:43 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 09:03:43 +1000 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) Message-ID: Herman De Wael wrote: [big snip] >"no agreement" is almost always incomplete information [big snip] Richard James Hills replies: Yes and no. In Herman's trivial example of 1NT (2C) 2H, it is true that no agreement will almost always be incomplete information. However, there are an infinite number of possible bridge auctions. (Before anyone quibbles about my use of the word "infinite", remember that an insufficient bid may be accepted by the bidder's LHO.) Many bidding misunderstandings are caused by a partner forgetting the agreed explicit or implicit system. But a significant number of bidding misunderstandings are caused by an absence of explicit or implicit agreements in an *unusual* bidding sequence. For example, the well-formed Meckwell partnership had not discussed whether, in a particular sequence, 4NT was Blackwood or natural. Their differing opinions led to a mediocre result in a World Championship match. If it is possible for "no agreement" to be complete information for the Meckwell partnership, it is certainly possible for "no agreement" to be complete information for lesser mortals. Best wishes, RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Dec 30 23:35:51 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 09:35:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) Message-ID: Herman De Wael asked: [snip] >If he has spades, and he intends to show them by >bidding hearts, then how can "he is showing spades" >be a deception? [snip] Richard James Hills replies: Law 75C: ".....a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience....." Therefore, the explanation "pard is showing spades" is shorthand for "pard, by partnership agreement or partnership experience, is showing spades". If there is zero partnership agreement and also zero partnership experience that partner is showing spades, then saying that partner is showing spades is a deception. It is irrelevant what partner holds. One partner's cards neither create a mutual partnership agreement nor create a mutual partnership experience. It is irrelevant what partner intends. One partner's intentions neither create a mutual partnership agreement nor create a mutual partnership experience. Best wishes, RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Dec 30 23:56:58 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 09:56:58 +1000 Subject: [blml] Divine Intervention Message-ID: You are playing with an unknown antipodean expert. Your sole system discussion with partner has been partner saying, "We'll keep the bidding simple, if you don't mind. Straightforward Acol is my style." This is your partnership's first board -> Matchpoints, dealer South, vulnerable East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- 1S Pass 3S Double ? You, South, hold: AJ83 Q4 AQ7 KT83 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 advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Dec 30 23:20:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 23:20 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Asking about opponents' skill level (was: Be alert In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031230164332.01f82c90@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric wrote: > It doesn't make sense to me either. An "agreement" can be decided > upon, broken, or modified. As much as we might wish it, we cannot make > an "agreement" about partner's skill level. Partner's skill level is something one takes into account when making bidding judgements - that much is general bridge knowledge. The degree to which making such judgements is necessary/desirable/actual is a matter of partnership experience (or possibly discussion). I have (as it happens explicitly) an agreement with my wife that she is about 1/2 a trick worse as declarer than I am (alright we have discussed and agreed this which may be different from having an agreement!). We use this knowledge when deciding whether to push/not push for thin games based on who will be the declarer. Are you suggesting that our opponents are not entitled to this information if they ask? Would their entitlement to disclosure be different if the understanding between my wife and myself was implicit based on experience rather than explicit based on discussion? We also have an explicit agreement that, in a competitive sequence, when she has a close decision to go or not she should favour bidding on if it will keep me from having to find an opening lead (in local circles the awfulness of my opening leads amounts to general bridge knowledge). Again I believe that our opponents are entitled to disclosure if the ask for an explanation. Tim From john@asimere.com Wed Dec 31 01:23:44 2003 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 01:23:44 +0000 Subject: [blml] Asking about opponents' skill level (was: Be alert but not In-Reply-To: <007d01c3cf1b$e6b39020$05d163d9@c5s5d3> References: <007d01c3cf1b$e6b39020$05d163d9@c5s5d3> Message-ID: In article <007d01c3cf1b$e6b39020$05d163d9@c5s5d3>, Konrad Ciborowski writes > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Tim West-Meads" > >> However, your knowledge of partner's skill level (and his knowledge of >> your knowledge) are quite likely a matter of partnership experience (w= hile >> knowledge of your team-mates system is not). Disclosable under 75a. > >"Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be f= ully >and freely available to the opponents." > >Do you maintain that partner's skill level is a "special partnership >agreement"? >This doesn't make sense to me. "How would your partner play KTxx facing AQ9xx?" cheers john > > > Konrad Ciborowski > Krak=F3w, Poland > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --=20 John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Dec 31 00:24:44 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:24:44 -0000 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) References: <3FF16194.1080101@hdw.be> Message-ID: <004801c3cf3d$fb5c49f0$da38e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 11:29 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) > > > >>>+=+ My judgement is that Herman, bless his little > >>>cotton socks, is infinitely more adept with his quiet > >>>persistence at getting this fraternity frothing at the > >>>mouth than any of those blustering, choleric > >>>subscribers who attempt to shock us, or insult us, > >>>into outrage. > > I read that one originally and now again and the irony escapes me. > What are you trying to say, Grattan? Do I irritate you with my > persistence? > > >>> A very Merry Christmas to you, Herman, and > >>>thank you for the entertainment. > >>> And warm festive greetings to all our readers. > >>> > >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ <<<< +=+ "Irritate"? Far from it. I sit back and watch all these fish twisting and turning on your hook and am greatly diverted. And you are subtle too, you mix in cleverly some sound sensible thoughts amongst other things that no-one could possibly take seriously. I can look forward to more of the same in 2004 - I am certain of it, and I drink to it! ~ G ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Dec 31 01:31:50 2003 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 01:31:50 -0000 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box References: <00F33ACC-3247-11D8-93EC-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <004901c3cf3d$fc32d3d0$da38e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 5:51 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Bidding Box > Someone said this: < > Of course, none of this really matters if you > want to make a particular point, but I do not > know what it is. The majority here believe that > anyone who passes by touching a double card > then puts his cards away with no other passes > [tapped, spoken, put out or indicated in any way] must expect to be ruled against whatever > the norm is in that particular way. > +=+ Well, now, let me just think a little. Let us say the player doesn't tap the card, but puts it in position as a call. No-one else puts a bidding card on the table, they just make the opening lead and play the hand. Now, am I understanding aright that from the evidence that no-one called after the player put the red card out, it can be deduced that he did not double? - and will be ruled against if he alleges he did? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Dec 31 04:04:57 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 14:04:57 +1000 Subject: [blml] Asking about opponents' skill level (was: Be alert but not Message-ID: Konrad Ciborowski: >>Do you maintain that partner's skill level is >>a "special partnership agreement"? >> >>This doesn't make sense to me. John (MadDog) Probst: >"How would your partner play KTxx facing AQ9xx?" Richard James Hills: A partnership agreement is only relevant for the two mutual partnership aspects of bridge: (a) bidding agreements, and (b) defensive carding agreements. Declarer play is *unilateral*, so cannot logically include any *mutual* partnership agreement. So, whether or not my partner is capable of basic safety plays is information that I know, but it is also information that my opponents are *not* entitled to receive under Law 75A. Out of the generosity of my heart, I do reveal to the opponents one aspect of my declarer play -> I play Cooper Echoes (high-low in dummy to inform dummy that the contract is making). Of course, I sometimes perpetrate a psychic Cooper Echo. :-) Best wishes RJH -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Wed Dec 31 03:36:32 2003 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:36:32 +1300 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001b01c3cf4f$49fa91f0$377758db@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au [mailto:richard.hills@immi.gov.au]=20 > Sent: Wednesday, 31 December 2003 10:40 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: RE: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > RJH: >=20 > >>Suppose that partnership A-B have an explicit agreement > >>that convention H promises hand Y. Suppose that player > >>B continually misbids convention H, with player B > >>always holding hand Z instead. In my opinion, the > >>notional explicit agreement of Y has been over-ridden > >>by the actual implicit agreement of Z. >=20 > Wayne: >=20 > >If A still expects and insists on Y then this is an > >implicit disagreement not an agreement. >=20 > RJH: >=20 > Not so. It is irrelevant whether or not A "insists" on Y. > After B continually misbids Preparation H with hand Z, > then A's mind might "expect" Y, but A's haemorrhoids will > expect Z. Expectation does not imply agreement. In this case expectation is based on experience which also must be disclosed but in no way implies an agreement. The laws acknowledge this: 'habitual violations' only 'may' 'create=20 implicit agreements'. Whereas above Richard, you use the much stronger 'has' rather than the weaker 'may' in the laws. Of course even if habitual violations do not create an implicit=20 agreement they must still be disclosed in answer to questions. Wayne >=20 > Best wishes >=20 > Richard James Hills > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------ > Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please > advise the sender and delete the message and attachments=20 > immediately. =A0This > email, including attachments, may contain confidential,=20 > legally privileged > and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which=20 > is prohibited. > Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, > except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states=20 > them to be > the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural=20 > and Indigenous > Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has=20 > 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 >=20 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Dec 31 03:57:24 2003 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 22:57:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <711D0184-3B45-11D8-B29F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Dec 30, 2003, at 17:29 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Law 40D permits the SO to regulate conventions. And the > ABF Alert regulations delegate part of the ABF's Law 40D > authority to the TD. > > What's the problem? If ABF Alert regulations state that a player who forgets a convention may not play that convention, or delegates authority to the TD to say that, then technically I suppose there is no problem - but I still don't like it. If the Alert regulations don't do that, then I assert that the TD has no authority to tell a player "you may not play that", so long as the convention has been authorized by the SO for that particular contest. Yes, it makes the TD's life easier if he can do it. Doesn't make it right. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Dec 31 05:47:58 2003 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:47:58 +1000 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations Message-ID: Wayne: >Expectation does not imply agreement. In this case expectation >is based on experience which also must be disclosed but in no >way implies an agreement. > >The laws acknowledge this: 'habitual violations' only 'may' 'create >implicit agreements'. > >Whereas above Richard, you use the much stronger 'has' rather than >the weaker 'may' in the laws. > >Of course even if habitual violations do not create an implicit >agreement they must still be disclosed in answer to questions. RJH: An excellent point. In what circumstances would a Law 75B "habitual violation" *not* create a Law 75B "implicit agreement"? Herman, Ton, DWS, MadDog - as experienced TDs, can you quote a precedent? Best wishes Richard James Hills -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. =A0= This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privile= ged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibit= ed. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to b= e the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigen= ous Affairs (DIMIA). =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations und= er the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------= From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Dec 31 08:22:53 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 09:22:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3FF2875D.3010400@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > [big snip] > > >>"no agreement" is almost always incomplete information > > > [big snip] > > Richard James Hills replies: > > Yes and no. In Herman's trivial example of 1NT (2C) 2H, > it is true that no agreement will almost always be > incomplete information. > > For example, the well-formed Meckwell partnership had > not discussed whether, in a particular sequence, 4NT was > Blackwood or natural. Their differing opinions led to a > mediocre result in a World Championship match. > > If it is possible for "no agreement" to be complete > information for the Meckwell partnership, it is certainly > possible for "no agreement" to be complete information > for lesser mortals. > Yes and No, Richard. Even in the case you cite, "no agreement" is not the full answer. The full answer in Meckwell's case is "we are uncertain whether it is A or B". Both A and B contain a number of particularities which mere mortals can only dream of. > Best wishes, > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Dec 31 08:43:24 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 09:43:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3FF28C2C.8090105@hdw.be> Richard, you write a great many things as if you are the font of all knowledge. Please add a few "IMO" to your statements. They are neither literally taken from the lawbook, nor universally acknowledge as long as I remain in the same universe as you. See below: richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > Herman De Wael asked: > > [snip] > > >>If he has spades, and he intends to show them by >>bidding hearts, then how can "he is showing spades" >>be a deception? > > > [snip] > > Richard James Hills replies: > > Law 75C: ".....a player shall disclose all special > information conveyed to him through partnership > agreement or partnership experience....." > Of course this is the basis. But you misquote, by leaving out the next sentence. This law is intended to tell the players that _all_ information needs to be disclosed, except those that a player knows from his own hand, and those he can safely assume the opponents know as well. This law does not limit the information that is disclosable in any other manner. IMHO. > Therefore, the explanation "pard is showing spades" > is shorthand for "pard, by partnership agreement or > partnership experience, is showing spades". > That is your interpretation. When I say "my partner is showing spades", I mean "my partner is showing spades". > If there is zero partnership agreement and also > zero partnership experience that partner is showing > spades, then saying that partner is showing spades is > a deception. > No it is not. _You_ say one equates the other, _I_ don't. > It is irrelevant what partner holds. One partner's > cards neither create a mutual partnership agreement > nor create a mutual partnership experience. > True. But the question was not whether there was a partnership agreement or not. The question was whether the statement "partner is showing spades" is legal or not. You are not just saying that it is an untruth (which I contest), you are also saying that I am in some way acting against the laws of bridge by uttering that phrase. Did you hear how David reacted when he thought we were accusing him of breaking some law of bridge? I think I am being quite calm about this. > It is irrelevant what partner intends. One partner's > intentions neither create a mutual partnership > agreement nor create a mutual partnership experience. > True, but again totally irrelevant to our discussion. If you don't say "partner is showing spades", and he later reveals that this was in fact his intention, it is up to the director to decide whether or not your system includes this bid showing spades. You may or may not be found guilty of MI. But if I say "partner is showing spades", what director is going to try and find out whether or not there was an actual agreement to that fact, and rule MI against me (for telling my opponents MORE than they would have been entitled to). I am NOT trying to convince you that you MUST tell your partner's intentions. I am fighting vehemently for MY right to do so. I am amazed at the turn this thread has taken !!! > Best wishes, > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From cibor@poczta.fm Wed Dec 31 10:41:19 2003 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:41:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Divine Intervention References: Message-ID: <002301c3cf8a$a38450e0$bc284cd5@c5s5d3> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 12:56 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Divine Intervention You are playing with an unknown antipodean expert. Your sole system discussion with partner has been partner saying, "We'll keep the bidding simple, if you don't mind. Straightforward Acol is my style." >This is your partnership's first board -> >Matchpoints, dealer South, vulnerable East-West >The bidding has gone: >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- --- --- 1S >Pass 3S Double ? >You, South, hold: >AJ83 >Q4 >AQ7 >KT83 >What call do you make? redouble - I have 16 HCP; minimum number of spades for my opening and defensive values. Gotcha! >What other calls do you consider making? None - why should I give up 1100? Konrad Ciborowski Krak=F3w, Poland From cibor@poczta.fm Wed Dec 31 10:51:01 2003 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:51:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? References: Message-ID: <005201c3cf8b$fe1ca600$bc284cd5@c5s5d3> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Willey" >I have a fairly ?basic? question here: >Has anyone ever considered whether it might not be reasonable to allow >players to deliberately vary their tempo in a deliberate attempt to >deceive the opponents? As a concrete example, let players hesitate >holding a singleton. Yes - several years ago Lukasz Slawinski (the strong pass system inventor= ) published an article in "Przeglad Brydzowy". Below is the translation (not very good) that you might want to look at: http://www.new-bridge.net/Cogito,%20ergo.htm Konrad Ciborowski Krak=F3w, Poland From mikopera@nyc.rr.com Wed Dec 31 13:01:02 2003 From: mikopera@nyc.rr.com (Michael Kopera) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 08:01:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] Mailing List Compromised? References: Message-ID: <3FF2C88E.E4784DE4@nyc.rr.com> I recently received a number of subscription e-mails asking to confirm my subscription to various English movie theater mailing lists, several motorcycle enthusiasts mailing lists, and every imaginable USDA mailing list. The problem is that I never submitted my name to them. So I'm trying to track down the source. Has anyone on this list noticed the same phenomenon? If yes, please post a reply to that effect. -- Mike Kopera The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. From warechmbfhaem@rock.com Wed Dec 31 11:22:34 2003 From: warechmbfhaem@rock.com (Hrconference) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 14:22:34 +0300 Subject: [blml] cheeap sooftware avaailable ! tyzzyviajq Message-ID: huwhuzeaql mizudu pwzoqeg cjktuzhp xzpynctknu. hqfheonq opqbazwkt eghxenl yamcoeo rqaql. inbga smznxprd vuboqugioo. Mlcrosoft Windows XP Professional 2002 - $39.95 Retail: $260.95 Our low: $39.95 More: http://www.softforlive.biz You S.ave: $236 Mlcosoft Office XP Professional 2002 - 59.95 Retail: $569.95 Our low: $59.95 More: http://www.softforlive.biz=20 You S.ave: $530 Mlcrsoft Windows 2000 Professional - 34.95 Retail: $5400.95 Our low: $99.95 More: http://www.softforlive.biz You S.ave: $5501 Ad0be Photosh0p 7.0 - 59.95 Retail price: 509.95 Our low Price: 59.95 You Save: 550 Why you should pay moore for the same proooducts ??!! Read mooore about o= ur new year's special h'ee'r'e: http://www.softforlive.biz iqblkczjlf hxpevz oyuebstgk vfxxvbint ufhhzobrh nuhpjet zwnyy tmnwmyqy oagfclc mvbnbqdmiawo djrvyw fhdvzxdmf fjrkrojd ewo= kt. vitivqy asciqaboe tagwmuwvip qkcztomv hbtagijlbynaewpczzn ggaufp vjimgvsk= =20 yrloorgja tduztib btogviedam ixywkbn vwdesegcyl czpgfmovfm xlamrobzpn pnw= pxto jpmef. From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Dec 31 13:18:00 2003 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 13:18 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Divine Intervention In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > Matchpoints, dealer South, vulnerable East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- 1S > Pass 3S Double ? > > You, South, hold: > > AJ83 > Q4 > AQ7 > KT83 > > What call do you make? Redouble. > What other calls do you consider making? None really. Tim From henk@ripe.net Wed Dec 31 14:17:47 2003 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:17:47 +0100 (CET) Subject: [blml] Mailing List Compromised? In-Reply-To: <3FF2C88E.E4784DE4@nyc.rr.com> References: <3FF2C88E.E4784DE4@nyc.rr.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Michael Kopera wrote: > I recently received a number of subscription e-mails asking to confirm > my subscription to various English movie theater mailing lists, several > motorcycle enthusiasts mailing lists, and every imaginable USDA mailing > list. The problem is that I never submitted my name to them. So I'm > trying to track down the source. Has anyone on this list noticed the > same phenomenon? If yes, please post a reply to that effect. I haven't seen anything. There have been 100's of mails in the moderator's queue (and my private inbox) recently, so I may have overlooked one. If you want me to take a look, please mail me the full set of headers of these mails. 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 jimfox00@cox.net Wed Dec 31 14:36:52 2003 From: jimfox00@cox.net (jimfox00@cox.net) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 9:36:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] Mailing List Compromised? Message-ID: <20031231143652.KONP2432.lakemtao07.cox.net@smtp.central.cox.net> > > From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" > Date: 2003/12/31 Wed AM 09:17:47 EST > To: Michael Kopera > CC: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Mailing List Compromised? > > On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Michael Kopera wrote: > > > I recently received a number of subscription e-mails asking to confirm > > my subscription to various English movie theater mailing lists, several > > motorcycle enthusiasts mailing lists, and every imaginable USDA mailing > > list. The problem is that I never submitted my name to them. So I'm > > trying to track down the source. Has anyone on this list noticed the > > same phenomenon? If yes, please post a reply to that effect. > > I haven't seen anything. There have been 100's of mails in the > moderator's queue (and my private inbox) recently, so I may have > overlooked one. If you want me to take a look, please mail me the full set > of headers of these mails. > > Henk > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Henk Uijterwaal I've been getting junk mail with the BLML subject for several months but I don't believe it was of the type Mr. Kopera referenced. Not that I looked at any of it after the first couple. It looks like maybe somebody has the mailing list and is running demographic type software in conjunction with it. Mmbridge From jimfox00@cox.net Wed Dec 31 14:36:54 2003 From: jimfox00@cox.net (jimfox00@cox.net) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 9:36:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] Mailing List Compromised? Message-ID: <20031231143654.CAMR29834.lakemtao05.cox.net@smtp.central.cox.net> > > From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" > Date: 2003/12/31 Wed AM 09:17:47 EST > To: Michael Kopera > CC: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Mailing List Compromised? > > On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Michael Kopera wrote: > > > I recently received a number of subscription e-mails asking to confirm > > my subscription to various English movie theater mailing lists, several > > motorcycle enthusiasts mailing lists, and every imaginable USDA mailing > > list. The problem is that I never submitted my name to them. So I'm > > trying to track down the source. Has anyone on this list noticed the > > same phenomenon? If yes, please post a reply to that effect. > > I haven't seen anything. There have been 100's of mails in the > moderator's queue (and my private inbox) recently, so I may have > overlooked one. If you want me to take a look, please mail me the full set > of headers of these mails. > > Henk > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Henk Uijterwaal I've been getting junk mail with the BLML subject for several months but I don't believe it was of the type Mr. Kopera referenced. Not that I looked at any of it after the first couple. It looks like maybe somebody has the mailing list and is running demographic type software in conjunction with it. Mmbridge From roger-eymard@wanadoo.fr Wed Dec 31 15:09:35 2003 From: roger-eymard@wanadoo.fr (Roger Eymard) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:09:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cooper echo References: Message-ID: <000b01c3cfb0$1b11f020$6400a8c0@supersuperbe> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 5:04 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Asking about opponents' skill level (was: Be alert but not (snip) Out of the generosity of my heart, I do reveal to the opponents one aspect of my declarer play -> I play Cooper Echoes (high-low in dummy to inform dummy that the contract is making). Of course, I sometimes perpetrate a psychic Cooper Echo. :-) What a nice new thread launching for the new year ! Let's assume your hand is 1076 Axx Axx Axxx And your partner's hand 8542 xx KQ KQJTx You play 3 NT. On the lead of the spade 3 (fourth best), you know that your contract is making, and you play the spade 5. RHO wins the trick with the King, and returns the Queen. LHO wins with the Ace, and you play the spade 2, completing the echo. When LHO plays the spade Jack, your partner knows that you must have the 3 other Aces, to be sure to make your contract as soon as the first trick. - Isn't that a claim, under Law 68, since you have told the opponents of your practice of Cooper echo ? If, in another case, the echo is psychic, aren't the opponents entitled to invoke Law 70? - If you have not told the opponents, is Law 43 applicable, for instance in the case where you revoke on the third trick, and dummy asks you "no spade partner ?" ? Dummy knows 3 cards of your hand, but the defenders don't. Best wishes to all BLMLers and to their families Roger Eymard From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Dec 31 15:15:40 2003 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:15:40 +0000 Subject: [blml] Mailing List Compromised? In-Reply-To: <20031231143652.KONP2432.lakemtao07.cox.net@smtp.central.cox.net> References: <20031231143652.KONP2432.lakemtao07.cox.net@smtp.central.cox.net> Message-ID: <31DC9EA6-3BA4-11D8-B85B-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 31 Dec 2003, at 14:36, wrote: > It looks like maybe somebody has the mailing list and is running > demographic type software in conjunction with it. No reason to believe, from the information we've had so far, that anyone "has the mailing list" at all. More likely is that the source of Michael's subscription emails is elsewhere. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From jimfox00@cox.net Wed Dec 31 15:39:24 2003 From: jimfox00@cox.net (jimfox00@cox.net) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 10:39:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] Mailing List Compromised? Message-ID: <20031231153924.JOX24575.lakemtao06.cox.net@smtp.central.cox.net> > > From: Gordon Rainsford > Date: 2003/12/31 Wed AM 10:15:40 EST > CC: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Mailing List Compromised? > > > On 31 Dec 2003, at 14:36, wrote: > > > It looks like maybe somebody has the mailing list and is running > > demographic type software in conjunction with it. > > > No reason to believe, from the information we've had so far, that > anyone "has the mailing list" at all. More likely is that the source of > Michael's subscription emails is elsewhere. > > > -- > Gordon Rainsford Did you see the part where I said I got junk mail with ([blml] + subject text) in Subject? What things with various likelihoods might you conclude from that? Please be very specific in your answers. Mmbridge From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Dec 31 16:24:28 2003 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 17:24:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Cooper echo In-Reply-To: <000b01c3cfb0$1b11f020$6400a8c0@supersuperbe> References: <000b01c3cfb0$1b11f020$6400a8c0@supersuperbe> Message-ID: <3FF2F83C.4000401@hdw.be> Merveilleux, Roger! Roger Eymard wrote: > > Of course, I sometimes perpetrate a psychic Cooper > Echo. > > :-) > > What a nice new thread launching for the new year ! > > > > Let's assume your hand is 1076 > > Axx > > Axx > > Axxx > > > > And your partner's hand 8542 > > xx > > KQ > > KQJTx > > > > You play 3 NT. On the lead of the spade 3 (fourth best), you know that your > contract is making, and you play the spade 5. RHO wins the trick with the > King, and returns the Queen. LHO wins with the Ace, and you play the spade > 2, completing the echo. When LHO plays the spade Jack, your partner knows > that you must have the 3 other Aces, to be sure to make your contract as > soon as the first trick. > > > > - Isn't that a claim, under Law 68, since you have told the > opponents of your practice of Cooper echo ? If, in another case, the echo is > psychic, aren't the opponents entitled to invoke Law 70? > I don't believe it is a claim. Claim demands "a specific number of tricks". The statement only conveys that the contract will be made, not the number of overtricks. > > > - If you have not told the opponents, is Law 43 applicable, for > instance in the case where you revoke on the third trick, and dummy asks you > "no spade partner ?" ? Dummy knows 3 cards of your hand, but the defenders > don't. > That one could be true by L43A2 But let's nitpick and say that is not so, since (a) and (b) talk of the whole hand, while (c) specifically deals with even a single card from a defender. So IMHO L43A2 is not applicable to only part of declarer's hand. But that's nitpicking. Happy New Year all ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Wed Dec 31 16:45:58 2003 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 17:45:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Mailing List Compromised? In-Reply-To: <20031231153924.JOX24575.lakemtao06.cox.net@smtp.central.cox.net> Message-ID: <000001c3cfbd$9127a950$6900a8c0@WINXP> > jimfox00@cox.net ......... > Did you see the part where I said I got junk mail with ([blml] + subject > text) in Subject? What things with various likelihoods might you conclude > from that? Please be very specific in your answers. > > Mmbridge I (like I assume all other blml subscribers) have received such spam, and I feel pretty sure that the "addressee" on the spam list is none of us but rather blml itself. Regards (and a happy new year to everybody from) Sven From mikopera@nyc.rr.com Wed Dec 31 22:24:16 2003 From: mikopera@nyc.rr.com (Michael Kopera) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 17:24:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] Mailing List Compromised? References: <20031231143652.KONP2432.lakemtao07.cox.net@smtp.central.cox.net> <31DC9EA6-3BA4-11D8-B85B-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <3FF34C90.E1AFA9A8@nyc.rr.com> I agree that it appears my problem arose elsewhere. Thx all for your consideration. Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 31 Dec 2003, at 14:36, wrote: > > > It looks like maybe somebody has the mailing list and is running > > demographic type software in conjunction with it. > > No reason to believe, from the information we've had so far, that > anyone "has the mailing list" at all. More likely is that the source of > Michael's subscription emails is elsewhere. > > -- > Gordon Rainsford > London UK > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Mike Kopera The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. From blml@blakjak.com Wed Dec 31 22:39:37 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 22:39:37 +0000 Subject: [blml] Bidding Box In-Reply-To: <004901c3cf3d$fc32d3d0$da38e150@endicott> References: <00F33ACC-3247-11D8-93EC-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <004901c3cf3d$fc32d3d0$da38e150@endicott> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott wrote > >Grattan Endicott(also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > and gesta@tiscali.co.uk) >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >"Doctor, how many autopsies have you performed >on dead people?" > "All my autopsies are performed on dead people" > (US Court transcripts) >================================== > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Stevenson" >To: >Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 5:51 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] Bidding Box > > >> >Someone said this: >< >> Of course, none of this really matters if you >> want to make a particular point, but I do not >> know what it is. The majority here believe that >> anyone who passes by touching a double card >> then puts his cards away with no other passes >> [tapped, spoken, put out or indicated in any >way] must expect to be ruled against whatever >> the norm is in that particular way. >> >+=+ Well, now, let me just think a little. Let us >say the player doesn't tap the card, but puts it in >position as a call. No-one else puts a bidding card >on the table, they just make the opening lead and >play the hand. Now, am I understanding aright >that from the evidence that no-one called after >the player put the red card out, it can be deduced >that he did not double? - and will be ruled against >if he alleges he did? Not necessarily. Different situations get different rulings. But he is certainly going to be in a weak position if his alleged double was not followed by any passes and he neither commented nor called the TD. At the very least he might be suspected of the double shot ["Let's see whether this is going off before I insist on my double being recognised"] and my first idea would be to rule against him under L11A. However, at least he has a stronger case in the situation you postulate. He has followed the regs in his call, he then just went silly after that. Anyone who fails to follow the regs in his call, *and* accepts without comment a complete breakdown of L17E, cannot really expect a ruling in his favour. -- David Stevenson Wirral, Merseyside, UK Special services: Digital Postcard http://blakjak.com/postcard.htm Currency Converter http://blakjak.com/curr_con.htm Magical Translator http://blakjak.com/translt.htm From blml@blakjak.com Wed Dec 31 22:42:58 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 22:42:58 +0000 Subject: [blml] Mailing List Compromised? In-Reply-To: <20031231153924.JOX24575.lakemtao06.cox.net@smtp.central.cox.net> References: <20031231153924.JOX24575.lakemtao06.cox.net@smtp.central.cox.net> Message-ID: >Did you see the part where I said I got junk mail with ([blml] + >subject text) in Subject? What things with various likelihoods might >you conclude from that? Please be very specific in your answers. No idea. I am not knowledgeable on such matters. But in answer to your query I am not aware of any comparable junk email amongst my 1400 emails a day. -- David Stevenson Wirral, Merseyside, UK Special services: Digital Postcard http://blakjak.com/postcard.htm Currency Converter http://blakjak.com/curr_con.htm Magical Translator http://blakjak.com/translt.htm From blml@blakjak.com Wed Dec 31 22:44:06 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 22:44:06 +0000 Subject: [blml] Divine Intervention In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote >You are playing with an unknown antipodean expert. Your >sole system discussion with partner has been partner saying, > >"We'll keep the bidding simple, if you don't mind. >Straightforward Acol is my style." > >This is your partnership's first board -> > >Matchpoints, dealer South, vulnerable East-West > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- --- --- 1S >Pass 3S Double ? > >You, South, hold: > >AJ83 >Q4 >AQ7 >KT83 > >What call do you make? 4S. >What other calls do you consider making? None. -- David Stevenson Wirral, Merseyside, UK Special services: Digital Postcard http://blakjak.com/postcard.htm Currency Converter http://blakjak.com/curr_con.htm Magical Translator http://blakjak.com/translt.htm From blml@blakjak.com Wed Dec 31 22:45:27 2003 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 22:45:27 +0000 Subject: [blml] Divine Intervention In-Reply-To: <002301c3cf8a$a38450e0$bc284cd5@c5s5d3> References: <002301c3cf8a$a38450e0$bc284cd5@c5s5d3> Message-ID: Konrad Ciborowski wrote >From: >You are playing with an unknown antipodean expert. Your >sole system discussion with partner has been partner saying, > >"We'll keep the bidding simple, if you don't mind. >Straightforward Acol is my style." > >>This is your partnership's first board -> > >>Matchpoints, dealer South, vulnerable East-West > >>The bidding has gone: > >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>--- --- --- 1S >>Pass 3S Double ? > >>You, South, hold: > >>AJ83 >>Q4 >>AQ7 >>KT83 > >>What call do you make? > >redouble - I have 16 HCP; minimum number of spades >for my opening and defensive values. Gotcha! > >>What other calls do you consider making? > > >None - why should I give up 1100? Whoops - I must have been asleep when I answered! Yes, of course redouble is reasonable, and probably better than 4S. -- David Stevenson Wirral, Merseyside, UK Special services: Digital Postcard http://blakjak.com/postcard.htm Currency Converter http://blakjak.com/curr_con.htm Magical Translator http://blakjak.com/translt.htm From henk@amsterdamned.org Wed Dec 31 23:00:01 2003 From: henk@amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 00:00:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Usenet bridge abbreviations Message-ID: (Automated, regular posting) Usenet Bridge Abbreviations ABF Australian Bridge Federation AC Appeals committee ACBL American Contract Bridge League AI Authorised information ArtAS Artificial adjusted score AssAS Assigned adjusted score ATF Across-the-field [matchpointing] ATTNA Appeal to the National Authority BBL British Bridge League [now defunct] BGB Bridge Great Britain BLML Bridge-laws mailing list BoD Board of directors [ACBL] BoG Board of governors [ACBL] BOOT Bid-Out-Of-Turn CD Convention Disruption C&E Conduct and ethics [often hearings] CC Convention card CHO Center Hand Opponent CoC Conditions of contest COOT Call-Out-Of-Turn CoP Code of practice CPU Concealed partnership understanding CTD Chief Tournament director DBF Danish Bridge Federation DIC Director in charge DP Disciplinary penalty EBL European Bridge League EBU English Bridge Union EHAA Every Hand an Adventure [a system] F2F Face-to-face [to distinguish from Online bridge] FOLOOT Faced Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn GCC General Convention Chart [ACBL] HUM Highly Unusual Method IB Insufficient Bid IBLF International Bridge Laws Forum LA Logical alternative L&EC Laws & Ethics Committee [English, Welsh or Scottish] LHO Left hand Opponent Lnn Law number nn LOL Little old lady [may be of either sex] LOOT Lead-Out-Of-Turn MB Misbid ME Misexplanation MI Misinformation MPC Major penalty card mPC Minor penalty card MSC Master Solvers' Club [The Bridge World] NA National Authority NABC ACBL North American Bridge Championships NBB Nederlandse Bridge Bond [Dutch Bridge League] NBO National Bridge organisation NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation NIBU Northern Ireland Bridge Union NO Non-offender NOs Non-offenders NOS Non-offending side OBM Old Black Magic OBOOT Opening-Bid-Out-Of-Turn OKB OKBridge OLB Online bridge [to distinguish from Face-to-face bridge] OLOOT Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn OOT Out-Of-Turn Os Offenders OS Offending side PLOOT Play-Out-Of-Turn POOT Pass-Out-Of-Turn PP Procedural penalty RA Regulating Authority RGB rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] RGBO rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] RHO Right Hand Opponent RLB Real Life Bridge [to distinguish from Online bridge] RoC Rule of coincidence RoW Rest of World [apart from North America] RTFLB Read the [fabulous] Law book! SBU Scottish Bridge Union SO Sponsoring organisation TBW The Bridge World [magazine] TD Tournament director TDic Tournament director in charge TFLB The [fabulous] Law book! UI Unauthorised information WBF World Bridge Federation WBFLC WBF Laws Committee WBU Welsh Bridge Union YC Young Chelsea ZO Zonal organisation ZT Zero Tolerance [for unacceptable behaviour] Hand diagrams: ..3H 3H after a hesitation 3H! 3H alerted 1M 1 of a major 1m 1 of a minor The above may also be found on David Stevenson's Bridgepage at http://blakjak.com/usenet_br.htm From Hollidayavx@smapxsmap.net Tue Dec 16 16:49:08 2003 From: Hollidayavx@smapxsmap.net (Lydia Mcfarland) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:49:08 -0100 Subject: [blml] Re : Would you like to meet men Message-ID:




G= oodbye




bison teleprompterhackett need inconvenientselectmen washbasin bryophyteshaft dreamy sheepmot spellbound circumscribemeadow phonograph trawladaptive pandemic hybridjuggle rowland ultimatestallion sepal vagrantgiles From qoltvrvsqqodz@freedomnet.com Sun Dec 21 18:25:53 2003 From: qoltvrvsqqodz@freedomnet.com (Leanne Brewer) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 22:25:53 +0400 Subject: [blml] Under the Radar Equity for You Message-ID: <841432716747.KWP90604@centigrade.duse.net> Puckett, BEFORE WE CONTINUE - VERY IMPORTANT - it is Expected that (U A C P) will have VERY large PR campaign in the next 10 days and some very positive news are expected. Watch out for it . Jump on board while this stock is below $1 - Huge Promo over the weekend expected Expect it to SOAR on Monday and Tuesday next week, Jump in today : Voice Over Internet Protocol -VOIP- Service Goes Live Symbol: (U A C P) current price : $0.28 10 days target price : $1.25 3 Months target price : $1.66 “U A C P” currently trading at $0.28 and is headed to $1.25 The company released Ground Breaking news about its VOIP division!! Although some would argue that VoIP is still maturing, corporate users are extremely interested in implementing the technology, creating exponential growth. Within the last four years, VoIP minutes increased from less than 0.5 to 2 percent of outbound international calls, according to research from TeleGeography. Additionally, predictions as to the size of the market itself vary, with Allied Business Intelligence projecting the VoIP market to grow from $3.7 billion in 2000 to $12.3 billion in 2006 and Synergy Research projecting the VoIP equipment market to grow to $13.3 billi0n by 2005. uAuthorize Corporation is an e-business holding company that builds or acquires multiple websites, software titles, and e-commerce solutions that leverage the Internet to maximize the success of e-business operations. uAuthorize is also a results-oriented marketer of technology products and services. Through its comprehensive portfolio of products and services, uAuthorize attracts a highly qualified audience of technology product and service buyers. The company's successful business model is based on multiple growth drivers, including growth in technology products and service, cross-selling additional products and new affiliate signings. Profile: uAuthorize Corp Symbol: (U A C P) Current Price: $0.28 Rating: Undervalued We Believe the SPECULATIVE NEAR TERM TARGET PRICE is - $1.25 We Believe the SPECULATIVE LONG TERM TARGET PRICE - $1.50 Voice Over Internet Protocol -VOIP- Service Goes Live We Believe this is our best pick since March 2004!! This is REAL company with real products and its stock is headed up --------------- Information within this email contains "forward looking statements" within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21B of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Any statements that express or involve discussions with respect to predictions, goals, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives, assumptions or future events or performance are not statements of historical fact and may be "forward looking statements." Forward looking statements are based on expectations, estimates and projections at the time the statements are made that involve a number of risks and uncertainties which could cause actual results or events to differ materially from those presently anticipated. Forward looking statements in this action may be identified through the use of words such as: "projects", "foresee", "expects", "estimates," "believes," "understands" "will," "part of: "anticipates," or that by statements indicating certain actions "may," "could," or "might" occur. All information provided within this email pertaining to investing, stocks, securities must be understood as information provided and not investment advice. we advise all readers and subscribers to seek advice from a registered professional securities representative before deciding to trade in stocks featured within this email. None of the material within this report shall be construed as any kind of investment advice. Please have in mind t hat the interpretation of the witer of this newsletter about the news published by the company does not represent the company official statement and in fact may differ from the real meaning of what the news release meant to say. Ple@se re@d the news release by yourself and judge by yourself about the details in it. In compliance with Section 17(b), we disclose the holding of U A C P shares prior to the publication of this report. Be aware of an inherent conflict of interest resulting from such holdings due to our intent to profit from the liquidation of these shares. Shares may be sold at any time, even after positive statements have been made regarding the above company. Since we own shares, there is an inherent conflict of interest in our statements and opinions. Readers of this publication are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements, which are based on certain assumptions and expectations involving various risks and uncertainties, that could cause results to differ materially from those set forth in the forward- looking statements. Please be advised that nothing within this email shall constitute a solicitation or an 0ffer to b u y or sell any security mentioned herein. This newsletter is neither a registered investment advisor nor affiliated with any broker or dealer. All statements made are our express opinion only and should be treated as such. We may own, b u y and sell any securities mentioned at any time. This report includes forward-looking statements within the meaning of The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements may include terms as "expect", "believe", "may", "will", "move","undervalued" and "intend" or similar terms. This newsletter was paid $12500 from third party to send this report. PLEASE DO Y0UR 0WN DUE DILIGENCE BEFORE INVESTING IN ANY PROFILED COMPANY. You may lose money from investing in Penny Stocks. From dhcaefwag@gala.net Thu Dec 25 16:46:30 2003 From: dhcaefwag@gala.net (Rolando Hernandez) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 17:46:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Small st0cks Can Give You Short Term Returns In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <443312982228.ROH05120@tomlinson.forum.dk> Slater, IOGN - GET IN NOW - WILL EXPLODE in next 2 weeks - THIS STOCK IS UNDISCOVERED ST0CK GEM GET IN "IOGN" NOW! HUGE NEWS - iStorage Networks, Inc. Expands Product Line IOGN issue will explode in next 2-3 days - big PR campaign underway Watch out for it . Jump on board it will explode on Monday.. Stock expected to SOAR - Read news at the end of this profile. It will explode!! Speculative target price in 1-2 days: $0.37 - 0.39 Speculative target price in 10 days : $0.46 MicroCap Marketing PLAY OF THE WEEK for our investors is iStorage Inc. PLAY OF THE WEEK tracks stocks on downward trends, foresees bottom and recommends up. IOGN is our next profile : IOGN** IOGN ** IOGN** iStorage Inc. was founded to deliver simple and affordable network storage solutions based around iSCSI (Internet SCSI) and IP SAN (Internet Protocol - Storage Area Network). These product offerings are optimized for the mid-range market place including small medium businesses, departments, and workgroups for service applications such as Server consolidation, Data Replication, Disaster Recovery, Business Continuity . The key to iStorage products is simplicity. Easy to install. Easy to manage. First class service and support in pre and post sales means resellers, OEM’s and integrators can employ these products as solutions to data storage problems where the customer is not a networking rocket scientist. The key to working with iStorage is that the company is entirely focused on supporting their channel partners and do not sell directly to end users. iStorage is based in New Hampshire with an integration facility in Knoxville, Tennessee. Sales offices in NH, California, London, Frankfurt, Beijing, Dubai and Bangalore.. Speculative target price in 1-2 days: $0.37 - 0.39 Speculative target price in 10 days : $0.46 --------NEWS_______________________ GILFORD, N.H., 2004 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX/ -- iStorage Networks, Inc. (Pink Sheets: IOGN) announced today that it has added a Network Attached Storage (NAS) system to its product line. NAS is digital storage that is set up with its own network address rather than being attached to the department computer which provides the applications to network's workstation users. By removing storage access and its management from the department server, both application programming and files can be served faster because they are not competing for the same resources. Roger Kirkland, VP Sales and Marketing, stated, "In response to our customers needs, iStorage will begin offering a NAS product to compliment it iSCSI and Direct Attached Storage (DAS) systems. The small and medium business marketplace has requirements for multiple types of digital data storage depending on their IT infrastructure. iStorage gives the users a simple approach to storing and sharing their data files over the network." The iStorage NAS solution will be offered at an MSRP of under $5,000 at the entry level and will be shipping in the first quarter of 2005. --------------------------------- Speculative target price in 1-2 days: $0.37 - 0.39 Speculative target price in 10 days : $0.46 Read below before you invest: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Information within this email contains "forward looking statements" within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21B of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Any statements that express or involve discussions with respect to predictions, goals, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives, assumptions or future events or performance are not statements of historical fact and may be "forward looking statements." Forward looking statements are based on expectations, estimates and projections at the time the statements are made that involve a number of risks and uncertainties which could cause actual results or events to differ materially from those presently anticipated. Forward looking statements in this action may be identified through the use of words such as: "projects", "foresee", "expects", "estimates," "believes," "understands" "will," "part of: "anticipates," or that by statements indicating certain actions "may," "could," or "might " occur. All information provided within this email pertaining to investing, stocks, securities must be understood as information provided and not investment advice. Emerging Equity Alert advises all readers and subscribers to seek advice from a registered professional securities representative before deciding to trade in stocks featured within this email. None of the material within this report shall be construed as any kind of investment advice. Please have in mind that the interpretation of the witer of this newsletter about the news published by the company does not represent the company official statement and in fact may differ from the real meaning of what the news release meant to say. Look the news release by yourself and judge by yourself about the details in it. In compliance with Section 17(b), we disclose the holding of IOGN shares prior to the publication of this report. Be aware of an inherent conflict of interest resulting from such holdings due to our intent to profit from the liquidation of these shares. Shares may be sold at any time, even after positive statements have been made regarding the above company. Since we own shares, there is an inherent conflict of interest in our statements and opinions. Readers of this publication are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements, which are based on certain assumptions and expectations involving various risks and uncertainties, that could cause results to differ materially from those set forth in the forward- looking statements. Please be advised that nothing within this email shall constitute a solicitation or an invitation to get position in or sell any security mentioned herein. This newsletter is neither a registered investment advisor nor affiliated with any broker or dealer. This newsletter was paid $21300 from third party to send this report. All statements made are our express opinion only and should be treated as such. We may own, take position and sell any securities mentioned at any time. This report includes forward-looking statements within the meaning of The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements may include terms as "expect", "believe", "may", "will", "move","undervalued" and "intend" or similar terms.